- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:17) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:05) And you try to change the meaning of John 1:1
OK.Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?
I can easily show you the error of this is your stance.
t8No.
It is God the Father > God the Son > angel > man
Just as John 1:1 says The Word was with God and the Word was God.
But it sure isnt…
God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
No WJ.It says God > Jesus > …
Admit it.
Changing that is not recommended. It is reckless to change add or takeaway from that verse.
It says God > Jesus.
You say God the Father > God the son…
You just added to the words.
You should repent.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) I have a question for you. Are 'identity' and 'nature' mutually inclusive or exclusive? Can I have an answer with you rationale please.
I will let you answer your own question.The Devil is the Father (of lies and murder).
Nevertheless he is a father. This being called the Devil is identified as Satan.Now there are also devils. They have the quality of their father. They lie, murder, hate, etc.
Are devils, the actual Devil or Satan?
You're equivocating. I was asking you to clarify your position.Nature and identity – mutually inclusive or exclusive?
Quote Yes you believe correctly that Yeshua and the Father are different. But what about God and Jesus.
This is the whole point here. You seem to not be able to grasp (or you are just avoiding the issue) that God and Jesus are different.
The bible is full of verses that say God and Jesus. I am not talking about the verses that say the Father and Jesus.
GOD AND JESUS.
What about God and Jesus. Are they different?
In the NT, theos” is usually used in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So an authors ascription of theos to the Father and Jesus/Christ/Son/Jesus to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to many other NT statements about Yeshua), it’s simply a method of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:20) Quote OK. Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?
You're assuming that the Revelation message was transmitted down an ontological gradient from the highest being in existence (God) to a much lower one (man). But this is a presupposition on your part. I've seen you make the same mistake with 1 Corinthians 11:3. But in this instance the pattern breaks down as woman is said to be in submission to man, yet they are, as to the nature and identity of their beings (human), equivalent.
I am not saying that.I am saying what the text says.
God > Jesus > Angel > John.
I am not adding to that or taking away from it. I am reading what it says.
Now you bring up 1 Corinthians 11:3.
God > Christ > Man > Woman
You say that Man and woman are by nature man. And therefore I assume that God and Jesus are God.
But that is a perfect example of nature verses identity.
A woman is by nature a man or that is to say part of mankind.
Jesus by nature, I believe, is a divine being. That is that his nature is “theos”.Now just as Eve is not the Man in identity nor is Yeshua God by identity.
The original man was Adam. Eve is not Adam.
The original and Most high God is the Father. Yeshua is not the Father or YHWH.So there are 2 that are original and 2 that come from the original.
The originals are:
The Father who is the origin of the son.
Adam who is the origin of Eve.Therefore the woman is the image of the man, and Yeshua is the image of God.
If you don't believe it, then listen to what Yeshua said himself:
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:17) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,11:05) And you try to change the meaning of John 1:1
OK.Lets see if this is true.
God (the Father) > Jesus > angel > John.
That is what I say. So where is the error?What do you say it is then?
Trinity > Jesus > angel > John or what?
I can easily show you the error of this is your stance.
t8No.
It is God the Father > God the Son > angel > man
Just as John 1:1 says The Word was with God and the Word was God.
But it sure isnt…
God > a god (Jesus) > a god (his angel) > a god (John) who then wrote this down for the churches.
No WJ.It says God > Jesus > …
Admit it.
Changing that is not recommended. It is reckless to change add or takeaway from that verse.
It says God > Jesus.
You say God the Father > God the son…
You just added to the words.
You should repent.
t8But you say concerning John 1:1…
Quote Well as I pointed out to WJ before. There is no “a god” in Greek.
There is just “theos” and it can apply to “theos” in identity or “theos” in quality.There is your answer. So you cant say that Revelation 1:1 is prrof that Yeshua is not God!
Because as you say it could be either one right?
But then if you take your view you have to deny the other scriptures that cant be taken in a qualitative sense.
t8, we're discussing nature and identity as it pertains to beings, not individual persons. We've already established that Yeshua has a different personal identity to the Father.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:23) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) I have a question for you. Are 'identity' and 'nature' mutually inclusive or exclusive? Can I have an answer with you rationale please.
I will let you answer your own question.The Devil is the Father (of lies and murder).
Nevertheless he is a father. This being called the Devil is identified as Satan.Now there are also devils. They have the quality of their father. They lie, murder, hate, etc.
Are devils, the actual Devil or Satan?
You're equivocating. I was asking you to clarify your position.Nature and identity – mutually inclusive or exclusive?
To be honest with you Isaiah, if you cannot understand what I am saying here, then anything else I say is not going to make a difference.My answer is clear. I have told you many times. The Father in nature is “theos” and in identity “theos”. In nature or quality there are other “theos” that represent God, namely Yeshua, man, angel.
But in identity, man, angel, nor Yeshua are not “theos” himself.Likewise in identity the Devil is Satan. He is also “devil” in quality, but devils are not Satan himself, they are devils in quality only.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:30) The original man was Adam. Eve is not Adam.
The original and Most high God is the Father. Yeshua is not the Father or YHWH.So there are 2 that are original and 2 that come from the original.
The originals are:
The Father who is the origin of the son.
Adam who is the origin of Eve.Therefore the woman is the image of the man, and Yeshua is the image of God.
Was Yeshua the image of God before His incarnation? Where is the proof for this?Quote If you don't believe it, then listen to what Yeshua said himself: John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
Indeed Yeshua did come from God, the Father sent Him. That's what this passage is speaking of, not some pre-incarnation begettal. The context makes that plain.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:38) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:23) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:11) I have a question for you. Are 'identity' and 'nature' mutually inclusive or exclusive? Can I have an answer with you rationale please.
I will let you answer your own question.The Devil is the Father (of lies and murder).
Nevertheless he is a father. This being called the Devil is identified as Satan.Now there are also devils. They have the quality of their father. They lie, murder, hate, etc.
Are devils, the actual Devil or Satan?
You're equivocating. I was asking you to clarify your position.Nature and identity – mutually inclusive or exclusive?
To be honest with you Isaiah, if you cannot understand what I am saying here, then anything else I say is not going to make a difference.My answer is clear. I have told you many times. The Father in nature is “theos” and in identity “theos”. In nature or quality there are other “theos” that represent God, namely Yeshua, man, angel.
But in identity, man, angel, nor Yeshua are not “theos” himself.Likewise in identity the Devil is Satan. He is also “devil” in quality, but devils are not Satan himself, they are devils in quality only.
The term devil is not designatory of a category of being t8…..Come on t8, you are being equivocal here. It's not an unfair question. Remember we're discussing the identity and nature of beings here. Let me make it easier for you. Do you know of any men that are human in identity but not nature. Or conversely do you know of any that have human nature but are not human in identity?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:35) t8, we're discussing nature and identity as it pertains to beings, not individual persons. We've already established that Yeshua has a different personal identity to the Father.
Isaiah. There are hundreds of verses that talk of God and Jesus as different identities. Just accept it. But if you reject it, then you reject scripture. There is no other way.God and Jesus.
God and Jesus.
God and Jesus.Similarly, there are verses that talk of Satan and devils/or his angels.
That also is 2 identities.
It's quite simple. There is God and Jesus.
Even my 2 year old son could grasp that if he knew the language. It isn't hard.I could show him a toy red car and a toy blue one.
I could put them together or side by side and he wouldn't assume that they were the same car. Maybe in quality the same, but not the same car.In other words even though he is not quite 2, he could see that they were both cars, but not the same car.
And to Trinitarians.
God and Jesus.
Can you admit that the God of the bible is not Jesus?
Hundreds of verses speak of God and Jesus.The God of the bible is not Jesus.
Even Revelation 1:1 shows as much.
Can you admit it?
Or are you to proud to admit it?Quote (t8 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:56) And to Trinitarians. God and Jesus.
Can you admit that the God of the bible is not Jesus?
Hundreds of verses speak of God and Jesus.The God of the bible is not Jesus.
Even Revelation 1:1 shows as much.
Can you admit it?
Or are you to proud to admit it?
t8How about God and God!
John out of the same breath uses the same word “Theos” for the Father and the Son. He didnt have to do that did he?
But he does confirm it with other writings…
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The “Word” cannot change!
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.Do you believe Johns words t8? John confirms this here…
1 Jn 5:20 NET
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.This is confirmed who the “Eternal life” is that was with the Father in the first chapter of this epistle…
1 Jn 1:1 NET
This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life –
2 and and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us).
3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship7 with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ).Can you admit that Jesus is the God of the bible? After all he said the scriptures were written about him, did he not?
Are you to proud to admit that?
t8
You say…
Quote
Now just as Eve is not the Man in identity nor is Yeshua God by identity.Yes but we are not talking about God and his wife are we?
You say that Eve is not the man in identity, of course Eve is not Adam! Eve is not man either she is woman. But she is human.
But lets talk about Adam and his Son. Abel is not Adam but Abel is man.
Is he not? Therefore all that Adam is in Nature, Abel is also!
Yeshua is the Mongenes “Unique” Son of God who also is all the Father is in nature.
Let see if I can give my two cents here. First of all in John 1:1 it does state that the Word was God and was with God. But does that mean that Jesus is equal with the Father God? That is not so. Because we have other scriptures that tell us so.
The problem here is that you seem to forget that God is a title or lets say a Family Name. If I have a Son, His name is the same then mine, but that does not make Him the same then I. It is another person.
So it is with God, when you understand that easy understood theory, there is no problem all scriptures line up, too.
That also shows how wrong the trinity doctrine is, it was invented by a man, and the first Christians did not belief in it.
I could give you all the scriptures that go with what I am saying, but I think you three all are very much familiar with scriptures, so I do not have to waste my enery on given them to you.
Just think of what I just said, if that does not make sense.Peace and LOve Mrs.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2007,16:55) t8 You say…
Quote
Now just as Eve is not the Man in identity nor is Yeshua God by identity.Yes but we are not talking about God and his wife are we?
You say that Eve is not the man in identity, of course Eve is not Adam! Eve is not man either she is woman. But she is human.
But lets talk about Adam and his Son. Abel is not Adam but Abel is man.
Is he not? Therefore all that Adam is in Nature, Abel is also!
Yeshua is the Mongenes “Unique” Son of God who also is all the Father is in nature.
Humm The Son with His Fathers nature?Is that what you aresaying WJ?
I agree! But He is still not God. I believe that's our goal to have the nature of the Father. His commandments describe His nature.
Humm I agree with all what you SAID?!?!?!
Sure everything creates after their own kind. That's why the Father called Jesus God. But remember He also said “Your God”.
Jesus is our brethren which means that we are OR will be gods. But Not on the same order.
Human are the new “born” children of the Father Jesus being the first. Adam had that chance but failed the test. We are tested all day long BUT when we fall because Jesus knows our fallen flesh we are forgiven. Because in the spirit we do what's right!
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.It is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in the flesh.
However we are not to be in the flesh but in the SPIRIT, Rom. 8.
For the flesh cannot please God because it is NOT subject to the Father.Gees we are of two worlds the flesh and the Spirit. We are to grow in the Spirit until we overcome the flesh.
Have you ever seen someone who “GLOWS”? I have! It's like their spirit is trying to come out of their flesh
so they GLOW!
I believe it's called by the world their “ORA”.Luk 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
Luk 11:35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.
Luk 11:36 If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
The thing is the “person” who I saw didn't know he was glowing. He may have been an angel? Humm I never did see anyone like that again!
But anyway that's what I thought “his spirit trying to come out of his flesh”.
God bless all that believe,
Ken
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 04 2007,11:28) Quote Yes you believe correctly that Yeshua and the Father are different. But what about God and Jesus.
This is the whole point here. You seem to not be able to grasp (or you are just avoiding the issue) that God and Jesus are different.
The bible is full of verses that say God and Jesus. I am not talking about the verses that say the Father and Jesus.
GOD AND JESUS.
What about God and Jesus. Are they different?
In the NT, theos” is usually used in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So an authors ascription of theos to the Father and Jesus/Christ/Son/Jesus to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to many other NT statements about Yeshua), it’s simply a method of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
Wow. You need a law degree to understand this answer, Isaiah. Truly, I was looking forward to your response on this one. However, most folks will not be able to grasp what you are saying. And if you cannot talk about God and Jesus in a way that is simply understood…..how do you think common fishermen and villiage people understood them?Chuck Swindoll once said, “If it isn't complicated then it isn't God.” I believe somewhat the opposite is true. The Star was shown to shepards, the Son was shown to fishermen. The gospel was given to those who didn't have the law, and God used the model of a Father and Son to show us a common relationship.
Boy have we messed things up!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
