Trinity &#8211; Is 1:18&#039;s Proof Text #2

Participant

Kejonn

Quote

Thanks for avoiding my questions especially the second one.

Kejonn. Are you blind or something?

Here is your question.

Quote

Here's another for you, and please answer it: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

And here was my answer.

Quote

What does the scripture say?

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Obviously Jesus had a body of flesh. Can't you see it in these verses?

Yet Thomas still said.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Kejonn. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.

August 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm#62845

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,07:51)

Kejonn. Is that the best that you can do?

Rev 1:1 does not identify who “God” is.

Instead of getting irrational and abusive, you should try reasoning from the scripture. It just shows your character.

There are three who are Jehovah God. Regardless of who “God” is in Rev 1:1, The First and Last is Jesus Jehovah God. It is so obvious.

You don't seem to quite understand though CB. It matters much who God is in Rev 1:1 because the Trinity doctrine (or modalism) falters in this very verse. Why?

If God is three persons, which person of God gives Yeshua the Revelation? That is the question. But you see, if you believe Yeshua is God then you have to start implying rather than seeing what is plainly written. However, if one does not believe that Yeshua is God — and he is NEVER called God in Revelation like you see in John 20:28 — than the answer is evident. We who believe that the Father is YHWH of the OT, and the only God, have our answer because it is this: God=Father=YHWH.

But the Trinity cannot do this. If we are to believe it, then “God” in Rev 1:1 can't be Yeshua because the Revelation is given to him by God. So it has to be either the Father or the Holy Spirit. So which “person” is it that gives the Revelation to Yeshua?

In the end, Rev 1:1 says “God”. If God is all three persons, then there is a major conflict in verse 1 alone.

If you can't give an answer just say so. Humility is a fine trait.

Quote

LOOK!

Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can deny this fact.

Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

You already listed these. These prove nothing towards your theology except what you want to believe. The contextual evidence denies your position.

Quote

Furthermore, Jesus is the Almighty God.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Again, the contextual evidence says “no”. You use the KJV which “supports” your view. Most other translations have “kyrios theos” not just “kyrios”. But the context is given in the preceding verses if you care to even read them.

Theology cannot be valid when it is formed from “soundbites” of scripture.

August 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm#62846

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,08:02)

Kejonn

Quote

Thanks for avoiding my questions especially the second one.

Kejonn. Are you blind or something?

Here is your question.

Quote

Here's another for you, and please answer it: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

And here was my answer.

Quote

What does the scripture say?

Obviously Jesus had a body of flesh. Can't you see it in these verses?

Yet Thomas still said.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Kejonn. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.

I was looking for you to say yourself that Yeshua came in the flesh. I aksed the question because I sense in you much the same spirit as those of Westboro Baptist Church. I see them as someone who on the surface says they represent God but do so falsely as a means to turn people away from Christianity. Its a clever but effective form of subterfuge.

Forgive me if I'm wrong. But you constantly ignore questions and leap beyond them. Then, you are a strong believer of “Jehovah Jesus God”. There is NOOOOOOOOOOOO scriptural evidence of this AT ALL. The Trinity says he is one of the three persons but your statements almost always lead to Jesus being the ONLY member of the Godhead.

The Trinity at least has some scriptural grounds. Your theory of “Jehovah Jesus God” would make every serious Jew shake in his boots, even the ones who come to know Yeshua.

August 2, 2007 at 9:34 pm#62864

Mr. Steve

Participant

CB;

From your prior post you state that there are three that are Jehovah. Wow. The three of course you are referring to are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you believe that you are calling Christ a liar. Christ said he was the Son of God. The Father at his baptism said he was His Son. Christ then referred to the Holy Spirit as a third person. All three were stated to be distinct persons with the Father over all. You call yourself a cult buster. You state that we are serving another Jesus. I don't know whether to cry tears for you or take you seriously at all. You must indeed by jesting.

August 3, 2007 at 12:41 am#62886

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 02 2007,23:51)

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,06:39)

Kejonn. You've just swallowed a camel.

A camel goes down easier than an elephant. But you can carve the tusks into toothpicks to get the elephant meat out of your teeth. Do you like the taste?

Quote

All the twist in the world is necessary to support modalism. Your claim that Jesus is Jehovah means the the Father is some background character. Its a shame the NT writers even included the Father because you have ignored Him on every occasion.

Hey CB, who is “God” in this verse?

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Since Jesus is Jehovah (according to you), who is “God” in Rev 1:1? Some other being in heaven falsely using the title of “God”? Or did Jesus talk to himself to give himself his own Revelation? Hmmm, Jesus talks to himself. Your Jesus needs mental help it seems.

Quote

Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

YES! That's what we have been telling you all along, there is no other God besides YHWH (Jehovah). But you solve this by saying Jesus is God, to exclusion of the Father. I'm glad I don't have to stand next to you in a thunderstorm.

Quote

Furthermore, Jesus is the Almighty God.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You are convinced already so showing the context would be a waste. Pearls before swine.

kejonn

Personally I think you are not being fair here.

CB is not a modalist.

He simply uses the word Jehovah which is an interpretation of the tetragammation YHWH.

Most Trinitarians believe the name YHWH in Hebrew scriptures is not always applied to the Father but also to the Son and in many cases it is the Holy Ghost speaking as YHWH.

CB simply has chosen to use the name Jehovah referring to God. Probably because of the insistance of most JWs (modern day Arians) of using the name Jehovah.

Your accusations are uncalled for.

In CBs defence he quotes mostly scriptures without saying much to add to them, I think that is plausible. You may not agree with him thats fine.

But you should not accuse him of being something he is not.

You say…

Quote

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
Since Jesus is Jehovah (according to you), who is “God” in Rev 1:1? Some other being in heaven falsely using the title of “God”? Or did Jesus talk to himself to give himself his own Revelation? Hmmm, Jesus talks to himself. Your Jesus needs mental help it seems.

You are again speaking to a Modalist, not a Trinitarian.

Maybe you could tell us “When” God gave it to him?

Its not in the verse is it?

At some point Jesus the man was given back all things which he had shared with the Father, which would include the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which by the way is his.

Notice it says “The Revelation” of Jesus Christ.

The greek for “Revelation” is 'apokalupsis' which means…

1) laying bare, making naked

2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

a) concerning things before unknown

b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

3) manifestation, appearance

So it could be read the disclosure of truth that God gave to him.

As you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus left his place with the Father taking on the likeness of sinfull flesh while not diminishing his nature as the Word/God. He emptied himself of his priviledges, power, authority, even his knowledge since he had to be born and be a baby like us. This is the miracle of incarnation, not re-incarnation which would imply he is no longer the Word/God or that he died and was reborn. He humbled himself to come and do the Fathers will in the flesh. Paul says let this same mind be in us, Emptying ourselves to totally do our Fathers will, though because of Jesus we didnt have to lose our knowledge and return as a baby to be born again.

At some point in the life and ministry Jesus was given back all authority, and power, wisdom, knowledge, glory etc. that he had left.

When? We dont know. Do we. But we do have an Idea and it was before John recieved the revelation.

Jn 3:35
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Jn 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jn 13:3
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

BTW Jn 13:3 should demolish the “Unitarians” anti preexistance theory out the window.

Anyway, we see that Jesus was given all things. All things means all things including Power, authority, Glory, wisdom, knowledge, strength, blessings etc. etc.

Since we know that Jesus is the “Truth”, and since all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are now in him, Col 2:3, and since know all Authority and Power is Jesus, Heb. 1:3, Matt 28:18, then we can say that somewhere in between his life and ministry and his assension Jesus recieved all things.

Rev 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Now kejonn unless you can show me when Jesus got the revelation, which by the way is his, then yo
ur hole in the Trinitarian theory of Rev 1:1 is fallacious.

You said…

Quote

Jn
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.

Was there another person in heaven who was God?

Did not this same John record Jn 1:1,2

God who is God with God! So John must have been looney also.

Did not God comunicate with God when he said.. Let us make man…surely angels didnt lay the foundations of the world.

Did not the Word God speak with The Father God when he said..

Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Notice it says in the volume of the book it is written of me.

Well we dont know what book the scripture is referring to but it is interesting to note that the Book is about Yeshua, and yet the OT scriptures are about “YHWH”. The bible is a biography of God yet Jesus takes claim to it. John 5:39.

Now if you can also show us when and how this Word God ceased to be God, which is against nature itself since no creature has ever ceased to be that creature and become another creature and yet remain as the same creature. Boy that will make your head spin. Basically it would be reincarnation. The Word was not reincarnated, nor did the Word cease to be the Word.

We know that Jesus Preexisted his natural birth, but if we say that he is no longer the Word/God then he is not the the personal Jesus that preexisted is he?

August 3, 2007 at 3:21 am#62896

Participant

Quote

Here's another for you, and please answer it: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

And here was my answer.

Quote

What does the scripture say?

Obviously Jesus had a body of flesh. Can't you see it in these verses?

Yet Thomas still said.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Kejonn. Do not be unbelieving, but believing

Kejonn.
I answered your question with scripture using John 20:27 and you got uptight.

Look again at John 20:27

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

It seems very clear from this verse that Jesus had a fleshly body. Did you want me to add further to it?

Perhaps what upset you was the following verse John 20:28.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

August 3, 2007 at 3:37 am#62897

Participant

Hey WJ,

Check out my various posts about Philo and “ho theos”. Philo of Alexandria developed the Logos theory in relation to God. Either the writer of John's Gospel was influenced by Philo or God both inspired them to use the Logos in relation to an entity that existed with God since the beginning. In any case, Philo's work on Logos preceded John's Gospel and Epistles by at least 50-60 years. I will repost Philo's writings on “ho theos” and “theos” without the article.

From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230

(1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

Here “ancient word” is the Word that John writes about. If you doubt this, I think it would behoove you to check out Philo's works. Very interesting.

Also remember this: Philo is writing years before any NT writer. He would know the Greek usage of his day more than any modern day scholar. He would also know more about how “theos” and “ho theos” were being used in his day.

Read my thread about Philo. I think you'll be in for some big surprises.

As to your explanation of Rev 1:1, nice try. It almost sounds good. But it rings hollow. I find that Trinitarians often fall back to the position of silence. That is, if it is not written, you can imply the meaning. Why not work with what is written then?

You say “when”. Its quite obvious “when” – after the ascension. Read verse 1 again.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John

Let me ask you WJ, did Yeshua have an angel to command while he was on earth? No. Yeshua speaks of commanding angels in the Gospels, but he is speaking of the future, not while he was with the apostles. The closest he comes while on earth is this:

Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

See, Yeshua says he would have to appeal to His Father to have angels at his command. The angels would come from the Father.

But in Rev 1:1, there is no talk of appealing to his Father in order to send an angel to deliver the Revelation to John. So Yeshua was in heaven and power and authority had been given to him to command angels.

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Now combine this with what Philo has pointed out about “theos” without the article in John 1:1 and you now are back to trying to figure out who exactly God is in Revelation 1:1 if you say Yeshua is God.

August 3, 2007 at 3:39 am#62898

Participant

CB,

Why are you posting again about this? I acknowledged that you answered the question already :;): .

August 3, 2007 at 3:48 am#62899

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m

Participant

Kejonn. You are still stuck on the following regardles of who you believe is identified as “God” in Rev 1:1. It bears no relevance to and changes nothing of the following.

This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can change this fact.

Kejonn. Do you believe that The Father was dead and now alive? The above can refer only to Jesus.

Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

Look also at how Jesus is portrayed in the broader context.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

He doesn't resemble anything like your little masonic jesus.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

August 3, 2007 at 5:22 am#62926

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,22:48)

Kejonn. You are still stuck on the following regardles of who you believe is identified as “God” in Rev 1:1. It bears no relevance to and changes nothing of the following.

Nope, I'm not stuck because I know who God really is. The Trinity gets stuck on verse 1 because God tells Jesus yet Jesus is supposed to be God, right? Yet, if you follow what the Bible says, the Father, the true God (John 17:3. 1 Thess 1:9), the one God (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6), is the only God (John 5:44) who could tell Jesus of the Revelation.

Speaking of “God confusion”, how do you reconcile this verse?

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Let's see, one God. And there is a mediator between God and men, and it is the man Christ Jesus. But the Trinity would rewrite this verse to read something like this

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and one mediator also between God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So is the Son a God while Christ Jesus is a man? And why would Jesus, who is supposed to be God need a mediator between himself and men if he is that mediator? Why the bother?

Yet it becomes so simple again if we see that the man Christ Jesus mediates between men and the Father, the true God (John 17:3. 1 Thess 1:9), the one God (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6), is the only God (John 5:44).

Quote

No twisting needed. These two verses do not prove that Yeshua is God. They prove he is Yeshua.

Quote

Kejonn. Do you believe that The Father was dead and now alive? The above can refer only to Jesus.

No and I've never ever said that these verse apply to God. But how can the immortal God die and live again? A man can though. Even if that man is the Son of God.

Quote

Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

Look also at how Jesus is portrayed in the broader context.

Is first and last a title? Besides that there is a difference here.

YHWH: “I am the first and I am the last”
Yeshua : “I am the first and the last”

Notice that there is only one “I am” for Yeshua while YHWH uses two. You may not think this is an issue but it shows the difference. Plus, the quote from Isaiah ends with something the revelation ones do not “And there is no God besides Me”.

Plonk.

Quote

He doesn't resemble anything like your little masonic jesus.

Hehe, you wish. You just think that everyone who denies the Trinity belongs to a cult. I don't belong to any cult. I used to belong to a Baptist Church, now I do not. I use the Bible as my doctrine. The one that was originally penned prior to 100 BCE. You believe in another that came along later called the Nicene Creed. Long after Paul and the Gospel writers were dead and Yeshua was sitting at the right hand of God.

August 3, 2007 at 5:33 am#62929

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,15:37)

Hey WJ,

From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230

(1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

Here “ancient word” is the Word that John writes about. If you doubt this, I think it would behoove you to check out Philo's works. Very interesting.

Read my thread about Philo. I think you'll be in for some big surprises.

You say “when”. Its quite obvious “when” – after the ascension. Read verse 1 again.

Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

See, Yeshua says he would have to appeal to His Father to have angels at his command. The angels would come from the Father.

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

kejonn

That still does not tell us when Jesus recieved the Revelation.

There are many things Jesus knows that he is yet to reveal.

All things were given to him before his ascension.

And your argument about “ho theos” is a fallacious argument also.

The absence of the article for Jn 1:1c is to simply distinguish between the Father and the Son. John did not want to introduce Modalism.

Its a fallacious argument to say the lack of “ho” Proceeding “Theos” means that “Theos” is not God.

For many instances in the NT show that “Theos” was used without the “ho” in refering to the Father.

If lack of the definite article demands this:

“and the word was a god” (NWT)
Then consistency demands the NWT read this way in all these verses that also lack the definite article:

the Word was a god 1:1

a representative of a god 1:6

to become a god's children 1:12

man's will, but from a god 1:13

No man has seen a god 1:8a

the only begotten a god 1:8b

'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2

'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4

'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6

I know this is a cornerstone verse and thank God that John came along later with his writtings to set the record straight.

Yeshua is God.

You seem to agree with the JWs alot.

Jesus is “a god”, the Holy Spirit is an it.

What gives?

So now kejonn do you also believe the writtings of Philo are inspired above Johns. I believe the Gospel of John was written after Revelations and John borrowed the term from the vision of Yeshua having the name “the Word of God”.

August 3, 2007 at 5:55 am#62938

Participant

Hey, gotta go to bed, and I will reply again soon, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say “Happy Birthday”!

Have a great one!

August 3, 2007 at 6:41 pm#62978

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,17:55)

Hey, gotta go to bed, and I will reply again soon, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say “Happy Birthday”!

Have a great one!

kejonn

Thanks!

Blessings!

August 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm#62982

Mr. Steve

Participant

CB;

Christ says in Revelation that he was the first and the last. Does that mean he existed before the Father? He said he was he that liveth and was dead. The bible says God raised Christ from the dead, he did not raise himself from the dead. So if Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as he told Moses and the Children of Israel, then how could he die? You're teaching that Christ is Jehovah is false doctrine. The Father said that Christ was his Son. Why don't you declare that? God told Abraham that he was the Most High God. God told Moses that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So really what you are trying to say is that Christ was the Most High God, too. If that is the case, you are calling Christ a liar. You do greatly error not knowing the scriptures.

August 3, 2007 at 10:07 pm#63002

Proclaimer

Participant

Hi Mr Steve.

Good post.

Some say that Jesus is 100% God, and therefore if he died, then 100% God died. If he is 33% God, then a third of the members died, but they explicitly teach that Jesus is 100% God.

There are mysteries and there is foolishness.

The Trinity doctrine pretends to be a mystery, but it is truly foolishness because it comes from the mind of man and God's foolishness is much greater.

August 5, 2007 at 10:24 am#63219

Participant

Mr Steve

Quote

CB;

Christ says in Revelation that he was the first and the last.

Well it seems that you finally grasped this truth.

Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

Christ is Jehovah God not your “another Jesus”.

August 5, 2007 at 10:27 am#63220

Participant

CB,

Did God sya “first and last” was a title, and His alone? And YHWH said “I am the first and I am the last”. If this is a title, Yeshua only said “I am the first and the last”. No second instance of “I am”.

August 6, 2007 at 6:40 am#63276

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)

CB,

kejonn

Weak!

I will be responding to your post on the Monotheist thread as time permits.

I have looked at Philo and will respond. Are you sure you want to go down the path of a greek Philosopher and put your trust in his words rather than the Interpretation of more than 600 Scholars who translated our present day english versions?

Also, not to mention the translation of the Septuegent, which flatly denies the implications of your Greek philosopher.

Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.

He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.

I find it rather amazing that you would rather believer one like Philo rather than our current interpretations and the early Fathers of the faith.

Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.

August 6, 2007 at 8:21 am#63286

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)

CB,

kejonn

Weak!

I will be responding to your post on the Monotheist thread as time permits.

Are you sure you want to take the word of 600 modern Greek scholars who did not write in the Greek that Philo did? Since Philo wrote in the same Greek that the NT writers did, it would seem he would have a huge edge over scholars who are trying to translate language that was written 1600-2000 years ago. Just look how much people today struggle with the English of the 1600-1700s!

Quote

Also, not to mention the translation of the Septuegent, which flatly denies the implications of your Greek philosopher.

Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.

Yes. Can you prove that the logos of John 1:1 was anything different than what Philo philosophized?

Quote

You may say “hello JWs” but you'd be off there, would you not? Do they not believe that Yeshua was the archangel Michael? So you're thinking more along the lines of Christadelphians and Biblical Unitarians.

Beyond that, what proof do you have that “logos” was a separate being? I'd be interested in your response.

Quote

I find it rather amazing that you would rather believer one like Philo rather than our current interpretations and the early Fathers of the faith.

Which fathers are you speaking of? The ones who started a nasty thing called the Roman Catholic Church? The same church that deified Mary? The same that says we must confess sins to other men rather than through our mediator, Christ, thereby putting back up the temple veil that was torn in two?

In a word, yes, over these fathers I'd take his word.

Quote

Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.

Yes, but can you show me the difference beyond one sticking point: “the Word became flesh”. Philo did not know Yeshua, but he spoke much of the logos of God. John's logos is uncannily similar to Philo's logos. Philo's logos would fit in all other aspects. In fact, you can read that the logos spoke through prophets. That would fit John 1:10-11. Many of the Israelites ignored the words of the prophets. And amazingly enough, Israelites did not know of logos in the same sense that Philo used; that is, as the instrument of creation. Matches this

Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

So how again does John's logos differ from the logos proposed by Philo?

August 6, 2007 at 8:36 am#63288