- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Many are still drunk today. Over 1 billion.
The Roman Catholic faith is part of the Babylonian mystery religion.
They drink the wine of the harlot church and don't know when to stop insisting that others be drunk like them.
Come out of her my people.
Do you believe in YHWH and his son?
But also believe that they are both part of a trinity?Then come out of her (the harlot church) lest you be judged along with her.
For us, there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi T8,
The Catholic Church is not
“MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev 17:5)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2013,03:06) WJ, you still harbor bias in your heart.
Pot calling the kettle black!I see you have not changed sir!
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2013,03:24) Come out of her my people. Do you believe in YHWH and his son?
But also believe that they are both part of a trinity?Then come out of her (the harlot church) lest you be judged along with her.
For us, there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
t8You should tell the whole story. You believe in one god the Father and one god the son.
Why play the caps game?
You say Jesus is “a god” like the JWs.
You worship god the Father and “a god” the Son.
That is Mystery Babylon!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2013,19:35) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2013,03:24) Come out of her my people. Do you believe in YHWH and his son?
But also believe that they are both part of a trinity?Then come out of her (the harlot church) lest you be judged along with her.
For us, there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
t8You should tell the whole story. You believe in one god the Father and one god the son.
Why play the caps game?
You say Jesus is “a god” like the JWs.
You worship god the Father and “a god” the Son.
That is Mystery Babylon!
WJ
WjYou still use the same tactics ,first you throw your wishful thinking then follows your opinion, and then with it your conclusion ,based on the two previous declarations ,
And you are having doubts of who is Babylon the great
any member of an organization should know is own,
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2013,07:27) Once again they only show their honesty. So if you think they are honest about what could be ambiguous, then why won't you believe them when they give clear unambiguous, honest and scholarly exegesis?
Keith,What did the NET scholars CONCLUDE about Genesis 1:26? That it supports the Trinitarian concept of one person in the Godhead saying “Let us make” to the other persons in the Godhead – as is traditionally claimed by Trinitarians? Or that it was God speaking to His angelic heavenly counsel? Which one?
And what did they CONCLUDE about Isaiah 9:6?
A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.
The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.”
My point is that the NET scholars clearly outline for us the PROBABILITY that this child will be a REPRESENTATIVE OF God – and even offer Psalm 45:6 as another example when a REPRESENTATIVE OF God is called by the title “god”. It is hard to find TRINITARIAN scholars and commentators who would even OFFER this other understanding, let alone support the PROBABILITY of it with other scriptures.
As for the part you zeroed in on, I don't deny the divinity of Jesus. Nor do I deny the deity of Jesus. My understanding is according to the scriptures, Keith. And the scriptures clearly identify Jesus as one of the many lesser gods that Jehovah is the Most High God OF.
After all, Jehovah couldn't possibly be the MOST HIGH God unless there existed less high gods. And since Jesus clearly says numerous times that Jehovah is not only our God, but also HIS OWN God, it is clear that he is not the MOST HIGH God, but one of the many gods Jehovah is the God OF.
There is one NET Note where they actually say that to understand this verse in a Trinitarian sense is just “wishful thinking”. I can't put my finger on that note right now, but will let you know when I find it again. But this discussion is not about whether the admittedly Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible occasionally display their Trinitarian bias. (They do, so problem solved.)
Instead, this discussion started out with Kathi listing 2 Peter 1:1 as a “Jesus is God proof text”. And since this verse could be translated two different ways, don't HONEST students of scripture owe it to themselves to take this statement in light of the other things Peter said/wrote in scripture?
So that's where Kathi and I were when you joined into the discussion. I had just listed Matthew 16:16 for her, as one of the many scriptures I intend to use as support that Peter surely knew the difference between his God Jehovah, and his Lord Jesus Christ. So Matthew 16:16 is clearly a point in MY favor.
As for 2 Peter 1:1,
1. Could we echo the NET scholars, and say that 2 Cor 4:4 is “one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Satan“? YES or NO? Either way, it would just go to show your bias that being called “god” or “deity” is some kind of proof of being God Almighty Himself – but ONLY in the case of Jesus, and not in the case of Satan or anyone else.
2. Shouldn't we consider 2 Peter 1:2 when making our decision about how to translate verse 1? YES or NO? Because verse 2 shows that Peter clearly understands the difference between “God” and “our Lord Jesus”.
Despite these bolded points above, I still gave Kathi half a point for 2 Peter 1:1, since technically it can be translated two different ways. That means that so far, the score in the debate of whether or not Peter knew the difference between God and Jesus is 1.5 for me (Matt 16:16 and half of 2 Pet 1:1), and .5 for Kathi (half of 2 Peter 1:1).
It is now Kathi's turn to list HER next scripture in which she believes Peter teaches that Jesus is God Almighty. Perhaps you could help her out with that assignment? Aside from your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:1, where else in scripture does Peter make it evident that Jesus is the Most High God?
Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2013,23:37) Kathy, You do realize that Godhead is an archaic term whose original definition was equivalent to what more modern translations use?
Kerwin,
Whatever…Kerwin. You should be more concerned about the Father and the Son both being in the Godly headship of the church., imo. The principal of Godhead is right there.Well then we better add in Melchizadek as one of our Gods too. Because Jesus will be a priest in his order, which places Mel pretty high up in “the principal of Godhead” – don't you think?
Mike,
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:13 are both grammatically phrased the same way.
2 Peter 1:1
http://interlinearbible.org/2_peter/1-1.htm
2 Peter 1:11
http://interlinearbible.org/2_peter/1-11.htmLet Peter be Peter…you don't have to interfere and twist what he wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You know and admit that Jesus is a theos and you know and admit that He is a Kyrios. The thing you deny is that He is your theos. What does Peter say…”Jesus is our Son” or “Jesus is our God and Savior?”Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2013,06:15) Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2013,23:10) Mike,
you said:Quote So yes, Jesus is the savior that my God Jehovah SENT into the world. But no, he is not my God. Only the Father holds that position for me. Can you admit that Peter calls the Son 'our God and Savior, Jesus Christ' in this verse:
2 Peter 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.
Right on Kathi!This is not the only place Jesus is referred to as our God.
The NET Bible
The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives.
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1
This is what more than 25 scholars says about it….
5tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4. Source
Blessings!
WJ
Thanks Keith…welcome back and I hope you are having a happy birthday!Kathi,
It is still your turn. I'm waiting for your next scriptural proof that Peter thought Jesus was God………. because your first one is iffy at best.
I have about a hundred of Peter's words that support MY understanding. But it's only fair I let you take your turn in order, right?
So what is your next scripture?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2013,11:52) Let Peter be Peter…you don't have to interfere and twist what he wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Hmmmm………….If the words of 2 Peter 1:1 could be faithfully translated into English two different ways – only one of which would have Peter calling Jesus “our god”, and even then it wouldn't necessarily mean “our GOD” – then don't we owe it to ourselves to see what else Peter wrote, so those other words could shed some light on what he meant in 2 Peter 1:1?
For crying out loud, in the VERY NEXT words he writes, he makes it clear that he knows the difference between “God” and “Jesus”, right? Don't those words count for anything, Kathi?
That's why we are looking at ALL the words Peter wrote. You're still up, and Keith is welcome to help you out.
Please post your next words of Peter in which you believe he thinks Jesus is “God”.
Mike,
We already know that Jesus is theos. We also know the Father is theos. Peter does too. Why shall I spend time proving what we already know?
Also, 2 Peter 1:1 cannot faithfully be translated in two ways.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2013,12:47) Well then we better add in Melchizadek as one of our Gods too. Because Jesus will be a priest in his order, which places Mel pretty high up in “the principal of Godhead” – don't you think?
Jesus was a priest in the same order as Melchizadek not a God in the same order as Melchizadek. You are just trying to cause confusion, Mike.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2013,12:42) Jesus was a priest in the same order as Melchizadek not a God in the same order as Melchizadek. You are just trying to cause confusion, Mike.
Jesus IS a priest of God in the order of Melchizadek, Kathi.If the later priest can BE the Godhead, then why not the earlier priest, in whose order Jesus serves?
I think the “confusion” begins when people make the asinine claim that a priest OF God/Godhead can BE the very God/Godhead he is the priest OF.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2013,12:40) Also, 2 Peter 1:1 cannot faithfully be translated in two ways.
Sure it can.Are you ready to post your second scripture? Or are you ready to admit that your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:1 is ALL YOU HAVE in the way of pretending that Peter confused Jesus with “God”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
