- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (hybrid @ Mar. 07 2006,23:26) cubes, paul and peter clearly did not refer to jesus here as “a” god… but their great god. (mine too)
Titus 2:13-15
13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.15 These, then, are the things you should teach.
NIV2 Peter 1:1
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
NIVthinking about jesus as a lesser god than the father has also pagan parallelism (in greek mythology)
also the hundred and so usage of the word theos in NT refers to deity (supreme being), with the exception in cor when it was use to refer to satan as the god of this world.
so i think it is also common sense that the word god refer to jesus was within the general rule of the usage of the word in the whole NT.
if you want to believe that the usage of god that refer to jesus was the exception to the rule, that's your call…
.
To hybrid,None of these verses say that Jesus is YHWH. They say that he is elohim/theos. The terms elohim and theos are also applied to men and angel.
So given your argument are we to assume that we are the great God too. After all the legs that your current argument is standing on is that Jesus is called both elohim and theos.
But I will show you a better way.
Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”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 (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 08 2006,21:53) I also would like to ask you if you, like t8, hold to the belief that Yahshua is one of the lords or gods of 1 Cor 8:5?
To Is 1:18,And which lord is Jesus, he is the LORD. And which god is the Father, he is the God and Father.
It doesn't matter how much you try and find fault with us, the fact remains that Paul taught in 1 Cor 8, there is one God the Father, and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
You can say t8 said this and cubes says that. You can say that we are polytheist or we are whatever. But all your accusations cannot hide the fact that “there is one God the Father, and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ”. You cannot change that truth Is 1:18. Either accept it or reject it. Trying to pin something on us is never going to change one iota of this truth.
There is one God the Father, and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi Sultan,
I transfered to this thread I thought we might be getting off the subject of the trinty too much. I think “who was Jesus” fits better.
Quote (kenrch @ Mar. 13 2006,21:54)
It was not christ that did the miracles, but the Father working through Him. You know that. You just want to argue, I'm disappointed.Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, “THE SON OF MAN CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF”, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
So you are saying the scriptures are false? Address the scriptures and not me. I gave you two. Please address them are they fasle? Are you saying God was not in Christ as the scripture says? Are you saying power did not go out of Christ to heal the woman with the issue of blood?
————–
Of course not! I'm saying that Jesus didn't have the power within Himself, just as He said:
Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself”, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.I'm saying that God (if “we” had faith 1Cor.12:9) could use us the same way He used Jesus. You do believe that your sins are forgiven. Don't you? Of course you do. Then if “our ” sins are forgiven then we have “no sin” just as Jesus. We sin again but we don't have too. And if we should “slip, not hit the mark” then we are forgiven.
Check out the faith of the centurian in Matt. 8:8-10.If we had faith to move a mountian then we could do anything through the Father working in us.
Mat 17:20 He said to them, “Because of your unbelief. For most certainly I tell you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.
Someone once told me that kind of faith was a gift.
1Co 12:9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit;Jesus did say greater works would we do.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.1) We are forgiven of our sin now and future. But of course you can't deliberately break the commandments any of them.
And “we” must have faith to believe that we are forgiven and like Jesus “flesh with no sin”. Jesus is our Lord but He is also our breathern.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?We sin but our sin is not recorded because it is covered in the blood of Jesus.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
We are found innocent of our sin because of Jesus if Jesus lives in us and if Jesus lives in us then the father can use us just as He used Jesus when He was on earth.The enemy wants us to doubt. Don't believe what Jesus said: “Oh that was back then before there were doctors, all that was just for the first centry christian apostles”.
Faith as the centurain, that's what I need!
Peace bro.
kenrch
Quote (kenrch @ Mar. 14 2006,18:41) Hi Sultan, I transfered to this thread I thought we might be getting off the subject of the trinty too much. I think “who was Jesus” fits better.
Quote (kenrch @ Mar. 13 2006,21:54)
It was not christ that did the miracles, but the Father working through Him. You know that. You just want to argue, I'm disappointed.Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, “THE SON OF MAN CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF”, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
So you are saying the scriptures are false? Address the scriptures and not me. I gave you two. Please address them are they fasle? Are you saying God was not in Christ as the scripture says? Are you saying power did not go out of Christ to heal the woman with the issue of blood?
————–
Of course not! I'm saying that Jesus didn't have the power within Himself, just as He said:
Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself”, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.I'm saying that God (if “we” had faith 1Cor.12:9) could use us the same way He used Jesus. You do believe that your sins are forgiven. Don't you? Of course you do. Then if “our ” sins are forgiven then we have “no sin” just as Jesus. We sin again but we don't have too. And if we should “slip, not hit the mark” then we are forgiven.
Check out the faith of the centurian in Matt. 8:8-10.If we had faith to move a mountian then we could do anything through the Father working in us.
Mat 17:20 He said to them, “Because of your unbelief. For most certainly I tell you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.
Someone once told me that kind of faith was a gift.
1Co 12:9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit;Jesus did say greater works would we do.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.1) We are forgiven of our sin now and future. But of course you can't deliberately break the commandments any of them.
And “we” must have faith to believe that we are forgiven and like Jesus “flesh with no sin”. Jesus is our Lord but He is also our breathern.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?We sin but our sin is not recorded because it is covered in the blood of Jesus.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
We are found innocent of our sin because of Jesus if Jesus lives in us and if Jesus lives in us then the father can use us just as He used Jesus when He was on earth.The enemy wants us to doubt. Don't believe what Jesus said: “Oh that was back then before there were doctors, all that was just for the first centry christian apostles”.
Faith as the centurain, that's what I need!
Peace bro.
kenrch
I agree 100%.The name 'jesus' is another modern name for 'nimrod and zeus' do an etymology research on that name you will find that it stems from the catholic ' jesuit priests' of ' IHS' symbol for 'nimrod'.
Hi,
Jesus Christ is Lord. He is in charge of his body as the head. He is the Son of God and the messiah sent by God, of which he had no sharing of being, from heaven.Quote (Jamie @ Mar. 20 2006,08:05) The name 'jesus' is another modern name for 'nimrod and zeus' do an etymology research on that name you will find that it stems from the catholic ' jesuit priests' of ' IHS' symbol for 'nimrod'.
That's interesting I always thought the name derived from the Hebrew for Joshua which means 'YHWH is Savior'Yup – Yashua in the Hebrew – translated Joshua in the OT and Jesus in the NT
ACTS 7:45
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;Hi,
“adam” 120 from an unused word = Man, mankind
Translated “man” [364 times] ,Men [120], man's [20] human [19] etcDeut 8.3
“man[120]does not live by bread alone”
Lk 4.4
“Man[444]shall not live on bread alone”
Lk 524
“the Son of man[444]has authority on earth”444 “anthropos” is used for evry example of “Son of Man”
Was Jesus a son of Adam?
Hi,
Christ Jesus was a being, the Logos or Son of God, who partook of flesh and was then filled with the fulness of Deity in the Spirit of God. He can thus be spoken of in various ways.He can be spoken of “according to the flesh”
2Cor 5.14f
“For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all therefore all died;and he died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognise no man according to the flesh; even though once we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature..”Heb 5.7f
“In the days of his flesh, when he offered up prayers and supplications wiith loud crying and tears to Him who was able to save him from death, and who was heard because of his piety, although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered..”
But he was greater than a man of flesh.1Peter 1.1f
“..the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son,
who was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh,
who was declared with power to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness,
Jesus Christ, our Lord'Hi!
I hope that I am not being contrary to the rules of this Forum by offering this temporary Link to a Streaming Audio teaching.
It is a translated teaching (D. Sikkens 51min36s) which originated from the VOX International Cassette Service.Duurt Sikkens is a pastor of a local congregation in Holland.
When you Click on the Link below, (or, copy/paste into your WebBrowser), the Windows Media Player will connect to the Audio Stream automatically.
mms://70.25.30.96:8090/Who_Is_Jesus
I apologize in advance for the audio quality.
Hi Is 1.18,
When you ask
“What is your Christology”
it is a strange question.If we are in Christ then we do not talk of him as someone out there, some distant object or being.
We are talking about the head of our own being.
His is the mind we share and the heart and hands we are involved with every day.Does the branch discuss the vine or a finger the head of that body?
Surely in him, in God, we live and move and have our being?
Quote (t8 @ April 19 2003,17:05) Now Christ claimed a lot of things, such as being the Son of God and he claimed that he existed before Abraham.
Hello t8, Thank you for drawing to my attention the link relating to discussion on the nature of Christ. Some very thought provoking considerations covered there. Just reading through one of your posts, the comment about Christ claiming to exist before Abraham caught my attention. Some time back, I was involved with a discussion, via email, with another chap of Trinitarian persuasion who was making similar comments based on what we read in John 8:56-58. In taking up his question, I did some follow up research and responded to him as per below item.Given that you seem to be a very astute thinker (no flattery intended) from the way I read your posts, your comments on this item will be appreciated. It was several months ago that I sent this item to my email correspondent, and I still await his refutation of the findings presented.
Perhaps, you can either correct my thinking or help reinforce it.
In His love
Elidad.
WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE SAID 'I AM?' – A consideration of John 8:58
In John 8:58, the english words 'I AM' are translated from the Greek words “egw eimi”.
In John's Gospel these two greek words “egw eimi” appear alone in the context, nine separate times. Related references in the KJV are John 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 9:9, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6 and 18:8.
If you care to check out each of these references, it will be found that the greek words in question, have been translated as “I am he” in John 8:24, 8:28, 9:9, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6 and 18:8. John 6:20 is translated as “It is I”
In John 8:58, our reference under question, it has been translated as “I AM”. With the exception of John 9:9, the one speaking in each case is Jesus. In John 9:9, it was the blind man healed at the pool of Siloam
Let us consider each of these useages, all translated from the same greek words “egw eimi”.
In John 6:20, 9:9, 18:5, 18:6 and 18:8 we find that the words are used to identify the one speaking, to others. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus was expressing the Divine name or claiming to be God. Nor did the former blind man, for that matter.
Jesus uses the words “I am” in John 13:19 to inform His disciples, during the time of the last supper, that He was the one of whom Scriptures spoke, undoubtedly having Psalm 41:9 in mind (compare with John 13:18).
What then of John 8:24, 8:28 and 8:58? How are the words used in these remaining three references? So far, it will noted, if the references have been checked in the KJV, the translators added “he” in italics to “I am”, to make it read as “I am he”.
“He” is not in the Greek, but it is clearly required by the context.
Bearing this in mind, let us follow the useage through John 8. From verse 12 we note Jesus stating “I am the light of the world” Further on in verses 16 and 18 he makes the claim that He has been sent by the Father (the only true God of John 17:1-3) A claim that sets him apart quite distinctly from God – If He was 'sent”, He can't be both 'the sender' and 'the one sent'. In verse 23, Jesus again draws attention to the fact that He is 'from above', making a contrast between the source of his authority and that of those who questioned Him. In both verse 24 and 28, the translators have seen fit to add the word “he” to “I am” because it adds sense to the conversation. Neither place have been used to promote the idea that Jesus is saying He is the “I AM”, or God.
However, when we come to verse 58, still a part of the very same convesation, the translators in their wisdom, have decided to drop the word “he” from the statement and have it appear as only “I AM” when there is absolutely nothing in the Greek text, to indicate it should be treated any different to the other two verses; and the other references drawn to notice above.
Why have the translators failed to retain consistency of translation, showing it as “I am” in verse 58, but in all other case as “I am he”. No Bible scholar that I am aware of, disputes that Jesus used identical words in each case. Yet, it is only in John 8:58 that we are lead to understand that it should be applied differently. Why is this?
I suspect that it is because the understanding of John 8:58 has been influenced by a misunderstanding of what the Jews said to Jesus, in the preceding verse; verse 57. The comment made by the Jews indicates they weren't listening to what Jesus said in verse 56, or didn't hear him properly. The Jews thought He said that He had seen Abraham and therefore jumped to the conclusion that He was saying, “Before Abraham He was/existed”
Careful reading of the text reveals that Jesus did not say He had seen Abraham, but rather “Abraham rejoiced to see His day”. It was a case of Abraham seeing Jesus, and not Jesus seeing Abraham. Instead of reinforcing the Jews understanding by saying, “before Abraham was I was/existed” he said, “Before Abrahamd was I am (he)”. If the translators had of been consistent and added “he” to the statement like they have done in all other cases examined, there would be no case for saying it was a reference to the Divine name as used in Exodus 3:14
Some translations have shown John 8:58 with “I am” capitalised i.e. “I AM”. There is no authority, that I can make out, in the original text for translating the greek words with capital letters. Such happening reflects the bias or preconceived ideas of those involved with the translations.
It may well be asked, how could Abraham “rejoice to see His (Jesus') day”? What exactly was it that Abraham saw? Most are aware that Jesus came in fulfilment of promises made to Abraham. Jesus was the “seed” through whom all nations would be blessed” Genesis 22:18, compare with Galatians 3-16 and Luke 1:72-73.
As a result of such promises given to Abraham, which he undoubtedly understood, he saw, through the eye of faith, the day when Christ would come to redeem mankind. He also saw with the eye of faith, a time beyond this, when Christ would return to establish Abraham and his seed in the land of promise. Therefore, as we read through John Chapter 8, what we find is Jesus confirming the fact that he was the one to come, the promised one, the Messiah. He was simply saying the He was the “He” of the Abrahamic promises and if you like, all Old Testament prophecies.
By reading John Chapter 8, it can also be gathered that the Jews placed great importance on their lineage with Abraham. They saw this as being the credential for being “in the right church” so to speak. However, by responding to the Jews the way He did, Jesus down played their connection with Abraham, and endeavoured to show them that the way to God was through Him.
In conclusion, I ask, if John 8:58 is to be understood the way conventional understanding would have us believe, may I ask on what authority was such understanding established, given that none of the other uses of the same greek words, as mentioned above, have been used in this way? Why has consistency not been applied throughout?
In the search of understanding – Proverbs 4:5-7
Thanks Elidad.
Like yourself I do not hold the the view that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH (I AM). But I do see it as saying 'I exist(ed)'.
I = ego {eg-o'} – I, me, my
am = eimi {i-mee'} – to be, to exist, to happen, to be presentWe also know that Jesus is the Word who became flesh and the Word was WITH God in the begiining.
Couple that with a number of scriptures that talk about God creating the universe through him and you have a strong case for Jesus being the firstborn of/over all creation, not just in status, but literally too.
For a fuller explanation you may want to read the following page:
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htmFeel free to question anything said on that page and this discussion.
Thx
Quote (Elidad @ July 29 2006,03:07) WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE SAID 'I AM?'
greetings Elidad.
In answer to your question, may I suggest the following article:Quote (Adam Pastor @ July 30 2006,00:26) Quote (Elidad @ July 29 2006,03:07) WHAT DID JESUS MEAN WHEN HE SAID 'I AM?'
greetings Elidad.
In answer to your question, may I suggest the following article:
Hello Adam, Thank you for your response. Have just read through Buzzard's paper that you referred to. It is not one that I had read before. I see that his comments on John 8:58 tend to confirm the view that I have formed, although he has added some slightly different apsects with his approach. Actually, that entire paper is quite informative.Regards
ElidadQuote (t8 @ July 29 2006,03:37) Thanks Elidad. Like yourself I do not hold the the view that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH (I AM). But I do see it as saying 'I exist(ed)'.
I = ego {eg-o'} – I, me, my
am = eimi {i-mee'} – to be, to exist, to happen, to be presentWe also know that Jesus is the Word who became flesh and the Word was WITH God in the begiining.
Couple that with a number of scriptures that talk about God creating the universe through him and you have a strong case for Jesus being the firstborn of/over all creation, not just in status, but literally too.
For a fuller explanation you may want to read the following page:
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htmFeel free to question anything said on that page and this discussion.
Thx
Hi t8, Have just read over the article that you have drawn to attention, but really question whether we are meant to understand that Jesus was actually in heaven before He was born of Mary.In the Old Testament the Manna is spoken of as being bread from heaven. Are we to understand from this that the bread was in heaven before it came down to earth, or that its origin was from heaven? Heaven was its source. If God, being in heaven, is the initiating factor, then it can rightfully be understood that it came from heaven. Otherwise, we have to believe that it wafted across space and time, before it was found by the children of Israel. Surely God, by means of His spirit, initiated activity on earth, that produced the result, rather than transport it from heaven.
The same with Jesus. He originated in the Father's mind. A Father who is in heaven. Hence, He to, in effect, came from heaven. Jesus knew his origin and constantly layed claim to the fact.
I have a son in Egypt. Regularly he intiates through me, activities that get carried out here in Australia. What came from Egypt the activity or the thought? Yet, it is sometimes hard to disassociate the activity from the thought. So yes, I could say that the activity I am doing came from Egypt. Do you follow? Some may ask, what do I mean came from Egypt. Then I would clarify. But in a culture where it was common to speak of things as coming from heaven, there was no need to explain. It was commonly understood, that the source was being referred to. Go check with a concordance the term “from heaven” and you may gather more where I am coming from.
Take the case of John the Baptist as another way of illustrating the point. In John 1:6 we read that John the Baptist was “sent from God”. Do we reason from this that John had to be with God before he could be “sent from God”? If I was sent from Australia, I would have to be in Australia, so it could be argued that John was with God before he was sent, yet nobody tries to do that. Yet, when it comes to Jesus making a point about coming from heaven, we have to put him back in heaven, literally. Why?
Take also the case of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 1:6. It states here that before Jeremiah was born, God knew him and sanctified him and ordained him as a prophet. Does this mean that Jeremiah pre-existed? If we want to read it very literally, then that is what it implies. Would you reason from this that Jeremiah existed literally, before he existed, or understand it to mean that in God's mind he existed?
T8 I could add a lot more to this, but I hope I have said enough to show why I belive there is room for rethinking this matter of where Jesus was before he was born of Mary. Another thing we have to be aware of, I gain from the Apostle Paul, is that we have to be very mindful that in Scripture, God speaks of many things, that aren't as though they are. Calling things that do not exist as though they did (Romans 4:17). Paul using Abraham's situation as a case in point. And so it is with God's son. From God's point of view, he has always existed. From yours and my point of view, he existed after His birth by Mary.
Enough from me. Over to you for comment and perhaps to tell me that my thinking is off the planet
Elidad
Hi Elidad
Blessings, here are a few thoughts I had reading your last post.
Quote
Take the case of John the Baptist as another way of illustrating the point. In John 1:6 we read that John the Baptist was “sent from God”. Do we reason from this that John had to be with God before he could be “sent from God”? If I was sent from Australia, I would have to be in Australia, so it could be argued that John was with God before he was sent, yet nobody tries to do that. Yet, when it comes to Jesus making a point about coming from heaven, we have to put him back in heaven, literally. Why?Take also the case of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 1:6. It states here that before Jeremiah was born, God knew him and sanctified him and ordained him as a prophet. Does this mean that Jeremiah pre-existed? If we want to read it very literally, then that is what it implies. Would you reason from this that Jeremiah existed literally, before he existed, or understand it to mean that in God's mind he existed?
Your arguement is interesting but it does not account for John 17:5 for example where Jesus, speaking directly in prayer to his Father says 'glorifiy me with thine own self with the glory I had with you before the world was'.
In which Jesus is very strongly implying an awareness and memory of a period he refers to as before the world was. As such it would appear he had an existence in order to be able to say this.Now it is true that Jeremiah who was know before birth and chosen – by God, had no awareness of such until the moment God declared it to him, even as John the Baptist being sent from God, does not directly mean he was with God, but in fact he never claimed to be with God, only to have been sent from Him.
John was a messenger, and as such received a message from God in order to deliver it to the people. So God sent the message down to John by His Spirit, and John was then sent to deliver it to Israel.
Even as God declared He would do from the time of Moses onwards.As far as I am aware no OT prophet claimed to be 'THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE', none said 'I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE' and none publically prayed for God to glorify them as He had done previously – namely before the foundation of the world.
IMHO
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
