- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi,
Jn 1.14“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John bore witness of him and cried out saying
'This was he of whom I said ,”He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me”John witnessed to his perexistant life bearing in mind he was conceived before Jesus.
What glory is John here speaking of? It is the his personal glory spoken of here and not that of the Father. He was not a man of glory. He was hated and misused by men. His glory was in his origins of God and was not in his human origins.
Nick,
I will speak for myself, but I think that AdamPastor and Ramblinrose would agree with me in large part. (If not, I apologize to each of you.)
I do not consider Yeshua to be just a man. I simply believe that he was born a man. There's a huge difference.
Quote 1 Corinthians 15:45-46
“And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.”I believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah whom YHWH would make, (and, in fact, has made), Lord of all.
I wrote the following elsewhere to explain my understanding of who Yeshua is:
Quote Yet, it is clear that Paul is not attempting to be redundant in Ephesians 4:4-6 when he lists “one Lord” and “one God” among the basic elements of the faith. Otherwise, there would be no need for him to list them separately. … That brings up another question. What might Paul have in mind when he makes a distinction between the one Lord and the one God of our faith? The answer may lay within the story of Joseph, the beloved son of Jacob who was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. As shown in Genesis 41:39-44, Joseph, through God’s hand, became second in command over all the land of Egypt. He was not Pharaoh, but he had all the authority of Pharaoh, and even had Pharaoh’s signet ring, the symbol of Pharaoh’s authority, placed on his hand. Pharaoh still had ultimate authority over Egypt and could reclaim his authority from Joseph at any time, but in practice, Joseph ruled over Egypt as though he were Pharaoh himself. The distinction being made between “Governor Joseph” and Pharaoh seems to be the same distinction being made between “Lord” and “God”. There is one who has been given authority to rule over all, and there is one who gives that authority and can reclaim it at any time. Joseph, like so many others in the Older Testament, is an early archetype, an early foreshadowing, of God’s ultimate plan for a fallen world. Daniel’s visions in the seventh chapter of his book and Paul’s expositions on the faith in Corinthians seem to validate this understanding. “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near to Him. Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:13-14
“For ‘He has put all things under his feet.’ But when it says ‘all things are put under him,’ it is evident that He who put all things under him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son himself, will also be subject to Him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
In short, YHWH is the “one God” of my faith and Yeshua is the “one Lord”. So, do not mischaracterize my faith as having been placed in “just a man”. My faith is in YHWH and in the one to whom YHWH has given all authority and power.
(By contrast, your faith is in the “one God” and the one “begotten God” who both had authority and power since before the world began, which sounds a lot like faith in two gods to me.)
Nick wrote:
Quote Even if a shoot springs from a root far from the original plant it is still a shoot. It will always grow naturally upwards and not downwards. My remarks on the biological metaphor were meant purely for philosophical entertainment, as they had nothing to do with scripture. (Yet this seems to be where you are stuck.) But, just so you know, trees are actually growing in all directions during their lifetime. The roots get deeper and the branches get higher. But if you really want to learn something, I would suggest that you take another peak at AdamPastor's outstanding scriptural analysis.
Quote (Adam Pastor @ June 05 2005,06:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2005,01:07) Scripture is precise and pure.
If “root” means “offspring” then both words would not be used.
If “root” means “offspring” then there is unnecessary repetition.
It says “root and offspring of David” because they are different.
Also let me add the following definitions found from Bible software … conc. 'rhiza'[UBS Grk Dict.] root; descendant; source, cause (of evil)
[Thayer's Lexicon]
rhiza {hrid'-zah}
Meaning: 1) a root 2) that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot 3) metaph. offspring, progeny
Origin: apparently a primary word; TDNT – 6:985,985; n f
Usage: AV – root 17; 17G4491 r`i,za rhiza {hrid'-zah}
[LS Grk Lex.]
35625 r`i,za
III. metaph. the root or stock from which a family springs, Lat. stirps, Pind., Aesch., etc.; and so a race, family, Aesch., Eur., etc.[Friberg Grk Lex]
04599 r`i,za … metaph. origin, source (RO 11.16-18); (2) fig. and Hebraistically, of a descendant as a shoot or sprout; offspring, scion (RO 15.12).Also the same Greek word is used for 'nativity' in the LXX version of Ezek 16:3 … And say, Thus saith Adonai YAHWEH unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan;
Therefore Rev 22:16 = Jesus is the descendant and offspring of David! No unnecessary repetition. Simply Emphasis!
Adam Pastor,
As WIT has suggested I will look again at your post and I will but without your highlighting.
Rev 22.16
“..I am the root AND the offspring of David”
Rhiza-root: descendant: source :cause.
Which is the most likely meaning?
We are not searching for possible meanings and theoretical interpretations but truth itself.How many of these 4 meanings suggest something that precedes something else. Certainly that last two and in my view also the first. So why would God use the second meaning when the scripture already has a word in that place for that meaning-“offspring”
So your way would read
“I am the offspring and the offspring of David” because a descendant is an offspring.David was just a man but all of creation came through Jesus Christ who was before Abraham and John, even Adam. I prefer the testimony of John and the Word of God.
David called Jesus Christ “Lord”and yet Jesus Christ was as yet unborn of Mary.
When 1 Cor 15 says ” The spiritual is not first ;then the spiritual” it is in the context of “Man”. The previous verse speaks of Adam as the 'first Man 'and Jesus as a second Adam becoming a 'lifegiving spirit'. Jesus Christ only partook of flesh and became 'of man' at his physical birth. That says nothing about his existence before then in heaven.
WIT. Thank you for clarifying your differences with Adam and RR.
Quote (Ramblinrose @ June 05 2005,06:22) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2005,05:10) Quote (Ramblinrose @ June 05 2005,02:06) Replies to each of the above verses, and others, can be found at the following address, which are taken from the book ‘One Lord & One God’ which this site has apparently received permission to reprint.
Ramblinrose,
Your post says you are supplying “REPLIES TO VERSES” in your quoted materials.If you “REPLY” to people you are arguing against them.
So if you “REPLY TO VERSES” you then admit you are arguing against the Word of God.
I suggest you resolve your conflicts with the Word of God and come up with ideas of your own before you promote someone else's doctrines in this forum.
Nick,Many people question the verses that have been quoted. I did not say they were 'MY REPLIES' I said they were ‘Replies to each of the above verses’ and what source they were from.
Since when does reply mean argue against. My dictionary says reply = answer, response.
The link I posted gives answers / responses to those verses. They are the replies/answers/responses from the book 'One Lord & One God'.
You enjoy attacking and trying to discredit anyone who does not see things your way. Even to the point of the petty post above.
If you cared to read the articles you would find that many of them actually support your view of the trinity being false.
Hi RR,
You miss my point. You are answering or replying then to verses and not to people.[These are your words and not mine].
Your answers and replies are to what the Word of God says. So we stand back and let you answer and reply to scripture because you conversation\conflict is with scripture and not us.
If your words do not convey what you mean why do you use them?Hi WIT,
We agree that the Son of God in relationship to God is similar to how Joseph was to the Pharaoh.
The question is did that responsibilty and glory only begin after his resurrection?
This seems to be your view.
Or did he rather gain more glory and responsibilty from what he previously held due to his proven obdeience to the Father in his time on earth? This is my view.Of course you cannot accept my view if you have defined his beginning as his birth.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ June 06 2005,23:09) (By contrast, your faith is in the “one God” and the one “begotten God” who both had authority and power since before the world began, which sounds a lot like faith in two gods to me.) .
Hi WIT,
Jn I.18 [which is scriptural truth]
” No one has seen God at any time:the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him”Nick wrote:
Quote WIT. Thank you for clarifying your differences with Adam and RR. That was not the point of my post at all. In fact, I suspect that they might actually agree with me in large part. But, I will leave that for them to say.
Nick wrote:
Quote Adam Pastor,
As WIT has suggested I will look again at your post and I will but without your highlighting.If you truly looked at AdamPastor's post again, you would have addressed the Isaiah 11 passage, and not just the verse in Revelation that you have chosen to misunderstand against the scriptural evidence.
Nick wrote:
Quote Of course you cannot accept my view if you have defined his beginning as his birth. I cannot accept your view because your faith is in two gods, which is in opposition to all of scripture.
Nick wrote:
Quote Hi WIT,
Jn I.18 [which is scriptural truth]
” No one has seen God at any time:the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him”Nick also wrote:
Quote Hi WIT,
Not every translation is accurate, deliberately or not, and you are meant to compare scripture with scripture to find the truth and not just rely on the views of men.I suggest you take your own advice. How many translations have that verse as you have shown it? And, have you ever seen that term anywhere else in scripture?
Keep searching Nick. But as long as your faith is in one God and one “begotten God”, (which makes two gods essential to your faith), I fear that you will be ever blinded to other fundamental scriptural truths.
May YHWH bless you in your sincere searching.
Hi WIT, Adam and/or Ramblinrose:
Sorry if I have missed your explanations to these verses elsewhere, but I was wondering how you understand the ff passages of scripture, specifically speaking to the Son of God's pre-existence and the reference to him as a god/God.
YHWH is the Most High God, so that implies that there are other gods over whom he reigns, including Jesus, who we no doubt agree is Lord over YHWH's creation. (Ps 97:7).
John 1-4: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not *comprehend it.
Colossians 1-15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”*Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
And I've just got to throw in Phil 2:6 for good measure.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Take care.
Hi WIT,
As cubes has quoted
Ps 97.7
” Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, who boast themselves of idols;worship Him all you gods”So there are idols worshipped by fools,
There are graven images too that men worship,
And there are gods, defined as such by God, who exist and can be addressed by God whether or not men worship them. They are likely the “sons of God” as shown in Job, who are worshipped by some ,as shown in Collosians.
Ignorant men who discover greater powers and recognise their weakness and insecurity will often attempt to worship them. That is idolatry. But God can call them gods if He wishes. [cfJn 10 34-35]
It still remains true there is no other God like to Him.Hi WIT,
Is 11.1f
” Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit”So the stem will produce a Shoot
Or a root will produce fruit.Beautiful words.
A root needs a stem and a branch to produce fruit.
So here is Adam Pastor's parallelism in action.The two lines are equivalent.
God shows His care in scripture so He could not be accused of falsely presenting what He has shown us in all nature. But He does so by putting together what is incomplete alone. Both show an order, roots before fruit and stems before branches.
The full order is;
roots
stems
branches
fruitRoots do not directly produce fruit except through stems and branches. Neither do stems normally produce shoots and fruit without roots in the soil. [Perhaps, though God was also making reference to[?]Aaron's staff, which by the power of God did so.]
What we do know from scripture is that roots support the branches and not vice versa.[Rom 11.18]We also know plants without established roots die. We know a plant produces fruit only when the seed has died[jn 12], the root established, the shoot appeared and then the leaf and finally the fruit.[mk 4]
Bless you too WIT.So putting the two scriptures together;
A shoot grows from the stem of Jesse_Jesus
And Jesus is the root of David.So Jesus precedes David as “inner man” [Soul]
and descends from David as “outer man”[Body]Cubes
The following site offers material on the versus you posted and others.
Cubes,
Yes, I have commented on some of those verses elsewhere, so I won't repeat those comments here. If you like, you can look on pages 159, 169, 170, and 171 for my posts, combine it with this one, and let me know if I haven't fully addressed the issues you have raised.
As for the verses I have not yet addressed:
Verse from Cubes:
Quote Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. You are seriously taking this verse out of context. After all, I don't think that you mean to suggest that the Son of God is without father, do you? Well, if you read this verse outside of its intended context, that is exactly what it is saying.
I suggest that you go back and read the entire chapter in which this verse is found. However, for the sake of this discussion, I will explain how I believe this verse relates to the contents of that chapter.
The issue being discussed is Yeshua's qualifications as High Priest. At the time that this epistle was written, the only qualification one could offer for being a priest to God was one's geneology. Either you were descended from the house of Levi, or you weren't. However, it is clear that Yeshua was not descended from Levi. As the promised Messiah, he had to be from the tribe of Judah. So how does Yeshua qualify as our High Priest? Well, Melchizedek set the precedent during the time of Abraham. (Note that Yeshua is not Melchizedek. In the passage, he is continually contrasted with Melchizedek, not identified as Melchizedek.) Melchizedek was not of the house of Levi, yet he was still considered a high priest to God. In the same way, Yeshua qualifies, not by father or mother, not in a temporary fashion, but in the order of Melchizedek, a priest forever and ever.
Verse from Cubes:
Quote Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God If you look at various translations of this verse, (or a bible with good footnotes), you will find that this verse has been translated in wildly different ways. One thing is certain though: this verse does not say that Yeshua is God, or even that Yeshua is “a god”. Instead the phrase being applied to him, (as translated in this version), is that he was in the “form of God”. This can easily be seen as an allusion to the authority and power he displayed when he walked the earth. But despite the tremendous power and authority he displayed throughout his life, he still humbled himself to death on a cross, and that is what I believe this passage is about.
Comment and verse reference from Cubes:
Quote YHWH is the Most High God, so that implies that there are other gods over whom he reigns, including Jesus, who we no doubt agree is Lord over YHWH's creation. (Ps 97:7). If you are using the verse in Psalms to suggest that there is more than one God for us to acknowledge and have faith in, then I must respectfully disagree in order to keep company with Yeshua and Paul.
Quote Mark 12:
28Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
29Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' …
32So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. …
34Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”Quote 1 Corinthians 8:6
“yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”If you wish to keep company with those who would say, “For us there are two gods…”, then you may certainly do so, but it goes against the faith of all the believers in scripture.
Thank you for the response and reference pages, I'll be taking a look at them.
I generally agree with your responses, but also believe that Christ preexisted his earthly experience. He conveyed the understanding in various places that he was from the Father and shared experiences with him before his birth. For example, when I hear the word “SENT” as relates to Christ, I take it for granted that he was at one location, existing, and then was SENT to another location [earth] to do a job, after which he went back home to his Father.
Hebrews 7:3 (Melchizedek and Christ): Although you rightly explained the scripture, my point is that God made both without beginning or end of days. Both can be called sons of God therefore, but Christ is especially noted as being the begotten and beloved Son of God.
Quote Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God I like your explanation here actually and it makes sense to me because I don't consider Christ and YHWH to be the same.
But although the verse does not say he is God, it does say in John 1:1 that he is [a] God. Brackets my insertion. And it does say elsewhere that he is the express image of God… and since the scriptures cannot be broken, these descriptions add to the composite. So as I see it, if one is in the Form of God having all the authority and power, and is called the Son of God, and [a] god/God, and has the express image of GOD, then he must be at the very least godlike. And if the same bible calls other beings gods, then I have no problem considering such a being who is Lord over those other gods (I don't mean YHWH), a god…especially when John 1:1 says emphatically that he is [a] God/god.
I feel comfortable using “a” before “the Word was [a] god” because it is evident that Christ is not YHWH.
Quote If you wish to keep company with those who would say, “For us there are two gods…”, then you may certainly do so, but it goes against the faith of all the believers in scripture. To the other comments about worshipping two Gods, let's not even go there.
Cubes,
It is obvious that we disagree. (By the way, see John 1:6 for example of a man being “sent” by God who did not pre-exist – unless you believe that John the Baptist pre-existed.) However, I don't understand how you go through such pains to show that you believe that Yeshua is “a god”, yet you have no comment on the fact that that makes your faith dependent on two gods, (in opposition to all of scripture). Why do you think that Paul says that for him there is one God? Do you think that he suddenly forgot that Yeshua is “a god” too? Why do you think that there is no statement of belief in scripture that acknowledges more than one god? That's the one thing that I don't understand about your beliefs.
Other than that, I am sure that you are sincere in your desire to know and understand scripture, and I hope that your sincere searching is blessed by the one God of our faith.
Cubes,
By the way, if you are using that verse in Hebrews 7 to say that Yeshua had no beginning of days, then you might as well call him YHWH, as only YHWH has no birth day. Again, I would remind you to look at the context of the passage. It's about the time of his priesthood. Unlike like Levitical priests who had a certain time period in their lives when they were qualified to serve, Yeshua, like Melchizedek, is a designated priest from eternity to eternity, by God's design.
Also, please take a good look at my comments on the book of John. I think that you are taking John 1:1 to literally refer to the Son when it should actually be seen as figure of speech referring to God's divine plan for creation.
Thanks for your sincere questions. I hope your searching is fruitful.
Hi WIT,
The book of John expresses how a man of God, filled with the Spirit, knew the Son of God. He was a man of faith who stood at the foot of the cross knowing it was not the end. He was a man of love who rested his head on the breast of his Master. We do not judge him as inadequate or misinformed. It is the Spirit in his words that judges the lack in us.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ June 08 2005,16:42) Cubes, It is obvious that we disagree. (By the way, see John 1:6 for example of a man being “sent” by God who did not pre-exist – unless you believe that John the Baptist pre-existed.) However, I don't understand how you go through such pains to show that you believe that Yeshua is “a god”, yet you have no comment on the fact that that makes your faith dependent on two gods, (in opposition to all of scripture). Why do you think that Paul says that for him there is one God? Do you think that he suddenly forgot that Yeshua is “a god” too? Why do you think that there is no statement of belief in scripture that acknowledges more than one god? That's the one thing that I don't understand about your beliefs.
Other than that, I am sure that you are sincere in your desire to know and understand scripture, and I hope that your sincere searching is blessed by the one God of our faith.
Hi WIT,
John was indeed sent from God as were all the prophets. But he is not the “man from heaven.” as scripture says Jesus is. So that makes no statement about preexistence regarding John.Cubes has shown you what scripture reveals about Jesus and about gods. Why can you not believe scripture?
He who loves the Son loves the Father who sent him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
