Who is this Jesus?

[Sultan]

Quote (Sammo @ Jan. 25 2006,14:56)

“In the beginning was the word”… – read Genesis 1 More here.

I found this an interesting read. The one area where I find contradiction to the Bible is”Christ was certainly God's spoken word in action – and therefore His representative on Earth – but that was all. He did not pre-exist as some sort of supernatural thing called “The Word.”.
If Christ did not pre-exist as the Word how do you explain Col.1:15-18” 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”
The text speaks of Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, and through Him all things being created.

[Bastian]

Sultan,

I do not have time to go into it now. I believe that the scriptures tell us that he, Jesus the Christ is the first of the New Creation.

I am still confused by what you believe. At first I thought we disagreed, then I thought we agreed, now I don't know.

You agreed that the word was not a he, if Jesus pre-existed as the word, what form did the word have? This is where I am becoming confused:p

later

p.s. I believe the logos is God's purpose, plan, action, etc. This became a human. It was not outside of God as an other entity.
ok bye. Gotstago

[WhatIsTrue]

Thanks Sultan.

You have answered most of my questions.  I just have one remaining:

You wrote:

Quote

The Word of Yahweh comes from Yahweh. So it is a part of Him. Do you disagree? If you do please explain to me where Yahwehs words come from.

Does this mean that you believe Yahshua is a “part” of Yahweh?

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 25 2006,17:42)

Thanks Sultan. You have answered most of my questions. I just have one remaining: You wrote: Quote The Word of Yahweh comes from Yahweh. So it is a part of Him. Do you disagree? If you do please explain to me where Yahwehs words come from. Does this mean that you believe Yahshua is a “part” of Yahweh?

I would like for you to answer my question also please. Where does Yahweh's word come from?

I'm not sure if I can answer your question. God is a spirit so when you say part it sounds like you mean maybe like an arm or something, but is that really possible?

Here's what Jesus says, “Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.” (John 8:42).

Jesus says He proceeded forth (Strongs #1831- to issue (literally or figuratively): – come-(forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad.) and that He came from (Strongs#1537-A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): – after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.)

[Sammo]

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,21:38)

Quote (Sammo @ Jan. 25 2006,14:56) “In the beginning was the word”… – read Genesis 1 More here. I found this an interesting read. The one area where I find contradiction to the Bible is”Christ was certainly God's spoken word in action – and therefore His representative on Earth – but that was all. He did not pre-exist as some sort of supernatural thing called “The Word.”. If Christ did not pre-exist as the Word how do you explain Col.1:15-18” 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” The text speaks of Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, and through Him all things being created.

Hi Sultan

There's a theme of a new creation in the New Testament, as opposed to the Genesis creation. When we're born again, we become part of this new creation – the church – which is what the passage in Colossians goes on to talk about specifically.

More here.

So far as Jesus being the creator in Genesis goes (I don't believe he was), there's an article here.

God bless
Sam

[Sultan]

Quote (Sammo @ Jan. 25 2006,18:48)

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,21:38) Quote (Sammo @ Jan. 25 2006,14:56) “In the beginning was the word”… – read Genesis 1 More here. I found this an interesting read. The one area where I find contradiction to the Bible is”Christ was certainly God's spoken word in action – and therefore His representative on Earth – but that was all. He did not pre-exist as some sort of supernatural thing called “The Word.”. If Christ did not pre-exist as the Word how do you explain Col.1:15-18” 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” The text speaks of Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, and through Him all things being created. Hi Sultan There's a theme of a new creation in the New Testament, as opposed to the Genesis creation. When we're born again, we become part of this new creation – the church – which is what the passage in Colossians goes on to talk about specifically. More here. So far as Jesus being the creator in Genesis goes (I don't believe he was), there's an article here. God bless Sam

Sammo,
No offence, but it seems you only believe what the Chistadelphians tell you,but not the Bible. I say this because you never expound, but only give links. In Colosians 1 there is no mention of “New Creation”. That is not the context. We are still livng in the Genesis creation that's why Jesus says, ” I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.(John 17:15), and Romans 8:21-23 says,”21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

We are waiting, the creation is waiting. It has not happened yet.

[Sammo]

Hiya Sultan

I can't commit a lot of time to this, so it makes sense to link to other people's articles – trust me, I've done the work myself as well.

The theme of a new creation in the NT is solid as rock, trust me – there were quotes about this is the first article I linked to.

So far as Colossians 1 goes, the point is that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation because he is the firstborn from the dead. He wasn't the firstborn of the dead until 30AD, which is obviously well after the Genesis creation. It would make no sense at all if it was talking the Genesis creation.

To reiterate, to be born again is to become part of the “new creation” in Jesus.

Quote

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor 5:17)

That's what Col 1 is talking about.

Going away for a long weekend – won't be round for a few days, but hope you have a great weekend.

God bless
Sam

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,

You wrote:

Quote

I would like for you to answer my question also please. Where does Yahweh's word come from?

My apologies, Sultan.  I did not realize that this was a pressing question for you.  My understanding:

YHWH's word comes from the Spirit of YHWH.

You wrote:

Quote

I'm not sure if I can answer your question. God is a spirit so when you say part it sounds like you mean maybe like an arm or something, but is that really possible?

I guess that I am just wondering if you see Yahshua as a completely separate person from YHWH, or if you believe that the two are the same being and that Yahshua is simply a different manifestation of the eternal YHWH.  Does that make better sense?

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 26 2006,09:41)

Sultan, You wrote: Quote I would like for you to answer my question also please. Where does Yahweh's word come from? My apologies, Sultan. I did not realize that this was a pressing question for you. My understanding: YHWH's word comes from the Spirit of YHWH. You wrote: Quote I'm not sure if I can answer your question. God is a spirit so when you say part it sounds like you mean maybe like an arm or something, but is that really possible? I guess that I am just wondering if you see Yahshua as a completely separate person from YHWH, or if you believe that the two are the same being and that Yahshua is simply a different manifestation of the eternal YHWH. Does that make better sense?

I read your link, and I have one question. What verse or verses say that Yahwehs Word comes from the Spirit of Yahweh?

Yes.The scriptures testify that Yashua was a seprerate person. Yahsua Himself refered to the Father.

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,

You wrote:

Quote

I read your link, and I have one question. What verse or verses say that Yahwehs Word comes from the Spirit of Yahweh?

Psalm 104:30 –> Genesis 1:2-3

(The link was not intended to answer the question.  It was merely for background information on the Spirit of YHWH.)

You wrote:

Quote

Yes.The scriptures testify that Yashua was a seprerate person. Yahsua Himself refered to the Father.

Thanks.  That answers all of my questions.  Your beliefs are a little confusing, but I think that I know what they are now.  You believe in two dieties, Father and Son, and and you believe that the Son was formed from the Father's Word before the beginning of creation and became flesh later on.

[Sultan]

Quote

and you believe that the Son was formed from the Father's Word before the beginning of creation and became flesh later on.

No sir.The scriptures say, “And the Word became 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. (John 1:14). The scriptures don't say that Jesus was formed from the Father's Word. It says the Word became flesh.

I never said I beleived in two dieties. Where did I say that? The problem is you are trying to catorgorize what I believe, instead of taking what I say at face value. My answers to your questions are plain and simple. There is no hidding meaning to interpret. Your question was

Quote

I guess that I am just wondering if you see Yahshua as a completely separate person from YHWH, or if you believe that the two are the same being and that Yahshua is simply a different manifestation of the eternal YHWH. Does that make better sense?

I answered yes they are seperate based on the fact that Jesus was on earth and YHWH was in heaven, but from that you interpreted two deities?
Let me help you understand. I simply believe the Bible in context. All of the other questions are just man's confusion (i.e seperate deitiey,persons,etc).
I will always answer your questions with the Bible. That is what I believe. The Word of God. The confusing part for you and others is that you want to see if I agree or disagree with you, but you cannot find out if I only give the Bible without the familiar man made doctrinal additions.
The question is not “what do I believe”, it's “what does the Bible say.” That is all I care about.

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,
You wrote:

Quote

Let me help you understand. I simply believe the Bible in context. All of the other questions are just man's confusion (i.e seperate deitiey,persons,etc). I will always answer your questions with the Bible. That is what I believe. The Word of God. The confusing part for you and others is that you want to see if I agree or disagree with you, but you cannot find out if I only give the Bible without the familiar man made doctrinal additions. The question is not “what do I believe”, it's “what does the Bible say.” That is all I care about.

Do you understand what you believe, (i.e. the scriptures), or do you just quote them?  If you understand scripture, then your understanding is what I wish to discuss.  That is the point of this discussion forum. (Ignore the rest of this post if you don't understand the scripture you quote.)

You wrote:

Quote

No sir.The scriptures say, “And the Word became 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. (John 1:14). The scriptures don't say that Jesus was formed from the Father's Word. It says the Word became flesh.

You also wrote:

Quote

The Bible says,”And the Word became 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. (John 1:14). Who is the only begotten of the Father? Yashua.

You also wrote:

Quote

Yashua says,”And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.. Sounds like He existed before that time to me.

How do you reconcile these three beliefs?  What was Yahshua formed from and when?

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 26 2006,17:33)

Sultan, You wrote: Quote Let me help you understand. I simply believe the Bible in context. All of the other questions are just man's confusion (i.e seperate deitiey,persons,etc). I will always answer your questions with the Bible. That is what I believe. The Word of God. The confusing part for you and others is that you want to see if I agree or disagree with you, but you cannot find out if I only give the Bible without the familiar man made doctrinal additions. The question is not “what do I believe”, it's “what does the Bible say.” That is all I care about. Do you understand what you believe, (i.e. the scriptures), or do you just quote them? If you understand scripture, then your understanding is what I wish to discuss. That is the point of this discussion forum. (Ignore the rest of this post if you don't understand the scripture you quote.) You wrote: Quote No sir.The scriptures say, “And the Word became 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. (John 1:14). The scriptures don't say that Jesus was formed from the Father's Word. It says the Word became flesh. You also wrote: Quote The Bible says,”And the Word became 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. (John 1:14). Who is the only begotten of the Father? Yashua. You also wrote: Quote Yashua says,”And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.. Sounds like He existed before that time to me. How do you reconcile these three beliefs? What was Yahshua formed from and when?

Whatistrue,
I guess the Bible is insufficient for you. You are desperate for man's interpretation. Here's the first thing you need to learn, knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Pet. 1:20-21)[/b]. I understand the scriptures to mean what they say and say what they mean (contexually). I don't need to add or take away. So if you ask me a question about God,Jesus,Holy Spirit,etc. I am going to give you the answer straight from God's Word. That is why there is so much division today. People are like the children of Israel, when YHWh came to speak personally to them they said,” We don't want to hear from God, but instead we want Moses. You accuse me of just quoting,but you fail to realize that because of TRUE UNDERSTANDING I realize that THE WORD BY ITSELF is SUFFICIENT.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 tim. 3:16-17)

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,

Thanks for your explanation.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

You are unable to, or will not, explain your faith in your own words.

Interesting, but I guess we will have to disagree on that principle.  Part of loving my Creator with all my mind, for me, involves understanding the Truth contained in His Word as much as possible.  I believe that I must be ready to give an account of my faith.

You have read the same scriptures that I have, but I am not sure what you understand from them.  Apparently, I am not going to find out either.

(By the way, you made reference to the children of Israel desiring a mediator between them and YHWH.  Read what YHWH thought of their actions here.)

May YHWH bless you in your searching.  

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 27 2006,09:58)

Sultan, Thanks for your explanation. If I understand you correctly, you are saying: You are unable to, or will not, explain your faith in your own words. Interesting, but I guess we will have to disagree on that principle. Part of loving my Creator with all my mind, for me, involves understanding the Truth contained in His Word as much as possible. I believe that I must be ready to give an account of my faith. You have read the same scriptures that I have, but I am not sure what you understand from them. Apparently, I am not going to find out either. (By the way, you made reference to the children of Israel desiring a mediator between them and YHWH. Read what YHWH thought of their actions here.) May YHWH bless you in your searching.

whatistrue,
You are right on. I have taught and preached the Word for years., and unfortunately I have not always held to what was true (trinity,etc), but it was when I began to search the scripture with an open mind, and allowed the Bible to say what it said, that I was set free by the truth. Understanding does not always mean additional explanation. Do trinitarians understand the Bible for what it truely says, I can state from prior experience No, but at that time of my ignorance I could give you pages and hours of commentarty on various verses. I have been humbled through my experiences by the vast knowlegde contained in the Word of God. Even though I did not give you commentary on my personal beliefs, the Bible itself had answers for all of your questions. Thank you for your additional revelation on the mediation of God. It was appreciated, God's prophets will speak His Word.

[Proclaimer]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

So when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word 'God' and 'Logos' in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.)

There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun does not have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it should be considered an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn't make the difference clear regarding identity and nature.

Is Theos in John 1:1c qualitative? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically. (Also, if The Logos was God himself, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.) So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word 'God' as qualitive.

An example would be when you call someone an angel. This means that we are saying you are like an angel. But if we say you are the Angel, then we are saying that you are an actual and specific angel even to the exclusion of others being that Angel.

Another example would be to say “John is the man,” which identifies John with a definite and particular person of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” To understand this further, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn't rule out that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil.

Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c.

This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate this passage, “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus? He is a divine being. He is a being with God's nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time.

But of course such knowledge is often trampled on by swine and those who wish to distort the truth. They usually think that the word 'theos' and 'elohim' always refer to YHWH. Then they take instances of their choosing to prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

[kenrch]

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2006,22:54)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV) b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon) c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV). John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”. So when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself. Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word 'God' and 'Logos' in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.) There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun does not have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it should be considered an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn't make the difference clear regarding identity and nature. Is Theos in John 1:1c qualitative? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically. (Also, if The Logos was God himself, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.) So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word 'God' as qualitive. An example would be when you call someone an angel. This means that we are saying you are like an angel. But if we say you are the Angel, then we are saying that you are an actual and specific angel even to the exclusion of others being that Angel. Another example would be to say “John is the man,” which identifies John with a definite and particular person of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” To understand this further, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn't rule out that Satan is the Devil because it is not saying that Judas was the actual Devil. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in John 1:1c. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate this passage, “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.” So what kind of being is Jesus? He is a divine being. He is a being with God's nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. But of course such knowledge is often trampled on by swine and those who wish to distort the truth. They usually think that the word 'theos' and 'elohim' always refer to YHWH. Then they take instances of their choosing to prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In the beginning was the Word
Somebody or something had to speak the Word. That would be of course our Father (Yahweh, Jehovah, God)

The Word that our Father spoke was with Him.
The word says that when married a woman and man become one. To our eyes they are two, but spiritually they are one. When they create a child that child is one of them and is with them.

The Word was God.
If your name is Smith then your child you created the one that is with you is a Smith also. If someone would call out Smith they would both answer because in this respect they are one. The Word was God. Brought forth from God and is God.

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word was in the beginning with God. The beginning of what? Creation
All things were created by the Word that God spoke. Without the Word nothing was made. God speaks things into existance.
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

[seekingtruth]

I just found this site recently and have found it very encouraging. I agree with most everything I've read from the author (having arrived at these conclusions over the last 25 years of seeking God). I wasn't aware there were others of like faith and belief. I have questioned at times if I wasn't off in left field somewhere, but the truth was there, I was only concerned that I was misinterpreting it somehow.

To the point that has prompted me to write (something I hardly ever done), I believe God gave me a revelation that in the beginning when he created our “reality” (and just prior to making space, planets, earth, and flesh) this being a new “reality” it brought forth a new manifestation of God (the Son begotten of the Father).

The Son is independent of the Father but is of the Father. Jesus has the nature of the Father and when we've seen him we've seen all that is possible to be seen by us “mortals” of God.

[Proclaimer]

Hi seekingtruth.

Good to meet you.
I agree with your words.

[david]

Was Jesus Divine on Earth?

Although I've tried to discuss this before, none of these questions received an actual responce.
The apostle John tells us that “the Word became flesh.” Not part flesh and part God, not merely clothed with flesh, but became or now was flesh.
Likewise the apostle Paul testifies that “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” If he had been part God and part human it could not have been said that he had been “made lower than the angels.” And the apostle Peter states that “Christ also died for sins once for all, . . . being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.”—John 1:14; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:18.

If Jesus Christ had been both God and man at the same time, would it have been necessary for him to pray to God for help, as he repeatedly did? “Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.” “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.”—Mark 14:36; Heb. 5:7-9.

If Jesus had been both God and man while on earth, how could he have been tested as are human creatures? Yet this he was. “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.” Only because he was truly human could he experience what humans experience and so become a sympathetic high priest.
Wrote Paul: “We have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.”—Hebrews 4:15.

Nor is that all. Jesus came as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” To this end he “gave himself as a ransom,” that is, a corresponding price, to redeem, to buy back what Adam had lost for the human race. Adam was not a God-man, he was not an incarnation. God’s justice required “life for life,” and so we read that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”—John 1:29; 1 Tim. 2:6; Deut. 19:21; 1 Cor. 15:22.

But do not Jesus’ miracles prove that he was a God-man? No, for Moses, Elijah, Elisha, the apostles Peter and Paul, and others performed miracles without being God-men. (Exodus 14:15-31; 1 Kings 18:18-40; 2 Kings 4:17-37; Acts 9:36-42; 19:11, 12) Like them, Jesus was a human who performed miracles with God-given power.—Luke 11:14-19.

[Author]

Posts