Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1
Good start but a bit broad.
I was thinking more along the lines of saying what the Father is and outlining exegeted passages, same with son and spirit - with explanations, theological history and commentary as needed to fill in the gaps. I have not read the entire thread but in 57 pages would expect a lot of good questions have been brought out as well as many good answers. Perhaps an outline of the questions with responses would help.
I was thinking more along the lines of saying what the Father is and outlining exegeted passages, same with son and spirit - with explanations, theological history and commentary as needed to fill in the gaps. I have not read the entire thread but in 57 pages would expect a lot of good questions have been brought out as well as many good answers. Perhaps an outline of the questions with responses would help.
1
If people are claiming God the son as their only source that can be fine for the sheep children. It does however mean they are to follow and not lead and to avoid matters of deeper doctrine (law / father) and judgment (discernment / spirit). This is the middle path in the Tree of Life and makes them like unto children that make up the kingdom of God. The dangers here are of being blown about by every wind of doctrine and suffering slavery under some "Lordship" pastor-preacher.
This might be my misunderstanding. So if some are claiming the son this is fine but be aware a shepard is not a sheep nor a sheep a shepard. Some need to lead the flock and protect against attacks by the wolves and lions and dogs and serpents in the field. This authority comes from the law but not the law alone and thus for leaders the triune nature must be in place.
This might be my misunderstanding. So if some are claiming the son this is fine but be aware a shepard is not a sheep nor a sheep a shepard. Some need to lead the flock and protect against attacks by the wolves and lions and dogs and serpents in the field. This authority comes from the law but not the law alone and thus for leaders the triune nature must be in place.
Good grief jaybird, no one is asking to believe in the Trinity, at least I'm not and furthermore (you may find this astonishing) but it was not the purpose of Jesus coming to teach us the Trinity. I keep saying to everybody to forget the Trinity and focus on who is Jesus Christ? This is what Jesus ask Peter at Matthew 16:13. Then at Matthew 16:16 he says, "Thou art the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God." Peter is identifying Jesus Christ as not only the Messiah but the Son of God.
Then Jesus says to Peter, "Blessed are you because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Jesus then tells Peter, "And I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." What I find interesting in this dialogue is what was so special or significant about Peter's declaration? I mean if you ask anybody the same question, "Who is Jesus Christ?" they will say "Well He is the Messiah the Son of God." Exactly right, but what does it really mean that God the Father gave Peter that "spiritual" answer.
Unitarians believe Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God? So do most of the cults for that matter. On the surface of his answer then everybody should be saved, right? So why aren't they I ask? If this is all that is required to be saved by acknowledging Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God why did Jesus have to die on that cross?
And let me be clear, I am "NOT" talking about the Trinity teaching nor am I talking about the traditions of man or some so-called laws of man, I'm talking about what the verses are saying and teaching. Nobody taught me about the Trinity, the question that I was always ask was, "Who is Jesus Christ" or "What think ye of Christ?" And just like Peter, it was revealed to me that Jesus Christ is God, period. Not "a god" not one of three gods, not a little god, not just a little mighty god, not a false god but "Thee God" of the Bible.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Then Jesus says to Peter, "Blessed are you because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Jesus then tells Peter, "And I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." What I find interesting in this dialogue is what was so special or significant about Peter's declaration? I mean if you ask anybody the same question, "Who is Jesus Christ?" they will say "Well He is the Messiah the Son of God." Exactly right, but what does it really mean that God the Father gave Peter that "spiritual" answer.
Unitarians believe Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God? So do most of the cults for that matter. On the surface of his answer then everybody should be saved, right? So why aren't they I ask? If this is all that is required to be saved by acknowledging Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God why did Jesus have to die on that cross?
And let me be clear, I am "NOT" talking about the Trinity teaching nor am I talking about the traditions of man or some so-called laws of man, I'm talking about what the verses are saying and teaching. Nobody taught me about the Trinity, the question that I was always ask was, "Who is Jesus Christ" or "What think ye of Christ?" And just like Peter, it was revealed to me that Jesus Christ is God, period. Not "a god" not one of three gods, not a little god, not just a little mighty god, not a false god but "Thee God" of the Bible.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
H
If I thought you were answering my questions, actually I'm only asking one question which is, does the Son of God, the Holy Spirit have the same exact "essence/nature" as God the Father? That is my question, yes or no?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
NO, study Jewish Customs and Traditions. You will find the Birthright or FIRSTBORN is a TITLE, but it does not always have to go the FIRSTBORN Offspring. The Father can give it to ANYONE He chooses to give it to. It simply designates WHO THE FATHER WANTS TO GIVE THE TITLE TO, GUARANTEEING THAT PERSON INHERITS EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS. And with that FIRSTBORN TITLE, the recipient has the right to use the TITLE "Son of *******", whoever the father is.
John 16:15 (ESV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]All that the Father has is mine;
therefore I said that he will take
what is mine and declare it to you.
ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS includes HIS DEITY.
John 16:15 (ESV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]All that the Father has is mine;
therefore I said that he will take
what is mine and declare it to you.
ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS includes HIS DEITY.
You’re correct that someone could use a title Son of (whomever), but usually this would be because someone raised this person or adopted them in as family. To be born though, is to be conceived. Also, there is a big difference between saying someone is a firstborn and giving a birthright to another.
If you are referring to Ephraim and Manasseh, it was the birthright that was changed, not the understanding of who was firstborn. The firstborn’s rights can in fact be taken away, or a birthright given to another, but the firstborn is still the firstborn. The literal firstborn was still acknowledged.
When you look at the “firstborn from the dead” verse, it is even more descriptive. Not only is Jesus said to be the firstborn, but the first born from among the dead (or non-existence). This may fly in the face of Trinitarian theology, but it is what scripture says nonetheless.
To counter the fact that Jesus is shown in scripture to have a starting point, the Nicene Creed states that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”. This by definition makes no sense and is found nowhere in Biblical scripture. Eternally begotten of the Father is only found in the scriptures of the Nicene Creed.
As to your last point, I also agree that Jesus was given all things by His Father. He was exalted to His position by God Himself. He was “given” this authority over the kingdom of heaven and earth by God. Jesus said in Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”
It’s important to note that it is God who exalts Jesus, it is God who gives authority to Jesus, it is God who is in control. God cannot be exalted, nor given anything which He could not already possess. My issue is not whether or not Jesus has authority and is of a divine nature, it is who God is identified as.
Just as a king can give authority, power, and title unto his Son (the prince) to rule a kingdom, likewise God gave unto His Son.
If you are referring to Ephraim and Manasseh, it was the birthright that was changed, not the understanding of who was firstborn. The firstborn’s rights can in fact be taken away, or a birthright given to another, but the firstborn is still the firstborn. The literal firstborn was still acknowledged.
When you look at the “firstborn from the dead” verse, it is even more descriptive. Not only is Jesus said to be the firstborn, but the first born from among the dead (or non-existence). This may fly in the face of Trinitarian theology, but it is what scripture says nonetheless.
To counter the fact that Jesus is shown in scripture to have a starting point, the Nicene Creed states that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”. This by definition makes no sense and is found nowhere in Biblical scripture. Eternally begotten of the Father is only found in the scriptures of the Nicene Creed.
As to your last point, I also agree that Jesus was given all things by His Father. He was exalted to His position by God Himself. He was “given” this authority over the kingdom of heaven and earth by God. Jesus said in Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”
It’s important to note that it is God who exalts Jesus, it is God who gives authority to Jesus, it is God who is in control. God cannot be exalted, nor given anything which He could not already possess. My issue is not whether or not Jesus has authority and is of a divine nature, it is who God is identified as.
Just as a king can give authority, power, and title unto his Son (the prince) to rule a kingdom, likewise God gave unto His Son.
No that was not the example that I was thinking of. I was thinking of Jesus Himself while on the Cross. Jesus had apparently buried Joseph sometime prior, (one of the events not mentioned that Jesus did, that was not recorded, as the last verse in John tells us), because Mary went home with John that day. Jesus was either chosen by Joseph, to receive the Birthright Title Son of Joseph, or if Joseph died unexpectedly like sudden heart attack without Joseph appointing an heir, Jesus would still have received that Birthright by law after Joseph's death. EVEN THO, Jesus was not the OFFSPRING of Joseph.
Luke 3:23 (ESV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Jesus is called son of Joseph, and Joseph is called son of Heli, when Joseph is clearly the Son of Jacob according to Mat. 1:16.
As the last verse in John explains, we only have the highlights recorded in our Bibles, NOT THE ENTIRE STORY, event by event.
That verse above shows more of the Birthright flexibility in the law; in that Joseph is referred to as the Son of Heli, who is Mary's Father. When Heli died, he had either NAMED Joseph his Birthright Son, or by law in an unexpected death it would go to Joseph because Mary was the eldest daughter of Heli, and Heli had no sons, and at that time in Israel it was illegal for a woman to inherit property. Yet again another example of a non-offspring receiving the Title "Son of" Heli.
What almost everyone misses in the account of Mary at the cross, is that she was going home with John. That is because of the fact that Jesus from the Cross passed the Birthright Title, "Son of Joseph" on to John, not to one of His brothers. Thus John became the heir to all the property Joseph had from being Son of Jacob, and Son of Heli. A verbal contract back then only required two or three witness, and there were three witnesses present, making the passing of the Birthright Title "Son of Joseph" legal and binding.
John 19:26-28 (KJV)
[SUP]26 [/SUP] When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[SUP]27 [/SUP] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
[SUP]28 [/SUP] After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Jesus was responsible to pass on the Birthright inheritance he had received from Joseph, and He did pass it to a non-family member. So NO ONE can say that the TITLE Son of GOD or Firstborn of GOD implies that Jesus is the Offspring of GOD, it only means HE INHERITS ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS, and that includes HIS DEITY. HE is co-equally the one and only GOD because GOD will never die.
How does having the ability to pass one’s name or birthright (inheritance) to another person, mean that firstborn does not mean firstborn? The changing or giving of a name to be able to receive a birthright (inheritance) has nothing to do with the definition of firstborn. Not exactly sure why you are tying the two together.
The changing of a “name” or “birthright” does not change who was the firstborn or the definition thereof. To say that scripture doesn’t mean a literal firstborn for Jesus just because someone changed their name or birthright, is a little far reaching in my opinion.
For example, just take a look at the type of language used even by the demons that Jesus cast out. They knew exactly who He was and pleaded with Him that they might be spared.
Mark 1:24 saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
Mark 5:7 And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”
In both of these instances, Jesus is either identified as “the Holy One of God” or “Son of the Most High God” but never as God. Why do you think that is? Why would they implore Jesus by God Himself, if indeed He was God? This is just one of many examples that identify to me as Jesus being the literal Son of God, not God Himself.
The changing of a “name” or “birthright” does not change who was the firstborn or the definition thereof. To say that scripture doesn’t mean a literal firstborn for Jesus just because someone changed their name or birthright, is a little far reaching in my opinion.
For example, just take a look at the type of language used even by the demons that Jesus cast out. They knew exactly who He was and pleaded with Him that they might be spared.
Mark 1:24 saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
Mark 5:7 And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”
In both of these instances, Jesus is either identified as “the Holy One of God” or “Son of the Most High God” but never as God. Why do you think that is? Why would they implore Jesus by God Himself, if indeed He was God? This is just one of many examples that identify to me as Jesus being the literal Son of God, not God Himself.
Oh boy sword, here we go again? In your world sword is it possible that the word "firstborn" can have a secondary definition besides being born literally by way of birth or being literally first created according to how the word is used in context? I'm just asking you if there is an alternate definition of that word depending on the context, yes or no?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Oh boy sword, here we go again? In your world sword is it possible that the word "firstborn" can have a secondary definition besides being born literally by way of birth or being literally first created according to how the word is used in context? I'm just asking you if there is an alternate definition of that word depending on the context, yes or no?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Ok sword, fair enough? Like I said, the word "firstborn" can mean first created but it has a secondary meaning which means "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born." Whether or not you know it sword David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Also, Genesis 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction. Cross reference this to Jerimiah 31:9, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." You see sword, Ephraim was not literally born before Manasseh but it God made the younger His firsborn or God put him in the first or preeminence position.
So with Jesus Christ He has the "preeminence" over creation because He is the creator according not only at John 1:1-3 but at Colossians 1:15,16, "And He/Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the "first-born/preeminence" of all creation. (why sword?) Vs16, "For (or because) by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorties--all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Now, in one of my other post to you I mentioned Revelation 3:14 and ask you to tell me what it means? "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and the true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this;" This verse is used by the JW's and others to prove Jesus Christ is the first creation of God. The verse is used in conjuction with Proverbes 8 to show Jesus was created, in fact you even used Proverbs 8.
What the vese is actually teaching according to the Greek is that Jesus Christ is the creator. In fact, that word "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." Did you know we get our English word "architect" from that word? It means Jesus Christ is the "orgin/planner" of creation, He drew up the plans so to speak. It does not mean He is a created being.
And I'm afraid sword that your going to have to "step up your game" and start digging into what words mean in their immediate context. If you don't believe me then check to see if I'm telling you the truth or not for yourself. And like you said above, "I hear all too often about how Jesus didn't really mean this or that," Well do your homework and look for the evidence like I just gave you the Biblical evidence backing up what I said. Opps, I did want to ask you? What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the "first-born" from the dead?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Also, Genesis 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction. Cross reference this to Jerimiah 31:9, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." You see sword, Ephraim was not literally born before Manasseh but it God made the younger His firsborn or God put him in the first or preeminence position.
So with Jesus Christ He has the "preeminence" over creation because He is the creator according not only at John 1:1-3 but at Colossians 1:15,16, "And He/Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the "first-born/preeminence" of all creation. (why sword?) Vs16, "For (or because) by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorties--all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Now, in one of my other post to you I mentioned Revelation 3:14 and ask you to tell me what it means? "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and the true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this;" This verse is used by the JW's and others to prove Jesus Christ is the first creation of God. The verse is used in conjuction with Proverbes 8 to show Jesus was created, in fact you even used Proverbs 8.
What the vese is actually teaching according to the Greek is that Jesus Christ is the creator. In fact, that word "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." Did you know we get our English word "architect" from that word? It means Jesus Christ is the "orgin/planner" of creation, He drew up the plans so to speak. It does not mean He is a created being.
And I'm afraid sword that your going to have to "step up your game" and start digging into what words mean in their immediate context. If you don't believe me then check to see if I'm telling you the truth or not for yourself. And like you said above, "I hear all too often about how Jesus didn't really mean this or that," Well do your homework and look for the evidence like I just gave you the Biblical evidence backing up what I said. Opps, I did want to ask you? What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the "first-born" from the dead?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Study the Jewish Customs and Traditions. I DID! In their Culture a number of things are different than what we mean by them in modern day English Speaking countries. Jacob bought the Firstborn Title from his brother Esau. It was a TITLE that designated who would inherit all that the Father had. Here is the story in the modern English translation - GOD'S WORD Translation. You will see the word can be translated "birthright" or "firstborn" and the wording makes it clear that it is a Title giving one the rights of the inheritance, even though IT USUALLY DOES NOT CARRY THAT MEANING IN ENGLISH. That is why it baffles me why most Christians do not think it is important to study Jewish Customs and Traditions.
Genesis 25:29-33 (GWT)
[SUP]29 [/SUP] Once, Jacob was preparing a meal when Esau, exhausted, came in from outdoors.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] So Esau said to Jacob, “Let me have the whole pot of red stuff to eat—that red stuff—I'm exhausted.” This is why he was called Edom.
[SUP]31 [/SUP] Jacob responded, “First, sell me your rights as firstborn.”
[SUP]32 [/SUP] “I'm about to die.” Esau said. “What good is my inheritance to me?”
[SUP]33 [/SUP] “First, swear an oath,” Jacob said. So Esau swore an oath to him and sold him his rights as firstborn.
Another word that carries a slightly different meaning to the Jews than we mean by it in English, is the word BELIEVE. To the Jews the word BELIEVE means FAR MORE THAN acknowledging that something is a fact. BELIEVE to a Jew means you know something is true and you WILL PROVE YOUR BELIEF in it by your actions.
For example: If two Jew walked up to a frozen over lake in early winter, and Jew-#1 said to Jew-#2:
"Do you believe the ice is already thick enough to walk on?"
And Jew-#2 said, "Yes, I believe it is thick enough to walk on."; as he gently reached out with one foot testing the ice.
Jew-#1 would shout, "LIAR! If you truly believed it was thick enough to walk on, you would have boldly stepped out there with both feet, putting your whole weight on what you believe."
That is vastly different than what most English speaking people mean by the word "BELIEVE".
Genesis 25:29-33 (GWT)
[SUP]29 [/SUP] Once, Jacob was preparing a meal when Esau, exhausted, came in from outdoors.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] So Esau said to Jacob, “Let me have the whole pot of red stuff to eat—that red stuff—I'm exhausted.” This is why he was called Edom.
[SUP]31 [/SUP] Jacob responded, “First, sell me your rights as firstborn.”
[SUP]32 [/SUP] “I'm about to die.” Esau said. “What good is my inheritance to me?”
[SUP]33 [/SUP] “First, swear an oath,” Jacob said. So Esau swore an oath to him and sold him his rights as firstborn.
Another word that carries a slightly different meaning to the Jews than we mean by it in English, is the word BELIEVE. To the Jews the word BELIEVE means FAR MORE THAN acknowledging that something is a fact. BELIEVE to a Jew means you know something is true and you WILL PROVE YOUR BELIEF in it by your actions.
For example: If two Jew walked up to a frozen over lake in early winter, and Jew-#1 said to Jew-#2:
"Do you believe the ice is already thick enough to walk on?"
And Jew-#2 said, "Yes, I believe it is thick enough to walk on."; as he gently reached out with one foot testing the ice.
Jew-#1 would shout, "LIAR! If you truly believed it was thick enough to walk on, you would have boldly stepped out there with both feet, putting your whole weight on what you believe."
That is vastly different than what most English speaking people mean by the word "BELIEVE".
Ok sword, fair enough? Like I said, the word "firstborn" can mean first created but it has a secondary meaning which means "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born." Whether or not you know it sword David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Also, Genesis 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction. Cross reference this to Jerimiah 31:9, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." You see sword, Ephraim was not literally born before Manasseh but it God made the younger His firsborn or God put him in the first or preeminence position.
So with Jesus Christ He has the "preeminence" over creation because He is the creator according not only at John 1:1-3 but at Colossians 1:15,16, "And He/Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the "first-born/preeminence" of all creation. (why sword?) Vs16, "For (or because) by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorties--all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Now, in one of my other post to you I mentioned Revelation 3:14 and ask you to tell me what it means? "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and the true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this;" This verse is used by the JW's and others to prove Jesus Christ is the first creation of God. The verse is used in conjuction with Proverbes 8 to show Jesus was created, in fact you even used Proverbs 8.
What the vese is actually teaching according to the Greek is that Jesus Christ is the creator. In fact, that word "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." Did you know we get our English word "architect" from that word? It means Jesus Christ is the "orgin/planner" of creation, He drew up the plans so to speak. It does not mean He is a created being.
And I'm afraid sword that your going to have to "step up your game" and start digging into what words mean in their immediate context. If you don't believe me then check to see if I'm telling you the truth or not for yourself. And like you said above, "I hear all too often about how Jesus didn't really mean this or that," Well do your homework and look for the evidence like I just gave you the Biblical evidence backing up what I said. Opps, I did want to ask you? What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the "first-born" from the dead?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Also, Genesis 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction. Cross reference this to Jerimiah 31:9, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." You see sword, Ephraim was not literally born before Manasseh but it God made the younger His firsborn or God put him in the first or preeminence position.
So with Jesus Christ He has the "preeminence" over creation because He is the creator according not only at John 1:1-3 but at Colossians 1:15,16, "And He/Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the "first-born/preeminence" of all creation. (why sword?) Vs16, "For (or because) by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorties--all things have been created by Him and for Him."
Now, in one of my other post to you I mentioned Revelation 3:14 and ask you to tell me what it means? "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and the true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this;" This verse is used by the JW's and others to prove Jesus Christ is the first creation of God. The verse is used in conjuction with Proverbes 8 to show Jesus was created, in fact you even used Proverbs 8.
What the vese is actually teaching according to the Greek is that Jesus Christ is the creator. In fact, that word "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." Did you know we get our English word "architect" from that word? It means Jesus Christ is the "orgin/planner" of creation, He drew up the plans so to speak. It does not mean He is a created being.
And I'm afraid sword that your going to have to "step up your game" and start digging into what words mean in their immediate context. If you don't believe me then check to see if I'm telling you the truth or not for yourself. And like you said above, "I hear all too often about how Jesus didn't really mean this or that," Well do your homework and look for the evidence like I just gave you the Biblical evidence backing up what I said. Opps, I did want to ask you? What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the "first-born" from the dead?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In addition, you have multiple references throughout scripture identifying Jesus as the “ONLY begotten” of the Father. Taking this into consideration, I have no reason not to take “firstborn from the dead” literally. There is no other surrounding context to make me think otherwise.
Now I know that you view Colossians 1:15-16 as showing Jesus as the creator, but I view it as God being the creator. I see God creating “through” and “for” Jesus. This was pleasing to God. This is backed up by other verses in the Bible also. Hebrews 1:1-2 reads…
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds
So you can see that it is God who was the creator. Gods Son was “through” whom He did the creating. Proverbs 8:22-31 also gives more evidence of this.
You mentioned how you believe Revelation 3:14 is eluding to Jesus being referred to as an architect from a root Greek word arche. You very well may be right. In Proverbs 8:30 it reads…
Proverbs 8:30 Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,
I personally believe (and this is somewhat speculative) that Jesus could indeed be an architect in regards to creation, but that it was God who was the power in which Jesus would have used for this creation. This is probably why we read that God created “through” and “for”. This is also probably why Matthew 26:64 reads…
Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
It’s important to note that Jesus isn't being identified as God nor the Power. He is actually sitting next to it, as God Himself ordained. If God is said to have created through His Son Jesus (as previously shown in Hebrews 1:1-2) then how can you conclude that Jesus is God?
Ok sword, how are you going to reconcile Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, AM THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE." with God creating “through” and “for” Jesus as you said?
Your also forgetting what John 1:3 states, "ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY HIM, AND APART FROM HIM, NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING." Did you see that word "APART" from Jesus sword. That word apart means "aside or notwithstanding" from Jesus Christ nothing could not be created. So again, how do you reconcile Isaiah 44:24 where God says He created everything by Himself with Jesus creating all things. The obvious answer is the fact that Jesus Christ is God, which btw is confirmed at John 1:1.
Your view is a contradiction of the scriptures where my view easily reconciles the seemingly contradiction. And regarding Proverbs 8? The subject is "Wisdom" not that Jesus Christ is a created being. Read the whole chapter as well as chapter 9 of Proverbs. Also by you quoting Hebrews 1:1,2 does not help your case because the last part of the verse your ignoring says, "through whom also He made the world/ages." Again, why does God need help to make the worlds when He claims He created all things by Himself? And don't forget that Hebrews 1:3 is teaching that Jesus Christ has the exact same nature as His Father and Jesus upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His/Jesus' power. PS: I'll deal with the issue of "ONLY begotten" later.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Your also forgetting what John 1:3 states, "ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY HIM, AND APART FROM HIM, NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING." Did you see that word "APART" from Jesus sword. That word apart means "aside or notwithstanding" from Jesus Christ nothing could not be created. So again, how do you reconcile Isaiah 44:24 where God says He created everything by Himself with Jesus creating all things. The obvious answer is the fact that Jesus Christ is God, which btw is confirmed at John 1:1.
Your view is a contradiction of the scriptures where my view easily reconciles the seemingly contradiction. And regarding Proverbs 8? The subject is "Wisdom" not that Jesus Christ is a created being. Read the whole chapter as well as chapter 9 of Proverbs. Also by you quoting Hebrews 1:1,2 does not help your case because the last part of the verse your ignoring says, "through whom also He made the world/ages." Again, why does God need help to make the worlds when He claims He created all things by Himself? And don't forget that Hebrews 1:3 is teaching that Jesus Christ has the exact same nature as His Father and Jesus upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His/Jesus' power.
PS: I'll deal with the issue of "ONLY begotten" later. IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Ok sword, how are you going to reconcile Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, AM THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE." with God creating “through” and “for” Jesus as you said?
Your also forgetting what John 1:3 states, "ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY HIM, AND APART FROM HIM, NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING." Did you see that word "APART" from Jesus sword. That word apart means "aside or notwithstanding" from Jesus Christ nothing could not be created. So again, how do you reconcile Isaiah 44:24 where God says He created everything by Himself with Jesus creating all things. The obvious answer is the fact that Jesus Christ is God, which btw is confirmed at John 1:1.
Your view is a contradiction of the scriptures where my view easily reconciles the seemingly contradiction. And regarding Proverbs 8? The subject is "Wisdom" not that Jesus Christ is a created being. Read the whole chapter as well as chapter 9 of Proverbs. Also by you quoting Hebrews 1:1,2 does not help your case because the last part of the verse your ignoring says, "through whom also He made the world/ages." Again, why does God need help to make the worlds when He claims He created all things by Himself? And don't forget that Hebrews 1:3 is teaching that Jesus Christ has the exact same nature as His Father and Jesus upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His/Jesus' power. PS: I'll deal with the issue of "ONLY begotten" later.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Your also forgetting what John 1:3 states, "ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY HIM, AND APART FROM HIM, NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING." Did you see that word "APART" from Jesus sword. That word apart means "aside or notwithstanding" from Jesus Christ nothing could not be created. So again, how do you reconcile Isaiah 44:24 where God says He created everything by Himself with Jesus creating all things. The obvious answer is the fact that Jesus Christ is God, which btw is confirmed at John 1:1.
Your view is a contradiction of the scriptures where my view easily reconciles the seemingly contradiction. And regarding Proverbs 8? The subject is "Wisdom" not that Jesus Christ is a created being. Read the whole chapter as well as chapter 9 of Proverbs. Also by you quoting Hebrews 1:1,2 does not help your case because the last part of the verse your ignoring says, "through whom also He made the world/ages." Again, why does God need help to make the worlds when He claims He created all things by Himself? And don't forget that Hebrews 1:3 is teaching that Jesus Christ has the exact same nature as His Father and Jesus upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His/Jesus' power.
PS: I'll deal with the issue of "ONLY begotten" later. IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
I noticed that you phrased John 1:3 as “by” Him. It is actually “through” Him. The KJV is one of the only translations that phrases it that way. Almost all other popular translations have the correct rendering as “through”. This includes the ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. Here’s a link to an interlinear translation.
John 1:3 Interlinear: all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, OF WHOM are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM are all things, and through whom we live.
I’d like to take some time to address some of your other comments but it’s going to have to wait until I get back home.
Hi notbythesword,
In the Post above yours, 1096, I said.
Quote: None of the language of trinity is in the Bible:
The concept of trinity, --- was obviously not known to the Apostles, or they would have taught it.
--- A verse that says, 'Jesus is God,' --- or a verse where Jesus said, "I am God." --- No.
--- A verse that says, 'Christ is God,' --- or a verse where Christ said, "I am God." --- No.
And there are no verses that say Jesus was in heaven before He was born on earth.
--- But it does say that "Jesus was born on earth."
--- There are no places where it says, 'the Word was Jesus,' or that says, 'Jesus was the Word.'
And you said in Post 1097:
Quote:
Nor do I view Christ as merely a man, but of divine being. Just because you believe Jesus is divine, does not mean you have to believe He is God.
Furthermore, it was God who then "exalted" Jesus and sits Him at His right hand.
Jesus specifically said that He did not come on His own accord, but that it was the Father who sent Him. This shows that Jesus was commanded by God before He was in earthly form. God was always in control, even before Jesus’s incarnation.
The 'trins' try to replace the Word that was with God (through whom all things were made), with Jesus, who was born on earth.
--- Have you found verses that say Jesus was in heaven before He was born on earth?
And the second thing the 'trins' say is that Jesus and Christ were the same Person. However, Jesus was born on earth from an earthly mother, but without sin, so He was qualified to be our Savior. --- And Christ came from heaven and was the 'Immanuel' of Matthew 1:23, which is translated, "God with us," and He was the Messiah.
It says in 2 Corinthians 5:19 "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself."
--- As I understand it, Jesus was born on earth, and Christ came from heaven, --- They were together, along with the Holy Spirit, though the years on earth, --- and after the resurrection and the ascension, Christ was seated at the right hand of God, Colossians 3:1 --- And Jesus became our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, as it says in Hebrews 8:
1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
--- So Jesus is the High Priest in the Sanctuary on the right hand of the throne, --- in a tabernacle which the Lord erected. --- So Christ and Jesus have different positions in heaven.
And the Holy Spirit remains on earth to indwell believers in their earthly bodies.
What are your thoughts on this? How do you understand it from the Scriptures?
In the Post above yours, 1096, I said.
Quote: None of the language of trinity is in the Bible:
The concept of trinity, --- was obviously not known to the Apostles, or they would have taught it.
--- A verse that says, 'Jesus is God,' --- or a verse where Jesus said, "I am God." --- No.
--- A verse that says, 'Christ is God,' --- or a verse where Christ said, "I am God." --- No.
And there are no verses that say Jesus was in heaven before He was born on earth.
--- But it does say that "Jesus was born on earth."
--- There are no places where it says, 'the Word was Jesus,' or that says, 'Jesus was the Word.'
And you said in Post 1097:
Quote:
Nor do I view Christ as merely a man, but of divine being. Just because you believe Jesus is divine, does not mean you have to believe He is God.
Furthermore, it was God who then "exalted" Jesus and sits Him at His right hand.
Jesus specifically said that He did not come on His own accord, but that it was the Father who sent Him. This shows that Jesus was commanded by God before He was in earthly form. God was always in control, even before Jesus’s incarnation.
The 'trins' try to replace the Word that was with God (through whom all things were made), with Jesus, who was born on earth.
--- Have you found verses that say Jesus was in heaven before He was born on earth?
And the second thing the 'trins' say is that Jesus and Christ were the same Person. However, Jesus was born on earth from an earthly mother, but without sin, so He was qualified to be our Savior. --- And Christ came from heaven and was the 'Immanuel' of Matthew 1:23, which is translated, "God with us," and He was the Messiah.
It says in 2 Corinthians 5:19 "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself."
--- As I understand it, Jesus was born on earth, and Christ came from heaven, --- They were together, along with the Holy Spirit, though the years on earth, --- and after the resurrection and the ascension, Christ was seated at the right hand of God, Colossians 3:1 --- And Jesus became our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, as it says in Hebrews 8:
1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
--- So Jesus is the High Priest in the Sanctuary on the right hand of the throne, --- in a tabernacle which the Lord erected. --- So Christ and Jesus have different positions in heaven.
And the Holy Spirit remains on earth to indwell believers in their earthly bodies.
What are your thoughts on this? How do you understand it from the Scriptures?
Ok placid, why is it that you and quasar, sword and others around here are such "shallow" thinkers? And I don't mean this as some sort of put down. I'm talking about the fact that you guys never look up the meaning of words by using a Lexicon? I say this because the Bible was not written in English but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramanic. In fact, the Greek language is just about the most precise language in the world where you get the full affect of what the words mean in their context. But what do I mean exactly? You made this statement: "And there are no verses that say Jesus was in heaven before He was born on earth.
--- But it does say that "Jesus was born on earth."
--- There are no places where it says, 'the Word was Jesus,' or that says, 'Jesus was the Word.'
Here is what Isaiah 6 starting at vs1 states, "In the year of King Uzziah's death, I "SAW" the Lo0rd sitting on His throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple." Skipping down to vs5, "Then I said, "Woe is me for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lipts; FOR MY EYES HAVE SEEN THE KING, THE LORD OF HOSTS."
The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). It refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposte to, for example, the word "machazeh" which is the act or event of an ecstatic vision). This event is backed up by the Apostle John where John uses the Greek word (eidon) also a verb refering to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.
We already know that God the Father is invisble, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see according to 1 Timothy 6:16. He is transcendant and lives in unapproachable light. And the Son is "the image of the invisible God" according to Colossians 1:15. Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he/Isaiah explicitly identified as "YHWH" the same one whose glory he saw according to the Apostle John at John 12:41. In fact, Jesus Himself makes this clear at John 12:45, "And he that seeth Me seth Him that sent Me."
There is only ONE time when Isaiah saw someone he, speaking by the Holy Spirit identified as "YHWH," and John's spirit-inspiried narrative of the interactions of Jesus with the Jews in the 11th and 12th chapter of his gospel, including their rejection of Christ, says that what Isaiah saw was HIS (ie Jesus') glory.
This works in perfect harmony with John's whole purpose, given the FACT that John had previously identified the one who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) as "God" (John 1:1). Now, if you have a mind to bring up Isaiah 53 by saying Isaiah ALSO foretold the sufferingt and rejection of Christ (which is true btw) but it is 'IRRELEVANT to this account. You cannot ignore the grammar and the immediate context, including the clear and unmistakable words of Jesus Christ Himself in that very context. This is why are brought up the grammar and the looking up of words at the beginning of my post.
In short, this is a game changer because the verse themselves "DIRECTLY" contradict your statement that Jesus was not in heaven nor that He preexisted His incarnation. What are you thoughts on this placid?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
--- But it does say that "Jesus was born on earth."
--- There are no places where it says, 'the Word was Jesus,' or that says, 'Jesus was the Word.'
Here is what Isaiah 6 starting at vs1 states, "In the year of King Uzziah's death, I "SAW" the Lo0rd sitting on His throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple." Skipping down to vs5, "Then I said, "Woe is me for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lipts; FOR MY EYES HAVE SEEN THE KING, THE LORD OF HOSTS."
The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). It refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposte to, for example, the word "machazeh" which is the act or event of an ecstatic vision). This event is backed up by the Apostle John where John uses the Greek word (eidon) also a verb refering to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.
We already know that God the Father is invisble, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see according to 1 Timothy 6:16. He is transcendant and lives in unapproachable light. And the Son is "the image of the invisible God" according to Colossians 1:15. Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he/Isaiah explicitly identified as "YHWH" the same one whose glory he saw according to the Apostle John at John 12:41. In fact, Jesus Himself makes this clear at John 12:45, "And he that seeth Me seth Him that sent Me."
There is only ONE time when Isaiah saw someone he, speaking by the Holy Spirit identified as "YHWH," and John's spirit-inspiried narrative of the interactions of Jesus with the Jews in the 11th and 12th chapter of his gospel, including their rejection of Christ, says that what Isaiah saw was HIS (ie Jesus') glory.
This works in perfect harmony with John's whole purpose, given the FACT that John had previously identified the one who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) as "God" (John 1:1). Now, if you have a mind to bring up Isaiah 53 by saying Isaiah ALSO foretold the sufferingt and rejection of Christ (which is true btw) but it is 'IRRELEVANT to this account. You cannot ignore the grammar and the immediate context, including the clear and unmistakable words of Jesus Christ Himself in that very context. This is why are brought up the grammar and the looking up of words at the beginning of my post.
In short, this is a game changer because the verse themselves "DIRECTLY" contradict your statement that Jesus was not in heaven nor that He preexisted His incarnation. What are you thoughts on this placid?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto