The Trinity Doctrine

This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by Keith.

Viewing 20 posts - 11,341 through 11,360 (of 18,302 total)

←1 2 3…567568569…914 915 916 →

Author
Posts

January 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm#107340

Son of Light

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,07:30)

Hi SOL,
Our spirits give us life[Jas]
We are body, soul and spirit.
When the body dies and our spirit returns to God we are soul.

We are either awaiting being instantly reclothed in an imperishable body in Christ
or not and awaiting the second resurrection to face judgement.

Of course there are other spirits that can indwell us and deceive us into gnosticism etc.
Trinity belief, with it's reliance on extrabiblical 'truth' is a form of gnosticism.
John's letters fought this and other antichrist evils.

John did not fight gnostics.

But he did fight those who claimed Jesus did not come in the flesh.

I believe Jesus came in the flesh. As well as did the vast majority of gnostics.

You have a belief based on your personal opinion that God desired to produce a perfect Letter to his people. Yet, where is the evidence for this belief? Why do you believe it?
What leads you to conclude the RCC canon is perfect and without error?

Further more if that was true, we need to put the apocrypha back into our bibles. The apocrypha has been in the bible for almost 1700 years before reformers took it out.

Even the orginal KJV had the apocrypha in it.

January 20, 2008 at 9:11 pm#107341

ronday888

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2008,12:38)

None of the things you mention deal with
Jn 1:14

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. — King James Version.

The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. — World English Bible translation.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten [footnote: Or unique, only one of His kind] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Most trinitarians, believing that John 1:1 says that the Logos is God Almighty, would have what John wrote in John 1:14 to mean that God Almighty became flesh. However, they would explain that what John really meant to say was that God Almighty was made flesh, not by changing his substance/essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to himself, his essence remained untouched. But that was not what John actually said. Of course, the trinitarian assumes and adds a lot to the scriptures in their reasoning. In John 1:1, they assume that THEOS applied to Logos means that Jesus *was* the only true God whom he was with. (John 17:1,3,5) Then they would actually change and add to what John said, for John said nothing about the Logos 'taking flesh to himself'. The Logos “was made” or he “became” flesh.

Taking what John actually said, as opposed to what trinitarians would want John to have said, then, if God Almighty *became* flesh, this would mean that the actual flesh of Jesus was God Almighty. If the actual flesh of Jesus was indeed God Almighty, then the very being of God Almighty died. Of course, this is not what trinitarians teach, but it would be the logical consequence of John was if we assume that God Almighty Himself was made, or became, flesh.

However, it was not God Almighty who became flesh, but it was the Logos of God Almighty that became flesh. Jesus' flesh was specially prepared by God. (Hebrews 10:5) He flesh was begotten in Mary by means of God's holy spirit. (Matthew 1:18-21) If this were not true, then Jesus would have had the taint of the blood of sinful flesh, and he would have been born a sinner as all the rest of the world, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and his flesh would have been sinful. (Roman 8:23) If this had been true, then there has been nothing to give as a ransom for mankind.

Thus, John, speaking of those who had recognized Jesus in the flesh, says: “We saw his glory.” Jesus' birth was unique amongst mankind, thus, as many trinitarians like to point out, the word monogenous, usually rendered “only begotten”, can mean “unique, one of a kind”. Unlike mankind in general who were born into this world condemned and made sinners due to Adam's sin, in Jesus' flesh could be seen the full glory of God, for his flesh was not short of God's glory. — Romans 3:23; Hebrews 2:9.

Jesus, before he became a man, had a glory with his God and Father, a glory higher than that of the angels. (John 17:1,3,5) He did not, as a human, retain the glory that he had before coming into the world of mankind, else why would he ask in John 17:5 to have that glory returned to him? Thus, as a human, the glory that Jesus had was not that of being God, or any kind of spiritual being, but he was, simply, a man, crowned with human glory, a little lower than the angels. — Hebrews 2:9.

In this, he was like Adam, before Adam sinned. Thus Paul wrote that Adam “is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.” (Romans 5:14) Adam, however, as Romans 5:14 tells us, disobeyed, and thus he fell short of God's glory. Jesus never disobeyed his God and Father. and never fell short of God's glory.

John tells us that the Logos in the flesh was full of grace and truth. The word “grace” is transliterated as “charitos”, meaning underserved, or unmerited favor or kindness. It is a quality that is shown by one person to another person. Jesus, of course, did not need such an undeserved favor shown to him, because he was sinless. He actually did merit God's favor, and he actually did merit life, for he never once disobeyd. Thus, John, in saying that Jesus was “full of grace”, he was saying in some way Jesus displayed the quality of extending such grace to others. John was talking about Jesus' glory in the flesh, a glory that was not short of sin, and as he later shows, Jesus gave that flesh for the life of the world. It by means of his coming in the flesh, for the purpose of giving that flesh as a sin-offering, that Jesus was “full of grace”.

In John 6:51 we find Jesus’ own explanation of the matter, and he says he would give his flesh for the life of the world. This sacrifice of Jesus’ humanity was as a substitute for the forfeited life of father Adam. Paul affirms that “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22) In 1 Timothy 2:6 the apostle explains that Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, and the Greek word here translated “ransom” means “corresponding/offsetting price.” — See also Romans 5:12-19.

John says that Jesus was also full of “truth”. He was full of truth in the sense that his life was not biased, warped, crooked (Ecclesiastes 1:15; 7:13), and thus he did not speak with the perversity of the human generation through Adam. (Philippians 2:15) He was not conceived in sin nor brought forth in iniquity. (Psalm 51:5) His entire life displayed justice, that which is not corrupt, and from his heart this was what he spoke. He never departed from the truth that he had been taught by God and Father, as did the the “father of the lie.” (John 8:28,40,44,45; 14:6) It was foretold of Yahweh's servant that “he will bring forth justice in truth.” (Isaiah 42:3) Unlike Adam, who was created incorrupt, but who became corrupt due to sin, Jesus never became corrupt, and he was never under a bondage of corruption. (Romans 8:20,21) Further, Jesus went on to put on incorruption, that is, he proved himself incorruptible, by which good news life and incorruption was brought to light for mankind. (2 Timothy 1:10) By such fullness of truth in Jesus, Jesus could offer his glorious flesh as the offering for sin on behalf of the church and the world. — Luke 22:19; John 6:51; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Hebrews 10:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.

Nothing in any of this means that Jesus is the only true God who sent Jesus into the world.

In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald

January 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm#107342

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
Was Christ son of Mary, partaking of her sin inherited nature?
Was he tempted in all ways as we are but DID NOT SIN?
Where does temptation start according to James?
Was he like to us in all ways except sin
Or was he given a head start?

January 20, 2008 at 10:07 pm#107343

martian

Participant

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 21 2008,08:11)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2008,12:38)

None of the things you mention deal with
Jn 1:14

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. — King James Version.

The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. — World English Bible translation.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten [footnote: Or unique, only one of His kind] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Nothing in any of this means that Jesus is the only true God who sent Jesus into the world.

In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald

I agree with much of what you said. May I use your words in my own witnessing?

January 21, 2008 at 1:58 am#107344

ronday888

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,03:20)

Hi RD,
Was Christ son of Mary, partaking of her sin inherited nature?

No, he did not receive from Mary the nature of sin. If he had, then he could not have been the sacrifice for sin.

Jesus was the exact equivalent to Adam before Adam sinned. At creation, Adam was upright (straight, just — not crooked — Ecclesiastes 7:29). It was an unfallen sinless, just, straight, incorrupt, man — Adam — that fell short of the glory of an incorrupt nature (Romans 3:23) through sin (Romans 5:11-19) and thus brought the fallen sinful condition, incorrupt, crooked nature, upon man, and entered mankind into the bondage of corruption and futility; it was not a man who was created in a fallen condition of already falling short of the glory of God that brought death upon mankind. Therefore, the equivalent price to correspond to Adam before Adam sinned would have to be an unfallen sinless man. Thus Jesus came to save [deliver] fallen man from his fallen condition back to what Adam had before Adam sinned.
http://atonement.reslight.net

As I pointed out before, Jesus' body was not formed in the usual manner. Mary was not impregnated by sperm from God, so as to have have the actual genes of Mary. God Himself prepared Jesus' body. — Hebrews 10:5.

The Mighty Logos was made flesh by means of divine power. Jesus' body was not brought forth from Adamic stock, for if it had been, he would have been just a sinful as all the sinful flesh around him. It was God who prepared the body of flesh for Jesus to offer in sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:5,10) Receiving a body different from sinful mankind, Jesus was seen in the flesh, a little lower than the angels, crowned with the glory of a perfect, sinless man. (Hebrews 2:9) Jesus, although he was in the form of a bondservant, suffering as though a sinner, in the likeness of man of sinful flesh, he actually did not receive the sin of mankind from Adam, nor its penalty death, as you and I have. (Romans 5:12-19; 6:23; 8:3; Philippians 2:7) While he was suffering in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), his flesh was not sinful, and unlike Adam, Jesus never sinned. Thus, as long as he didn't sin, he had the purchase price to buy back what Adam lost. How happy we can be that Jesus is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, that he was indeed faithful to God who anointed and appointed him. — Isaiah 61:1; Hebrews 3:2; Revelation 1:5.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,03:20)

Was he tempted in all ways as we are but DID NOT SIN?

Yes. Jesus had the freedom to choose not obey he so desired. He could have done as Adam did, and developed and yielded to a desire to disobey, but he did not.

The temptations that Satan put before Jesus were indeed temptations to Jesus; he had not as yet become incorruptible, so it was still possible for him to have become corrupted as Adam did, else there would not have been any temptation, and Satan's temptations of Jesus were pointless.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,03:20)

Where does temptation start according to James?

each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. — James 1:14, Revised Standard Version.

Let us look at Adam. Adam was not corrupt, until he became corrupt through sin. He could have walked after the spirit, and still be alive walking around the earth today, but instead, he disobeyed. Being enticed by his wife to disobey, his own desire was to obey his wife rather than the creator, and he succumbed to that desire. Thus, a sinless man can develop a desire that can lead him into disobedience, if he pursues that desire.

Nevertheless, until Adam sinned, he was indeed “the son of God.” (Luke 3:38) He was not by nature a sinner, until he disobeyed. Through disobedience, Adam became a “son of disobedience”, and “by nature,” a child of wrath. Adam was not such, by nature, until he brought God's wrath upon himself through his disobedience. (Ephesians 2:2,3) His flesh was not sinful, until he sinned.

Jesus, however, was not by nature of child of wrath, and never became a child of wrath. Nevertheless, just as Adam, although while sinless was not by nature of child of wrath, could be tempted by his own desires, so could Jesus. Satan's suggestions were real temptations that Jesus could have succumbed to. The scripture says that Jesus had been fasting for 40 days, and was hungry, and thus, he had a physical desire for something to eat. Likewise, Jesus knew that he was the son of God and that his God and Father had sent him into the world. It is possible that, from the fleshly standpoint, Jesus had a desire to make this known. Thus, Satan first temptation was that Jesus could show both show that he was God's son as well as relieve himself of hunger by turning stones into bread. Such an act at the instigation of God's arch-enemy, however, would have demonstrated a lack of faith in God's way. So Jesus immediately knew that he had to listen to his God and Father, and thus he told Satan that he [Jesus, not Satan] must live, not just by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh.

Then Satan wished for Jesus to try God's ability to deliver him by telling him to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple. He evidently wished to instill doubt in Jesus' faith in his God, and thus instill a desire for that faith to be increased by challenging God to save him. Satan quoted scripture in order to increase such a desire in Jesus. Jesus could have thought and developed a desire to obey Satan, but refused, saying that he was not try his God in such a manner.

Then Satan showed to Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and told Jesus that if he were to bow down to Satan, that Satan would give him all the kingdoms of the world. Such an act would, in effect, would be to give to Satan the worship that only belongs to God. Jesus certainly had a desire for all the kingdoms of the world, and now would be his chance to obtain those kingdoms without suffering and sacrificing himself. But Jesus did not yield to that temptation, but quickly told Satan that he was to worship his God.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,03:20)

Was he like to us in all ways except sin
Or was he given a head start?

In Jesus' references to his being taught by his God and having seen the works of his god and Father, I have no doubt that he was referring to his prehuman existence, when he had a glory with his God and Father, which glory he did not have as a human being. Thus, unlike Adam, he had ample time before he became a man to learn much so as to be sanctified (set apart) before being sent into the world of mankind.

Unlike all the rest of mankind, Jesus was not made a sinner in Adam, nor was he under the condemnation in Adam, although he did take that condemnation upon himself in order to release Adam and his race from that condemnation. Jesus, however, did come in the “likeness” of sinful flesh, in that he suffered and died
as though he were a sinner, so as pay the redemptive price that was to take away the sin of the world.

In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald

January 21, 2008 at 2:03 am#107345

ronday888

Participant

Quote (martian @ Jan. 21 2008,04:07)

[/quote]
I agree with much of what you said. May I use your words in my own witnessing?

Yes, feel free to do so. (You might want to correct some of the typos, etc. I didn't proofread very well before posting.)

God bless.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 21, 2008 at 2:05 am#107346

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
So he was not a normal man with Mary as his mother? Why does scripture say he was conceived using the same word for the conception of J the B?

January 21, 2008 at 2:05 am#107347

ronday888

Participant

[quote=ronday888,Jan. 21 2008,07:58][/quote]
My statement: “thus brought the fallen sinful condition, incorrupt, crooked nature, upon man” should have read “thus brought the fallen sinful condition, **corrupt**, crooked nature, upon man.”

Ronald

January 21, 2008 at 2:10 am#107348

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
So Jesus had a head start?
Scripture says he was tempted.
Scripture also says temptation comes from within.
Could it be that Jesus was in fact just like us but did not sin?
That is what scripture says.
He is an overcomer.
We follow

January 21, 2008 at 3:04 am#107349

ronday888

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,08:05)

Hi RD,
So he was not a normal man with Mary as his mother? Why does scripture say he was conceived using the same word for the conception of J the B?

Of course, Jesus did physically come out of the womb of Mary, a descendant of David, and thus was “out of the loins” of David, in the royal descent. Jesus is spoken of in the scriptures — that which has been revealed by the holy spirit — as the seed or son of Abraham, Judah and David. (Matthew 1:1; 22:42; Hebrews 7:1; Matthew 2:6; Romans 1:3; Galatians 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16) Usually, when we think of a person being the son or descendant of someone, we think of them as being the literal blood descendant of that person. But does this mean that in order to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus had to be a literal descendancy of these three men by genes? By comparison of scriptures “spiritual with spiritual”, we come to the conclusion: no he did not. As pointed out before, if he was a literal genetic descendant of these, he would have the taint of sinful flesh, and could not have been either Israel's or man's redeemer. “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him”. (Psalms 49:7) If Jesus had literal genetic fleshly ancestors dying in Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21,22) he would fall in this same category, as a descendant of Adam, and thus he would have been under that same condemnation of death. (Romans 5:12-19) But he was not genetically descended from Adam. He was the Logos, the Son of God. His body of flesh was prepared by his God, from which we can understand that that his body was not from the genes of either Joseph or Mary, and yet, biologically, he is a descendant of Mary, having been born from the womb of Mary.

The lineage and heritage is counted, as though it were (Luke 3:23; Romans 4:17), through Joseph, who was also a descendant of David. (Matthew 1:1,6) David, of course, was also a descendant of Adam. — Luke 3:31-38.

Jesus could be referred to as the son of Joseph even as Moses was referred to as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. (Exodus 2:10; Acts 7:21; Hebrews 11:24) Moses, if he had so claimed such, could have become of royal descent; but he did not seek such temporal “treasures of Egypt”, but to a more lasting reward. — Hebrews 11:26.

To understand the matter of Jesus' birth as son of the man David, we need to get matters from the Yahweh's standpoint, for he calls things that are not as though they were. (Romans 4:17) He can make one as descendant who is not literally so by gene, and make those who are literally so by gene as though they are not. Thus, Jesus said to the Jewish leaders:

“If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.” (John 8:39) By literal descent, these leaders were indeed Abraham's children, but Jesus indicates that because of their works, they were not his children. In the same manner, John the Baptizer stated to the Pharisees and Sadducees:

“You offspring [seed, offspring] of vipers,… Don't think to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” (Matthew 3:7-9) Additionally, Paul says: “They are not all Israel, that are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6) To the general mind, this might sound self-contradictory; but Paul is speaking of things from God's standpoint, for God calls things that are not, as though they were. — Romans 4:17.

In God's sight the members of the Church are all children, or seed, or Abraham, although all are not such by literal genetic descent from Abraham. “If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29) It is quite immaterial whether one is literally of Abraham or not. If one belongs to Christ, God grafts such a person into the covenant as a seed of Abraham no matter what the person's physical lineage by genes.

From the above scriptures we can see that to be a son of Abraham in God's sight one does not have to be a literal descendant of Abraham. Likewise, Jesus himself is the primary seed of Abraham (and Isaac, Jacob and David) in a different way, as Joseph's foster son, just as an adopted baby takes the name and relations of his foster parents. However, as the Son of God, who was to satisfy the justice of God, so that God could still be just and yet the justifier of the sinner (Romans 3:26), Jesus could not have Abraham, David or anyone else as a literal fleshly ancestor by physical gene.

Some might ask: “how could Jesus be sinless and perfect if his human mother was dying in Adam of sinful flesh?” As pointed out above, Jesus is not descended literally from anyone on earth, that Abraham, Judah and David are not his genetical blood relations. But 50% of the genes in a normal birth come from the mother. In view of this would not Jesus indeed be a blood relation of these patriarchs through Mary?

Again, we go back to the point that it was God who prepared the body of Jesus, that it could be offering (Hebrews 10:10) — we conclude that none of Jesus' genes were actually of either parent — else he also would have been of sinful flesh.

Some claim that the blood of the mother mingles with a baby's blood during gestation. Generally, this is not true; while the mother's blood supplies the nourishment to the embryo, and the mother's blood receives elements of waste from the embryo, through a separation called the placenta; the actual blood itself is usually kept separate. We can safely assume, however, that the entire preparation of Jesus' body by God included the gestation period before his birth. Both Joseph and Mary were made the parents of Jesus by God, by God's appointment.

Mary was certainly his mother in the sense that she bore him, but not in the fullest sense, not a true genetic blood relation. Today, we find examples of women who bear a son that it not any blood relation at all to the woman who carries that baby. Many times today, the sperm from the father and an egg from the mother are combined in a test tube, and after two or three days when the tiny life has started to grow the embryo is implanted in the mother's womb. If things go well, in due time a baby results. In this case the genetical father and mother are the true parents. But the embryo could be implanted in an woman unrelated by genes, in which case the baby born to the woman would not be genetically related either to herself or her husband.

If the woman who bore the child had hereditary weaknesses or defective genes, it would not matter in the least, since none of her hereditary patterns would be passed onto the child. All she provides are the nutrients from her bloodstream to nurture the tiny babe in her womb for nine months, and the function of child-birth. Thus the child could be said to be from her womb, her loins, but none of her genes are passed to the child.

This modern procedure can help to one to understand how Jesus could be born of a woman, a member of the fallen race, and yet still be sinless and perfect. In this case the child born to Mary had but one true parent, his Heavenly Father, who was the actual provider of his body of flesh. (Hebrews 10:5) Since his body was prepared by God himself, even as was Adam's body (Genesis 2:7; See Romans 5:14), Jesus possessed no imperfections or weaknesses. I know that some claim, at least by implication, that the holy spirit impregnated an ovum produced by Marry, and that Mary's genes from her ovum did not count, since inheritance is usually from the father, not the mother, and that thus, Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin because of this. This could be true, but I don't see it that way. We need to
look at all that the holy spirit has revealed on this. The scriptures reveal that it was God who prepared Jesus' body (Hebrews 10:5), and I believe that this important. Thus I conclude that God implanted an embryo itself in Mary's womb, a tiny complete life in itself, that did not involve an egg from Mary, nor any of the genes from Mary. Thus the child inherited none of Mary's weaknesses or blemishes by means of genes, and yet is from the womb, the loins, of Mary, and thus by heritage, of the loins of David.

Bear in mind that I do not believe that God was producing beginning of life for the Logos at the point of the conception in Mary's womb, but as the scripture says, God made the pre-human Logos into flesh. Jesus was with his God and Father before coming to the earth. (John 1:1,2; 17:1,3,5) Jesus said he was to return to where he was before. (John 6:62)
==========
*See the studies:
http://studies.reslight.net/wb.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/rm.html

I believe that he who was rich in heavenly glory, left that heavenly glory to become poor on our behalf, a perfect, sinless example of humanity, with the crown of human glory intact. (2 Corinthians 8:9; John 17:5; Hebrews 2:9; Psalm 8:5) Thus the pre-human life properties of the LOGOS were condensed into a tiny embryo, resulting in a human life — a living human soul — totally free from any sinful traits. In this he no longer had the glory that he had before he came to earth.

I edited the above from something I have written earlier for another forum. I hope it helps.

God willing, I will return tomorrow or another day to examine the words used in reference to Jesus' conception and birth.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 21, 2008 at 3:10 am#107350

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
You state without giving proof that Jesus was not the son of Mary.
Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
So he was not truly a lamb taken from amongst the flock of man
but rather some sort of superman that we cannot follow?

January 21, 2008 at 3:14 am#107351

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
Was Mary really a surrogate mother?

January 21, 2008 at 9:01 pm#107352

martian

Participant

Ron,

Could you please tell me the way you would explin these scriptur. I copy this from another forum. It was a response to me, made to defend the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. I would appreciate your input on the verses.

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—”I Am” (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:59).

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, “The Lord of me and the God of me!”)

In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus “[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was “in very nature God.”

Also significant are passages that apply the title “the First and the Last” to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: “Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’” (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: “When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’” (Rev. 1:17). “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’” (Rev. 2:8). “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title “the Alpha and the Omega,” which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

January 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm#107353

NickHassan

Participant

Hi m,
In Revelation God, Jesus, the angel and John all speak and to look at Rev 22 and be sure it is Jesus speaking is brave in view of the clear verses in Rev 1 and Rev 21.

January 22, 2008 at 12:25 am#107354

ronday888

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,08:05)

Hi RD,
So he was not a normal man with Mary as his mother? Why does scripture say he was conceived using the same word for the conception of J the B?

The scriptures pertaining to Jesus' conception:

But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived [Gennao] in her is of the Holy Spirit. — Matthew 1:20.

The Greek word used by Matthew above for Jesus' conception is a form of *Gennao” (Strong's #1080).
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1080

This word can be referring to the conception, being begotten, as in Matthew 1:20, or can refer to the actual birth, the delivery from the womb of the mother.

It is the same word that is used concerning the begettal of believers in water and spirit. — John 3:3-7.

Of course, if that which was begotten from totally from God, without impregnating an ovum from Mary, I see no reason why this word would still not be used.

Matthew also uses a different word, forms of *Sullambano*, both in reference to the conception of John the Baptist as well as Jesus. Luke, also, uses forms of the Greek word *Sullambano*, Strong's #4815.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4815

According to Crosswalk's Lexicon, the KJV renders this word as follows: take 8, conceive 5, help 2, catch 1

Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name 'Jesus.' — Luke 1:31.

It should be apparent that the usage in Luke 1:31 is are a near synonym of “gennao” as used in Matthew 1:20. This word is used in many different situations, not just impregnation of a female ovum. James 1:15 uses a form of the word “Sullambano” in reference to desire: “desire when it has conceived [Sullambano] gives birth to sin.”

However, to physically conceive an embryo usually requires the sperm from the male to impregnate the ovum from the female in a process of sexual intercourse. This was the case in the concept of John the Baptist. Are we to think that God actually put his sperm into an ovum of Mary? I don't think so. We certainly would not think that Jesus' conception was through sexual intercourse as was the conception of John the Baptist. The scriptures, however, tell us that there was something different about Jesus' conception, as I have already shown. Jesus conception did not follow the general rules of conception, for Jesus' body was formed by God in the womb of Mary. There is no reason to think that either word used has to mean an impregnation of Mary's ovum, only that a form of conception has taken place.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 12:39 am#107355

NickHassan

Participant

Hi RD,
I have brought up the gennao thread
But “conceive”
Lk 1.31
“And behold you will conceive in your womb..”
Lk 2.21
“..his name was then callled Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb..”
Lk 1.36
“..Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age..”

There are a variety of words translated as “conceive”and the word used [4815 Sullambano ]has a variety of other meanings.

But in these verses above the same word is used.

January 22, 2008 at 1:46 am#107356

ronday888

Participant