-
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.
D
Of course Jesus Christ is not God the Father and they are distict persons. And of course Jesus was "sent" by God the Father and under the Father's authority. You yourself just said Jesus was "sent" which means He had to preexist to be sent. Look at Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given." This does not mean the Son is a created being. Please read John 3:34, John 3:37 etc. The Son came down from heaven and of course He was under the authority of the Father because the Son was functioning as a human being according to Philippians 2.
Not only that but you seem to be stuck on the Hebrew verses and your avoiding the other verses I presented that the Apostles identified Jesus Christ as God. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and others. I'll be back.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Not only that but you seem to be stuck on the Hebrew verses and your avoiding the other verses I presented that the Apostles identified Jesus Christ as God. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and others. I'll be back.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Before dagallen I address this post in detail can you please explain what you said, "A part of Jesus did exist before he took on earthy flesh, does that make Jesus God himself?" What's that mean, what part of Jesus existed before He incarnated as a man? You just said as well, "All Scriptures must be looked at" so show the Scriptures about this "part of Jesus" business?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
D
Before dagallen I address this post in detail can you please explain what you said, "A part of Jesus did exist before he took on earthy flesh, does that make Jesus God himself?" What's that mean, what part of Jesus existed before He incarnated as a man? You just said as well, "All Scriptures must be looked at" so show the Scriptures about this "part of Jesus" business?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
These threads are always started by people who don't believe in the Trinity, and want to argue why they are right. Jesus was also a man, during the incarnation, because he needed to be a man in order to die on the cross in our place. But a perfect man, the perfect sacrifice for sin.
" For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:14
"What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Hebrews 2:6 (quoting Psalm 8)
And God, always God.
"But of the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”" Hebrews 1:8-9
" For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:14
"What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Hebrews 2:6 (quoting Psalm 8)
And God, always God.
"But of the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”" Hebrews 1:8-9
Oh boy dagallen, you know what you failed to notice that comes before John 5:26? You failed to notice that John told us that Jesus had life in Himself "BEFORE" His incarnation. This is at John 1:4 and this power was given back to Him AFTER His resurrection, after He had accomplished His mission as a man. Now, did you notice in the verse (John 1:4) that "In Him was life which is in the past tense and this life was before His incarnation.
As well, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus existed before him at John 1:15. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying. "This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has a higher rant than I, for (or because dagallen) He existed before me." There is something else you should know dagallen? The word for life in the Greek in this verse is "zoe." It means the life principle. The Apostle John did not use the other Greek word for life which is "bios" and it biological life.
To further back up what I'm saying look at John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the "life/zoe" he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies." Here again, "zoe" the life principle. What you don't seem to understand is that the Bible is clear because at Philippians 2:6-8 we are told explicitly that the Son was the very form of God. The Greek here, "morphe" refers to the form that reveals or expresses the absolute nature of a thing. He/Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself another form ("morphe" again) of a servant: the likeness of a man. he was not forced. he CHOSE to do so. That is why the Apostle Paul was using this as an example of humility. So dagallen, where am I wrong?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
As well, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus existed before him at John 1:15. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying. "This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has a higher rant than I, for (or because dagallen) He existed before me." There is something else you should know dagallen? The word for life in the Greek in this verse is "zoe." It means the life principle. The Apostle John did not use the other Greek word for life which is "bios" and it biological life.
To further back up what I'm saying look at John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the "life/zoe" he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies." Here again, "zoe" the life principle. What you don't seem to understand is that the Bible is clear because at Philippians 2:6-8 we are told explicitly that the Son was the very form of God. The Greek here, "morphe" refers to the form that reveals or expresses the absolute nature of a thing. He/Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself another form ("morphe" again) of a servant: the likeness of a man. he was not forced. he CHOSE to do so. That is why the Apostle Paul was using this as an example of humility. So dagallen, where am I wrong?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Why Jesus is God, and a different person than the Father.
In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.
Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind
1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
The emphatic position of θεός (theos) stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father.
John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism
To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*
2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+
3. καί θεός ήν ό λόγος
“and the Word was God” Orthodoxy
From: Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar
In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.
Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.
A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.
Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word
We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”
Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind
1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?
The emphatic position of θεός (theos) stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father.
John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism
To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*
2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+
3. καί θεός ήν ό λόγος
“and the Word was God” Orthodoxy
From: Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar
D
Oh boy dagallen, you know what you failed to notice that comes before John 5:26? You failed to notice that John told us that Jesus had life in Himself "BEFORE" His incarnation. This is at John 1:4 and this power was given back to Him AFTER His resurrection, after He had accomplished His mission as a man. Now, did you notice in the verse (John 1:4) that "In Him was life which is in the past tense and this life was before His incarnation.
As well, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus existed before him at John 1:15. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying. "This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has a higher rant than I, for (or because dagallen) He existed before me." There is something else you should know dagallen? The word for life in the Greek in this verse is "zoe." It means the life principle. The Apostle John did not use the other Greek word for life which is "bios" and it biological life.
To further back up what I'm saying look at John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the "life/zoe" he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies." Here again, "zoe" the life principle. What you don't seem to understand is that the Bible is clear because at Philippians 2:6-8 we are told explicitly that the Son was the very form of God. The Greek here, "morphe" refers to the form that reveals or expresses the absolute nature of a thing. He/Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself another form ("morphe" again) of a servant: the likeness of a man. he was not forced. he CHOSE to do so. That is why the Apostle Paul was using this as an example of humility. So dagallen, where am I wrong?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
As well, even John the Baptist recognized Jesus existed before him at John 1:15. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying. "This was He of whom I said, "He who comes after me has a higher rant than I, for (or because dagallen) He existed before me." There is something else you should know dagallen? The word for life in the Greek in this verse is "zoe." It means the life principle. The Apostle John did not use the other Greek word for life which is "bios" and it biological life.
To further back up what I'm saying look at John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the "life/zoe" he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies." Here again, "zoe" the life principle. What you don't seem to understand is that the Bible is clear because at Philippians 2:6-8 we are told explicitly that the Son was the very form of God. The Greek here, "morphe" refers to the form that reveals or expresses the absolute nature of a thing. He/Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself another form ("morphe" again) of a servant: the likeness of a man. he was not forced. he CHOSE to do so. That is why the Apostle Paul was using this as an example of humility. So dagallen, where am I wrong?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
If we could keep in mind the values of what people believe as being the discussion and not the person it would be a better way to debate any religious subject. Simplified it means that you may be homosexual and others do not accept the homosexual act, it does not mean that they do not like the person. Jesus said that the 11th Commandment is Love one and other but hs did not include Love what one and other do or believe.
I do not believe in the trinity theory and its history in the catholic religion is checked with pagan influences and the need to have Constantine, the Roman Emperor’s power behind the rising of the Roman Church to be brought into the religious concept some 300 years after the last disciple died.
There is one section in the Christian Greek scriptures that really impacting on the inability of the trinity being accurate. It is in relation to the birth and baptism of jesus.
When Jesus was born he did not have any thought of his being the messiah, as far as he was concerned he was just a kid of the times, he had a human mum and dad and lived the life of a faithful Jew. His study and knowledge of the Jewish manuscripts was exemplary and that was because he was a perfect man/boy, using his brain capacity to the fullest and most righteous course.
Point one: Jesus had no connection with His Heavenly Father at this time, nor did he have any of God's Active Force (Holy Spirit) upon him. Jesus did not preform miraculous events, nor did he think that he could. He prayed to God the same way as all the Jewish people did, and he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah. The angles did guide his footsteps, but Jesus did not even know that he was being protected.
Would this then mean the the trinity consisted for these years of Jesus early life, as only God and the Holy Spirit?
When Jesus went to the Jordon to John the Baptist he did so because it had become the rule to do so, and he was not the first to take on this dedication to God, asking for a clean unconscious as other faithful ones were doing. On rising from the immersion in the waters the Bible tells us that the "Heavens opened up to him".
The things that happened at Jesus Baptism did not happen with the others, and remember that when the havens opened up to him Gods Active force, Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a white dove. It was here that Jesus recalled his creation, his heavenly relationship with the creator and the joy of helping to create everything else including the angles themselves.
"But more than that happens at Jesus’ baptism. ‘The heavens are opened up’ to him. What does this mean? Likely it means that at the time of Jesus’ baptism, the memory of his prehuman life in heaven returns to him. Thus, Jesus now recalls his life as a spirit son of Jehovah, including truths that God taught him in heaven before he came to earth.
In addition, at Jesus’ baptism a voice from heaven proclaims: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:17) Whose voice is that? It cannot be Jesus’ own voice; he is right there with John. That voice is God’s. Clearly, Jesus is God’s Son. He is not God himself.
Then: Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days. Even with this new given Heavenly supplied position of knowing he is the messiah he has a lot to think about and a lot to understand. The Angels administer to him probably bringing messages to him for his Heavenly father, and giving support for the mission ahead.
Point 2: When God said in his own voice (One of the few times that God's voice was head by humans), "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" it was not Jesus' voice being a ventriloquist and it was the first time that the human Jesus had heard his Heavenly Father's voice as well, so does any of this fit in with a trinity theory where they were all one at all times?
Jesus ministry lasted about 3 years and every prophecy spoken and written about the Messiah was fulfilled at his raising to the heavens after his death on the torture stake.
I do not believe in the trinity theory and its history in the catholic religion is checked with pagan influences and the need to have Constantine, the Roman Emperor’s power behind the rising of the Roman Church to be brought into the religious concept some 300 years after the last disciple died.
There is one section in the Christian Greek scriptures that really impacting on the inability of the trinity being accurate. It is in relation to the birth and baptism of jesus.
When Jesus was born he did not have any thought of his being the messiah, as far as he was concerned he was just a kid of the times, he had a human mum and dad and lived the life of a faithful Jew. His study and knowledge of the Jewish manuscripts was exemplary and that was because he was a perfect man/boy, using his brain capacity to the fullest and most righteous course.
Point one: Jesus had no connection with His Heavenly Father at this time, nor did he have any of God's Active Force (Holy Spirit) upon him. Jesus did not preform miraculous events, nor did he think that he could. He prayed to God the same way as all the Jewish people did, and he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah. The angles did guide his footsteps, but Jesus did not even know that he was being protected.
Would this then mean the the trinity consisted for these years of Jesus early life, as only God and the Holy Spirit?
When Jesus went to the Jordon to John the Baptist he did so because it had become the rule to do so, and he was not the first to take on this dedication to God, asking for a clean unconscious as other faithful ones were doing. On rising from the immersion in the waters the Bible tells us that the "Heavens opened up to him".
The things that happened at Jesus Baptism did not happen with the others, and remember that when the havens opened up to him Gods Active force, Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a white dove. It was here that Jesus recalled his creation, his heavenly relationship with the creator and the joy of helping to create everything else including the angles themselves.
"But more than that happens at Jesus’ baptism. ‘The heavens are opened up’ to him. What does this mean? Likely it means that at the time of Jesus’ baptism, the memory of his prehuman life in heaven returns to him. Thus, Jesus now recalls his life as a spirit son of Jehovah, including truths that God taught him in heaven before he came to earth.
In addition, at Jesus’ baptism a voice from heaven proclaims: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:17) Whose voice is that? It cannot be Jesus’ own voice; he is right there with John. That voice is God’s. Clearly, Jesus is God’s Son. He is not God himself.
Then: Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days. Even with this new given Heavenly supplied position of knowing he is the messiah he has a lot to think about and a lot to understand. The Angels administer to him probably bringing messages to him for his Heavenly father, and giving support for the mission ahead.
Point 2: When God said in his own voice (One of the few times that God's voice was head by humans), "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" it was not Jesus' voice being a ventriloquist and it was the first time that the human Jesus had heard his Heavenly Father's voice as well, so does any of this fit in with a trinity theory where they were all one at all times?
Jesus ministry lasted about 3 years and every prophecy spoken and written about the Messiah was fulfilled at his raising to the heavens after his death on the torture stake.
The spiritual life that Jesus had and still has, was before his earthy life, his spirit was sent and entered the womb of a woman and took on the flesh form of a child, his earthy flesh was of this world but his spirit was not of this world.[/QUOTE)
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
D
The spiritual life that Jesus had and still has, was before his earthy life, his spirit was sent and entered the womb of a woman and took on the flesh form of a child, his earthy flesh was of this world but his spirit was not of this world.[/QUOTE)
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
D
The spiritual life that Jesus had and still has, was before his earthy life, his spirit was sent and entered the womb of a woman and took on the flesh form of a child, his earthy flesh was of this world but his spirit was not of this world.[/QUOTE)
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
D
The spiritual life that Jesus had and still has, was before his earthy life, his spirit was sent and entered the womb of a woman and took on the flesh form of a child, his earthy flesh was of this world but his spirit was not of this world.[/QUOTE)
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well who was He dagallen in His spiritual life? We already know that God is a Spiritual being according to John 4:24 and we must worship in spirit and truth," so who was Jesus in His spiritual state before He incarnated as a man? I'm telling you that Jesus Christ is God just like at John 4:24 and we are to worship Him just like Thomas did at John 20:28.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well bronson, this is interesting? What I mean is that your bottom line is you deny the deity of Jesus Christ and you say Jesus is a created being. In fact let me quote you? "I have Scriptures to show that Jesus was created and is not God Almighty." As I looked father you said the following:
"Then you can relate your thoughts to the two scriptures: God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15
Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa+ write: These are the things that the Amen+ says, the faithful and true+ witness,+ the beginning of the creation by God:+"
So these are the Scriptures you used to prove Jesus is a created being and not God. Apprently you really don't know what Revelation 3:14 is really teaching. I'll will tell you it's the opposite of what you think it's teaching. Where it says, "the Beginning of the creation of God" does NOT mean Jesus is a created being.
That Greek word for "Beginning" is the word "arche." We get the English word "architect" from that word "arche." An architect according to Webster's Dictionary is: "the designer or the originator and or any planner or creator." This makes perfect sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 which reads, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM." I noticed you left this verse out but you quoted only vs15, why? Then there is Hebrews 1:10.
I also noticed you used the words, "torture stake" and "Gods active force." Are you per chance a Jehovah's Witness. If so I'm surprise you did not quote Proverbs 8:22 to show Jesus is a created being. That's one of their favorite proof text but even that is easily refuted. So where am I wrong bronson?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
"Then you can relate your thoughts to the two scriptures: God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15
Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa+ write: These are the things that the Amen+ says, the faithful and true+ witness,+ the beginning of the creation by God:+"
So these are the Scriptures you used to prove Jesus is a created being and not God. Apprently you really don't know what Revelation 3:14 is really teaching. I'll will tell you it's the opposite of what you think it's teaching. Where it says, "the Beginning of the creation of God" does NOT mean Jesus is a created being.
That Greek word for "Beginning" is the word "arche." We get the English word "architect" from that word "arche." An architect according to Webster's Dictionary is: "the designer or the originator and or any planner or creator." This makes perfect sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 which reads, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM." I noticed you left this verse out but you quoted only vs15, why? Then there is Hebrews 1:10.
I also noticed you used the words, "torture stake" and "Gods active force." Are you per chance a Jehovah's Witness. If so I'm surprise you did not quote Proverbs 8:22 to show Jesus is a created being. That's one of their favorite proof text but even that is easily refuted. So where am I wrong bronson?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The Bible does say Jesus was a god. Yes Jesus was before the foundation of the world, in fact Jesus was the beginning of all creation as the scriptures state. To say that Jesus is God and God is Jesus is to say that they had to created each other, leaving the Chicken and the egg question open for religious orders to conjecture upon. The you have to add the long comming Holy Spirit into the Trinity theory, which was a duality in the first instance before Constantine wanted to interfere in the religious "scholars" who were about inventing a Holy Roman Religion to control the world, and introduce the "Dark Ages".
You are correct, Jesus was with His Heavenly Father for a long time, maybe billions of earth years, we do not know other than he was the first born of all creation.
Do you know what a Jehovah Witness means, what they teach and what they believe. The same question would be asked of what a catholic is, or what a Pentecostal is. Just read the words and do not worry about information supply.
You are correct, Jesus was with His Heavenly Father for a long time, maybe billions of earth years, we do not know other than he was the first born of all creation.
Do you know what a Jehovah Witness means, what they teach and what they believe. The same question would be asked of what a catholic is, or what a Pentecostal is. Just read the words and do not worry about information supply.
Well bronson, this is interesting? What I mean is that your bottom line is you deny the deity of Jesus Christ and you say Jesus is a created being. In fact let me quote you? "I have Scriptures to show that Jesus was created and is not God Almighty." As I looked father you said the following:
"Then you can relate your thoughts to the two scriptures: God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15
Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa+ write: These are the things that the Amen+ says, the faithful and true+ witness,+ the beginning of the creation by God:+"
So these are the Scriptures you used to prove Jesus is a created being and not God. Apprently you really don't know what Revelation 3:14 is really teaching. I'll will tell you it's the opposite of what you think it's teaching. Where it says, "the Beginning of the creation of God" does NOT mean Jesus is a created being.
That Greek word for "Beginning" is the word "arche." We get the English word "architect" from that word "arche." An architect according to Webster's Dictionary is: "the designer or the originator and or any planner or creator." This makes perfect sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 which reads, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM." I noticed you left this verse out but you quoted only vs15, why? Then there is Hebrews 1:10.
I also noticed you used the words, "torture stake" and "Gods active force." Are you per chance a Jehovah's Witness. If so I'm surprise you did not quote Proverbs 8:22 to show Jesus is a created being. That's one of their favorite proof text but even that is easily refuted. So where am I wrong bronson?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
"Then you can relate your thoughts to the two scriptures: God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 God created Jesus before he created Adam. Regarding Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15
Revelation 3:14 To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa+ write: These are the things that the Amen+ says, the faithful and true+ witness,+ the beginning of the creation by God:+"
So these are the Scriptures you used to prove Jesus is a created being and not God. Apprently you really don't know what Revelation 3:14 is really teaching. I'll will tell you it's the opposite of what you think it's teaching. Where it says, "the Beginning of the creation of God" does NOT mean Jesus is a created being.
That Greek word for "Beginning" is the word "arche." We get the English word "architect" from that word "arche." An architect according to Webster's Dictionary is: "the designer or the originator and or any planner or creator." This makes perfect sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 which reads, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM AND FOR HIM." I noticed you left this verse out but you quoted only vs15, why? Then there is Hebrews 1:10.
I also noticed you used the words, "torture stake" and "Gods active force." Are you per chance a Jehovah's Witness. If so I'm surprise you did not quote Proverbs 8:22 to show Jesus is a created being. That's one of their favorite proof text but even that is easily refuted. So where am I wrong bronson?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
You might like to read Archie in Greek Philosophy, it too toys with the theoretical sense of the word. Look also at the Catholic Encyclopedia and the complications of introducing the trinity, which makes Jesus equal to God.
Is Jesus his own father, is the father his own father and the two of them the father of the Holy Spirit, or is the Holy Spirit the father of both of the other two fathers....I wont go and farther. or is the further father.
And why was a change necessary, consider this:
"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."
"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."
Oh please akap, I didn't know you were a mind reader that you can read whether or not my heart is "condescending and presumptious? Your in the big leagues now and not messing around with little kids. I initially ask you one simple question (more than once now) and you never did address it, why? Instead you bring up "excuses" by claiming I'm asking to many questions.
This in spite of the fact that I specfically said, "let's just deal with the original question I ask you in the first and then I will be happy to deal with Philippians 2:3-9. It is you who came here and declared publicly that Jesus Christ is not God. If you believe this then it is up to you to prove you position. Anyone can claim a position but you have to prove your position.
Then I show up with a legitimate question that challenges your position and what do you do? You tell me I'm not listening, I'm presumptious, condescending, deceitful and you don't like how I used the word, "preexist?" Oh and btw, you also orginally that nobody understands John 1:1-2. I then said ok, let's throw out John 1:1-2 and please deal with the other verses I quoted, which you never did.
So for about the fourth time I will ask you and I won't even use the word "preexist." Why is Jesus Christ presented as the agent of creation at Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by the Apostles and by His own Father? What excuse are you going to come up with now, it's strike three and I'm out?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
This in spite of the fact that I specfically said, "let's just deal with the original question I ask you in the first and then I will be happy to deal with Philippians 2:3-9. It is you who came here and declared publicly that Jesus Christ is not God. If you believe this then it is up to you to prove you position. Anyone can claim a position but you have to prove your position.
Then I show up with a legitimate question that challenges your position and what do you do? You tell me I'm not listening, I'm presumptious, condescending, deceitful and you don't like how I used the word, "preexist?" Oh and btw, you also orginally that nobody understands John 1:1-2. I then said ok, let's throw out John 1:1-2 and please deal with the other verses I quoted, which you never did.
So for about the fourth time I will ask you and I won't even use the word "preexist." Why is Jesus Christ presented as the agent of creation at Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by the Apostles and by His own Father? What excuse are you going to come up with now, it's strike three and I'm out?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto