- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
David,
you said:Quote Well, I think it's pointless discussing a scripture that has proskyneo in it and could be translated in a number of ways. It proves nothing, except that that translation team wanted to show Jesus being worshipped. Is it against the will of Jehovah for another god to be given proskuneó??
Quote (david @ May 06 2013,16:49) Quote (Lightenup @ May 07 2013,05:37) Quote (david @ May 06 2013,01:12) Quote Also please tell me whats stopping you from believeing Jesus is the eternal Son, the eternal expressed image that is expressed/radiated from the Father, who is indeed The Almightly Father There are about 700 things. I do see the 300 things that make some believe in the trinity. But I also see the 700 things that I believe teach otherwise. We can go through them. They have been discussed endlessly on this forum.
700, really?? You have not one that is indisputable.
Obviously, as has been demonstrated on this forum countless times, I will dispute your trinity scriptures and you will dispute my non-trinity scriptures.I just feel their are way way more scriptures that point against, than for.
I also think if Gods name was restored to most bibles, it becomes much less confusing and easier to differentiate between the father and son.
The eternal son is what I want you to disprove since you say you can, you don't necessarily have to talk about the trinity or non-trinity to prove or disprove the eternal existence of the Son. Why do people automatically associate the eternal existence of the Son with the trinity? The Son is just one person.Quote I also think if Gods name was restored to most bibles, it becomes much less confusing and easier to differentiate between the father and son. I think that if Jehovah was kept in the translations where it is meant, you would find that the Son is clearly also called Jehovah.
For instance:
1 Cor 6:8
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
To us, ours is one God The Father, for all things are from him and we are in him, and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah, for all things are by him, and we are also in his hand.and here:
Phil 2
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
10That in The Name of Yeshua, every knee shall bow, which is in Heaven and in The Earth and which is under The Earth, 11And every tongue shall confess that Yeshua The Messiah is THE LORD JEHOVAH to the glory of God his Father.and here:
1 Cor
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit of God and says, “Yeshua is damned”, neither can a man say, “Yeshua is THE LORD JEHOVAH”, except by The Spirit of Holiness.Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,20:38) Mike,
Is it against the will of Jehovah to give obeisance to another god? Yes or no?
This is nothing but more tweaking, Kathi. Did men bow to angels in the OT? Did they bow to angels they later identified as gods? YES to both.What you are trying (UNSUCCESSFULLY) to do is say: Jesus is called a god in scripture, and people bowed to the MAN Jesus to show reverence…………. therefore Jesus must be the ALMIGHTY God for this to be okay.
It's nonsense. Deal with the points I've made, okay?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,20:53) The eternal son is what I want you to disprove…………….
Shouldn't you first PROVE there IS such a thing as an “eternal son”?
Doesn't the word “son”, in and of itself, imply a BEGINNING? It should. And if it doesn't in your mind, because your mind is polluted with your own personal WISHES of what Jesus should be, then the scriptures that speak of his beginning should suffice.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2013,22:00) Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,20:38) Mike,
Is it against the will of Jehovah to give obeisance to another god? Yes or no?
This is nothing but more tweaking, Kathi. Did men bow to angels in the OT? Did they bow to angels they later identified as gods? YES to both.What you are trying (UNSUCCESSFULLY) to do is say: Jesus is called a god in scripture, and people bowed to the MAN Jesus to show reverence…………. therefore Jesus must be the ALMIGHTY God for this to be okay.
It's nonsense. Deal with the points I've made, okay?
Mike,
Is it ok to proskuneó angels?Were the disciples in Luke 24 merely proskuneó-ing Jesus as revering Him as a mere man or as their mighty theos and Lord?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2013,22:03) Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,20:53) The eternal son is what I want you to disprove…………….
Shouldn't you first PROVE there IS such a thing as an “eternal son”?Doesn't the word “son”, in and of itself, imply a BEGINNING? It should. And if it doesn't in your mind, because your mind is polluted with your own personal WISHES of what Jesus should be, then the scriptures that speak of his beginning should suffice.
He was the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. Simple!Quote (Lightenup @ May 07 2013,13:40) David,
you said:Quote Well, I think it's pointless discussing a scripture that has proskyneo in it and could be translated in a number of ways. It proves nothing, except that that translation team wanted to show Jesus being worshipped. Is it against the will of Jehovah for another god to be given proskuneó??
The problem is, your question isn't very specific. When you use “proskyneo,” here, what are you referring to? It can mean a few things.Quote (Lightenup @ May 07 2013,13:53) Quote (david @ May 06 2013,16:49) Quote (Lightenup @ May 07 2013,05:37) Quote (david @ May 06 2013,01:12) Quote Also please tell me whats stopping you from believeing Jesus is the eternal Son, the eternal expressed image that is expressed/radiated from the Father, who is indeed The Almightly Father There are about 700 things. I do see the 300 things that make some believe in the trinity. But I also see the 700 things that I believe teach otherwise. We can go through them. They have been discussed endlessly on this forum.
700, really?? You have not one that is indisputable.
Obviously, as has been demonstrated on this forum countless times, I will dispute your trinity scriptures and you will dispute my non-trinity scriptures.I just feel their are way way more scriptures that point against, than for.
I also think if Gods name was restored to most bibles, it becomes much less confusing and easier to differentiate between the father and son.
The eternal son is what I want you to disprove since you say you can, you don't necessarily have to talk about the trinity or non-trinity to prove or disprove the eternal existence of the Son. Why do people automatically associate the eternal existence of the Son with the trinity? The Son is just one person.Quote I also think if Gods name was restored to most bibles, it becomes much less confusing and easier to differentiate between the father and son. I think that if Jehovah was kept in the translations where it is meant, you would find that the Son is clearly also called Jehovah.
For instance:
1 Cor 6:8
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
To us, ours is one God The Father, for all things are from him and we are in him, and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah, for all things are by him, and we are also in his hand.and here:
Phil 2
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
10That in The Name of Yeshua, every knee shall bow, which is in Heaven and in The Earth and which is under The Earth, 11And every tongue shall confess that Yeshua The Messiah is THE LORD JEHOVAH to the glory of God his Father.and here:
1 Cor
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit of God and says, “Yeshua is damned”, neither can a man say, “Yeshua is THE LORD JEHOVAH”, except by The Spirit of Holiness.Quote The eternal son is what I want you to disprove since you say you can, you don't necessarily have to talk about the trinity or non-trinity to prove or disprove the eternal existence of the Son. Why do people automatically associate the eternal existence of the Son with the trinity? The Son is just one person. People automatically associate the two, because some do associate the two, and perhaps this is what Catholics do, and there are a lot of Catholics. I think this is an error. So often mixing up the catholic trinity with the many other variants. Really hard to keep track.
If you want to talk about Jesus creation, of course we can. I'm certain both you and I have had this conversation on her at least a dozen times before with other people, but maybe not with each other. I almost feel like just directing you to one of many threads that discusses this. You already know everything I will say.
As for the scriptures you quoted here, why do you think “Jehovah” belongs in those scriptures? Is it because the word “lord” appears in those verses?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,19:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2013,22:03) Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,20:53) The eternal son is what I want you to disprove…………….
Shouldn't you first PROVE there IS such a thing as an “eternal son”?Doesn't the word “son”, in and of itself, imply a BEGINNING? It should. And if it doesn't in your mind, because your mind is polluted with your own personal WISHES of what Jesus should be, then the scriptures that speak of his beginning should suffice.
He was the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. Simple!
Hi LU,Jesus Christ died.
Peace sister.
Abe,
Jesus' flesh died but His spirit continued to live. Do you believe that your spirit will die with your body when it is your time to die or will your spirit continue to live elsewhere?David, I was wondering if you would be interested in having a thread in the discussion area where we can discuss these things one on one. It would be easier to keep an uninterrupted flow. I am not interested in a formal debate, just a continuous conversation that comes and goes as it may. What do you think? I would like to address your recent comments there…ok?
Hi LU,
Sure. I'm not super fond of the discussions where if you don't answer questions, you get a tile.
What actually would we be discussing?
Proskyneo?
What you said about the son being called Jehovah?Also, LU, at some point I want to have a much more in depth conversation about Christmas, and where you think it originated. Found your ideas fascinating enough to want to look at that more. I wish what you said about it was somewhat simplified. Anyway, another time.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,21:24) Mike,
Is it ok to proskuneó angels?
It was done many times in scripture, right? And I don't remember people like Daniel being admonished, or killed, because they bowed down before an angel out of reverence and awe. They also bowed before kings and lords of the land in those days, right?The one angel in Rev told John not to do it – but that is the only case of this happening. (It's noteworthy that this angel who told John to get up off his knees said, ” I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!” It's easy to see how even this angel distinguished Jesus from the one he called “God”.)
Quote (Lightenup @ May 06 2013,21:25) He was the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. Simple!
Not so simple if you understand that Jesus IS NOW the eternal life who WAS with the Father in the beginning.I realize that Jesus WAS with the Father in the beginning. He was created as the FIRST of God's works, remember? So of course he was with God in the beginning.
And I also realize that just as Jesus lives BECAUSE OF the Father, we can live because of him. Just as the Father has eternal life in Him, so He has GRANTED the Son to also have eternal life in him. I learned these things from Jesus himself, Kathi.
So I agree that Jesus can now be poetically called “The Eternal Life” – even though the being of Jesus is not literally “eternal life” itself. And I agree that Jesus was with his and our God in the beginning.
But I don't see how any of that says Jesus has existed from eternity.
Quote (david @ May 08 2013,16:26) I'm not super fond of the discussions where if you don't answer questions, you get a tile.
Why? Are you planning on avoiding her questions?Quote (david @ May 08 2013,17:26) Hi LU, Sure. I'm not super fond of the discussions where if you don't answer questions, you get a tile.
What actually would we be discussing?
Proskyneo?
What you said about the son being called Jehovah?
David,
I suggested we discuss things in the discussion area, not the hot seat. The hot seat is where you get a tile for not answering. I wouldn't threaten you with a tile for not answering anyway even if we were discussing in the 'hot seat.' Do not worry, you could come and go as you normally do. It would just be nice to have a place that had no distractions from all the other two cents that happen in every other thread. We could discuss anything we felt led to discuss.What do you say?
Mike,
you saidQuote
I realize that Jesus WAS with the Father in the beginning. He was created as the FIRST of God's works, remember?I remember that you are trying to force that idea but even the NET translators do not agree that He was created who prefer that word 'created' in Prov 8:22…remember??
Mike,
you saidQuote And I also realize that just as Jesus lives BECAUSE OF the Father, we can live because of him. Just as the Father has eternal life in Him, so He has GRANTED the Son to also have eternal life in him. I learned these things from Jesus himself, Kathi. Did it say that He granted the Son to have 'eternal' life or just 'life?' The Son as the Shoot of David was granted life and was raised to eternal life. The Root always had life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
