He Comes With Clouds

[it'sme]

>Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh.
not if one assumes that the word is the written or oral word of god as it is everywhere in the bible.

Der Alter
Yes the bible should be trusted.
The Word is Jesus and if you look up this you will find that the term Word means to explain God.( Jehovah)

The greatest exponent and supporter of Jehovah’s inspired word of truth was the Lord Jesus Christ. He astounded people by his methods of teaching (Mt 7:28, 29; Joh 7:46), yet he took no credit to himself, saying, “the word that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.” (Joh 14:24; 17:14; Lu 5:1) Faithful disciples of Christ were those who remained in his word, and this, in turn, set them free from ignorance, superstition, and fear, also from slavery to sin and death. (Joh 8:31, 32) Often it was necessary for Jesus to take issue with the Pharisees, whose traditions and teachings made void “the word [or declaration] of God.”—Mt 15:6; Mr 7:13.

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?
Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15 ?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

and in John 20:17
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
This is after Jesus was resurrected.

It is very plain that Jesus is Gods Son in the way we understand what a son is.

Now John 1:1-
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Our translation says 'a' God. Most others don't. But if you look at this scripture it is could be confusing if you decided to take it on it's own. But if you look at it it says, he was 'with God' and says this twice here, and then says through him. This is very funny use of the words if they were one person. So to get the understanding you have to look at the rest of the bible.
If you do that Jesus says over and over again the he is Gods Son and God sent him and the one who explain God to us. Besides the bible says no man has seen God at anytime.But the Word has explained him.
In some places the bible say that Jesus and God are one. But Jesus also says all of his followers are one also. So that just means were are in unity, as one.
The problem is that many people have listened to the Churches for many centuries , and this idea of a trinity appeals to ones that want a God that has some mystery to him. That is why spiritualism is popular. People go for that.
The bible is really clear on this question of Jehovah and Jesus. If you just understand that Jesus is a perfect representative of Jehovah's. Then the scriptures open up to you. The Holy spirit which is almost forgotten in these discussions is not an entity at all but Jehovah's force or power.

All of this is in the bible, and put there by Jehovah is such away as to mislead the ones that want to be mislead. That is what the bible means when it says a 'form of Godly devotion'

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow, excuse me for saying so, but these are lame arguments you gave.

then no debate is possible, you have poisoned the well by saying my arguments are lame, and especially by commencing your reply with this put down. you might just as well have said I'm an idiot. But I can see that you are trying to be civil in your responses. I too have resorted to poisoning the well, but am trying not to.

You believe how you will to, but scripture says "his going forth" which using a masculine pronoun is referring to a man who was coming, so it is not referring to a plan.

Jesus is the plan of god for man. So god's plan for man is his word which has it's greatest fulfillment in Jesus, who is the image of god, not god.

The Word we are told became flesh and dwelt among us, referring to the incarnation we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. So it certainly is not the personification of a plan or such.

Incarnation is not in the bible , it is your interpretation of 'the word became flesh. I believe the word is being personified in john 1. which means it is spoken of sometimes as if it were an individual. I never said the word was a personification of the plan. I'd have to think about that, but in john 1.14 for example I believe that 'the word became flesh" could be considered a personification, regardless of what you call it, I believe the meaning is that gods word or plan (the Greek word logos means more than jsut word it also means plan) became flesh or Jesus with the birth of Jesus, not literally, the word of god did not turn into a clump of flesh or literally turn into Jesus. Jesus was begotten and conceived, not incarnated. to say it means Jesus was incarnated, to me, would be to contradict scriptures that say Jesus was begotten of god and coneived of Mary.

>
The burden should be on you to show the examples that God names other saviors.

I might . I just Dnuked my hard drive and reinstalled my OS so i don't have all the resources put back on my computer to show you as easily as I could have formerly. My comnputer was freezing up and running slow so I figured I had a virus so I Dnuked it and reinstalled the OS, but it still froze up and ran slow, turns out the mouse was bad cause when I put a new mouse on it voila, it runs like a charm again, I got dual core 1.8 ghz with 2 gb of ram. fantastic.
Obviously neither one of us is going to change the others opinon right? we both know that.

>Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh.

it is your interpretation that Jesus is literally the word, it is my interpretation that Jesus is figuratively the word, a door, a lamp, a good shepard, the bread of heaven, etc.

the word is not literally god, God is not literally what he says. figurative. some bible translates it as 'what the word was god was." which I suppose is true, even though it's not a translation but an interpretation. but I see it as the same as saying "george is football". you know I don't mean George is the football game, you know I mean that george is some kind of football fanatic or something. Likewise, if you take the word to mean what God says, you have to approach "the word was god" with the same sort of view in mind.
I see no justification for sayin here in john 1 the word is some being, and everywhere else in the bible the word is what god says. you have no scripture for that.

As I said this would be a faulty assumption.

how do you get that the word of god is what god says is a faulty assumption?

>But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. the earliest Greek manuscripts say His kingdom not your kingdom, thus the first part cannot be translated "your throne , o God,..." It has to be an exclamation, and since God would not utter the exclamation "o God" the meaning has to be "God is thy throne". Or "thy throne is God", because god or throne have to be predicate nominatives. God and throne are in the nominative case, not the vocative case, and persons or god are never addressed in the nominative or nameing case, it's always the vocative case, and the vocative case for God is thee, not theos as is in heb. 1.8.

>some bibles recognise these facts and translate it differently than is commonly the way it is translated.

The problem with this interpretation is that in Hebrews this passage shows the Father addressing the Son, and why would the Father possibly be referring to just God's kingdom, and not of the Son, in speaking to him? It would be irrelevant for the context.

you've misunderstood the correct reading of the earliest manuscripts. they say "his kingdom" refering to the son, not God.

Of course it does mean so, because equal here means equality with God, and so Jesus is equal with the Father, and as there is certainly, and is here established, only one God, so the Father and the Son, each a person, are both the same God. People who reject this outright have difficulty with it, but those who conform there belief to the Bible can see that God is different then we are, and in transcendence beyond what we know, God as one being can be more than one person.[/qutoe] I believe I have to go with the Brain God gave me. and my brain tells me what you are saying is that 3 beings are one being. that is a contradiction, therefore, I reject it on those grounds. what you are saying in essence, in my opinon, is throw away reasoning, throw away rational thought and just accept it cause you see no other alternative. I say if what you or anyone says results in contradictions and illogic, then something is wrong with what you or anyone is saying,

This is certainly not meant in this use in scripture. Jesus is the manifestation of God to us, as it must be so as he is equal to God.

the scripture says "who in the image of god" , refering to Jesus, and you say it doesn't mean Jesus is the image of God becaise Jesus is the manifestation of God.? 1 tim 3.16 says who was manifested, not God was manifested.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.ASV

actually he isn't in there either, it's just who or which. As I recall, there are manuscript variants on this verse that would support either' god', who or which. but that who is the more probable. the question is who does who or which refer to, "mystery" which actually isn't the word mystery but really means sacred secret. or does who or which refer to godliness. I can't recall off hand.

>they are one, thus they are in accord, thus they are both the alpha and omega. Doesn't mean a man is a spirit, or Jesus is god.

You are missing the meaning of him being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending of everything. This is characteristic only of God.

God has no beginning or ending. Jesus has a beginning, an origin, according to scripture.

Of course, in essence by nature, God is self-existent Creator, infinite, eternal, almighty,... and not a man, but with all God's power, God could come in a human incarnation. And this argument using Jesus statement is after his resurrection, and proves he was not just a spirit, but returned as a living physical man.

I know that trintiarians have no meaning for the words essence and nature. trinitarians don't use essence to mean essence, and they don't use nature to mean nature. the words have no meaning and therefore what you have just said has no meaning.

 

[Der Alte]

then no debate is possible, you have poisoned the well by saying my arguments are lame, and especially by commencing your reply with this put down. you might just as well have said I'm an idiot. But I can see that you are trying to be civil in your responses. I too have resorted to poisoning the well, but am trying not to.

Actually your post is "poisoning the well." You falsely accuse Fred of a logical fallacy for the purpose of trying to discredit everything else he says. Using this definition any disagreement with something someone says is "poisoning the well."

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.​

 

[it'sme]

Actually your post is "poisoning the well." You falsely accuse Fred of a logical fallacy for the purpose of trying to discredit everything else he says. Using this definition any disagreement with something someone says is "poisoning the well."

Yes this is sort of like saying because your a JW you don't know anything.
That's why I like to talk to everyone, because until Armageddon hits everyone still has a chance. We are all born into Satan's system, and because of that we are tainted. it takes effort and humility ( teachable) to find God. Other wise why would God ask us to preach to others? It is in the hope they see it and change theri ways and come to follow the things Jesus did.

 

[FredVB]

Hello it'sme, and others who this might interest. I want to respond to these latest points after mine, even of yours, it'sme, although a few are already responded to earlier. I do not have the time right now, although I want to, and I will be unavailable for the next few days. I would suggest, it'sme, as I have mainly discussing our topic with you, that as it is not quite on the subject this thread is started for, you might start a new thread, and when I am available again, I will look for it besides coming here, and can continue with discussing the points with you, and for 2ducklow too, that I still want to give response to.

 

[it'sme]

Hello it'sme, and others who this might interest. I want to respond to these latest points after mine, even of yours, it'sme, although a few are already responded to earlier. I do not have the time right now, although I want to, and I will be unavailable for the next few days. I would suggest, it'sme, as I have mainly discussing our topic with you, that as it is not quite on the subject this thread is started for, you might start a new thread, and when I am available again, I will look for it besides coming here, and can continue with discussing the points with you, and for 2ducklow too, that I still want to give response to.

Yes we seem to talk about everything in this thread except what it is about.
Any way I don't mind that. I will wait for your response here. Fred.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]I know that trintiarians have no meaning for the words essence and nature. trinitarians don't use essence to mean essence, and they don't use nature to mean nature. the words have no meaning and therefore what you have just said has no meaning.

This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[2ducklow]

This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

probably, . perhaps I should have just asked for what he means when he says essence and nature. I was trying to word it politely though. I think i was thinking that I probably wouldn't get an answer if i just asked for his def. so I sorta cut to the chase. my mistake, I should have just asked for a def. and if he didn't give one, just let it be.

 

[Der Alte]

probably, . perhaps I should have just asked for what he means when he says essence and nature. I was trying to word it politely though. I think i was thinking that I probably wouldn't get an answer if i just asked for his def. so I sorta cut to the chase. my mistake, I should have just asked for a def. and if he didn't give one, just let it be.

One step at a time.

 

[it'sme]

To get back to the topic, about Jesus coming in the clouds.

When Jesus ascended into heaven, according to the record, “a cloud caught him up from their vision.” (Ac 1:9) The disciples did not see Jesus riding away on a cloud, but rather, the cloud obscured their vision of him. This helps us to understand Jesus’ words concerning his presence: “They will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory,” and Revelation’s statement: “He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him.” (Lu 21:27; Mt 24:30; Re 1:7) In past cases clouds represented invisible presence; but observers could “see” the meaning with their mental “eyes.” In this case the physical occurrences that are visible would cause the one looking to “see” or realize that Christ is invisibly present.—See also Mt 24; Mr 13; Re 14:14. JWP
So Jesus second coming in clouds, just means we will not see him physically but by the signs seen on the earth.

 

[it'sme]

Fred

Please take these things into account, they establish my position that I
would persuade you to.

In Micah 5 verse 2, the prophecy about Jesus tells us
that this coming King to be born in Bethlehem is of old,
even from everlasting: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting. I would then direct you to the Gospel
account of John, chapter 1 verses1-5, concerning the Word
(Logos in the original manuscripts) who is with God and is
God, and through whom everything is made. In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light
of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the
darkness comprehended it not. Verse 14 in the same chapter
identifies this as Jesus. And the Word dwelt among us, and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace an truth. Now bear in mind that
Scripture teaches, he was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

The Messiah ( anointed one) came when Jesus presented himself to John for baptism and was then anointed by God’s holy spirit. (Mt 3:13-17) He thereby became the King-Designate, the One recognized by Jehovah’s Court as having the legal right to the Davidic throne, a right that had not been exercised during the preceding six centuries. But Jehovah additionally brought this approved Son into a covenant for a heavenly Kingdom, in which Jesus would be both King and Priest, as Melchizedek of ancient Salem had been. (Ps 110:1-4; Lu 22:29; Heb 5:4-6; 7:1-3; 8:1; see COVENANT.) As the promised ‘seed of Abraham,’ this heavenly King-Priest would be God’s Chief Agent for blessing persons of all nations.—Ge 22:15-18; Ga 3:14; Ac 3:15.

Jesus was not king until this was baptized.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
Our translation 'a' God, ( because the bible says there are many God's). But even if you don't accept that these verses he was 'with' God and it was 'through' him. This is odd language becasue how can you be with someone and still be that person? You have to go to the rest of the bible to get a clearer understanding. The bible even says they are one. But the bible also says we are are one with, with Jesus. It just means in unity, we are one.
You should at least believe what Jesus said. This is after he was resurrected and on his way to Jehovah.

(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
Jesus made the point here of telling Mary to tell them what he said.

In Isaiah 43v10-13; 44v6-8; and45v5-8 that Yahweh alone
is God and there is no other. Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I
have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and
understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,
neither
shall there be after me. I, even I am Yahweh; and
beside me there is no savior. I have declared, and have
saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god
among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh,
that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there
is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and
who will let it?Thus saith Yahweh the King of Israel, and his
redeemer Yahweh of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call,
and shall declare it, and set in order for me, since I
appointed the ancient people? and the things are coming,
and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not,
neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time,
and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there
a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no God
beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from
the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and
there is none else. I form the light, and create the
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all
these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let
the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open,
and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness
spring up together; I Yahweh have created it.

Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh. We are to trust in Jesus for our
salvation, and that goes with the fact in Scripture that
Yahweh is our only savior. There are abundant other
verses of Scripture that further this argument, but let me
direct you in particular to Hebrews 1v5-12: For to which of the angels did he ever say: "You are my
Son, today I have begotten you"? And again: "I will be to
him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? But when he
again brings the firstborn into the world, he says: "Let
all the angels of God worship him." And of the angels he
says: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a
flame of fire." But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness
and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has
anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your
companions." And: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of
your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they
will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will
fold them up, and they will be changed. But you are the
same, and your years will not fail."

Jesus had a prehuman existence. He was called Micheal in the bible.
Jesus was the word meaning he explained God to us, and Jehovah is the only true God Jesus is his Son.

(Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

This scripture does not include Jesus or the Holy spirit in this.

Philippians 2v5-6:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery
to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation,
taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the
likeness of men.

This scripture means that Jesus didn't consider himself equal to God. He never was. The bible say he is the image of God that means exactly alike, But not the same person. Jesus was created but Jehovah wasn't.


Colossians 1v15-17:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him were created all things that are
in heaven and that are on the earth, visible an invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through him and for him. And he
is before all things, and in him all things consist.

Finally, consider that the one God is named the Alpha
and Omega in Revelation 1v8 Jesus is in 1v11. Also
see 21v6 and then 22v13.

Indeed, as I have been pointing out, the Lord Jesus, in his
preexistence was the Word that is with God and is God, but there
is only one God. He was the Creator of all things of creation
from nothing, and in him all things consist.

In his equality with God the Father it was not robbery to be grasped, but he humbled himself, and the Word became flesh, in the incarnation
as a human, the very image of the invisible God, and so was the one begotten Son. For to which of the angels did he ever say: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? And to the Son he says: "your throne, O God, is forever and ever", and he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him." Only God should be worshiped, no angel is, but the Lord Jesus is a number of times. He will always remain and his years will never fail though heavens and earth may perish. All his attributes are those of God. Do not explain all this away with an appeal to the image of personified wisdom which is created, or texts that have added a term such as "other". Bible truth should stand. If there is no argument to this, I am not seeking to end the conversation.[/quote]
This idea of the trinity is from pagan religions.


The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

 

[FredVB]

Thanks for waiting for me to be available again. It occurs to me that we might miss the forest for the trees. I mean that, in explaining away a great many verses, we may do it for a point we hold as true, without that point having a basis as does the argument with all the verses used as support for it.

As I have said earlier in responding to you, itsme, without any offense being meant or to cut you off, you have been hung up especially with this idea that, as a human son has a beginning, so the only begotten Son of God must have a beginning, even though I have pointed out, without response from you, that all orthodox Christian teaching involving this matter is explained with the understanding that the Son of God is such by the true meaning that he is the incarnation of God as a human being. He clearly preexisted, but he was not begotten until the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. Nothing in scripture actually says he had a beginning or was created, and I have pointed out misused scripture, such as using words added to translations not in the texts that are translated from, or using what is clearly a personification of wisdom.

You wrote after I last had opportunity to give adequate reply:

>yet he took no credit to himself, saying, “the word that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.” (Joh 14:24; 17:14; Lu 5:1) Faithful disciples of Christ were those who remained in his word, and this, in turn, set them free from ignorance, superstition, and fear, also from slavery to sin and death. (Joh 8:31, 32) Often it was necessary for Jesus to take issue with the Pharisees, whose traditions and teachings made void “the word [or declaration] of God.”—Mt 15:6; Mr 7:13.

Regarding your emphasis that the Lord Jesus said "the word you are hearing is not mine" see my explanation earlier on distinct offices. Although orthodox understanding based on scripture sees there is only one being that is the Supreme Being, the one God, there are the distinct persons that are in full union as that being, and although you would argue that this is unreasonable, we submit to the authority of God's word on the matter rather than trusting the ability of our reason, and certainly God is beyond all of it, and not like we are. And so Jesus as the incarnation of God could speak rather the word from the Father, and there is no contradiction.

>Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?
Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15 ?

This is the hangup I mean on Jesus being the Son. There is not necessarily exact correspondence on all points. In Luke 1 v 35, the angel told Mary in his announcement "also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This is the event where Jesus who is to be born after that is first called the Son of God. This is how the incarnation of God (yes, that is not a Bible term, but it is our convenient way of saying in a word what was the reality when the Word who was with God and was God became flesh and dwelt among us) was to be known.

Regarding the term image, it would be illogical, and unreasonable, to suppose that Christ, who is the image imprinted by the substance of Yahweh is not of the substance of Yahweh and hence God. No creation is ever declared to be of God's very substance or essence (upostaseos): therefore the eternal Word, who is "the fulness of Deity bodily" (Colossians 2 v 9), cannot be a creation or created being.

And the Lord is firstborn by virtue of pre-eminence, and by his life, the first and source of the resurrection.

>Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

Equality was still real, we can know it based on other verses, but again this is understandable with the concept of their different offices (roles), while still being in union.

>1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

I have already agreed that the Father is God to the Lord Christ. And I have spoken on verses for the Lord to the Father.

>and in John 20:17
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
This is after Jesus was resurrected.

Same answer for this.

>It is very plain that Jesus is Gods Son in the way we understand what a son is.

For your understanding it is plain with your conclusion. The scriptural understanding of the Son being the incarnation of God is not contradicted though, as I said the offices correspond to the differences, still not violating the union as one being.

>Now John 1:1-
1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

>Our translation says 'a' God. Most others don't. But if you look at this scripture it is could be confusing if you decided to take it on it's own. But if you look at it it says, he was 'with God' and says this twice here, and then says through him. This is very funny use of the words if they were one person. So to get the understanding you have to look at the rest of the bible.
If you do that Jesus says over and over again the he is Gods Son and God sent him and the one who explain God to us. Besides the bible says no man has seen God at anytime.But the Word has explained him.
In some places the bible say that Jesus and God are one. But Jesus also says all of his followers are one also. So that just means were are in unity, as one.

If you say the position I and others are taking is that the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are the same person, you are not understanding or misrepresenting it. With there offices, or sets of role, they are best understood as persons, and so one is with the other person, who is God, and that one is God. That all things are made through him would mean he is God, for know creature made by God has that ability, for God alone is understood from scripture to be Creator of everything. The Word we are told, as is discussed after this, is the image of God for us, who could be seen, the result of the Word becoming flesh.

>The problem is that many people have listened to the Churches for many centuries , and this idea of a trinity appeals to ones that want a God that has some mystery to him. That is why spiritualism is popular. People go for that.
The bible is really clear on this question of Jehovah and Jesus. If you just understand that Jesus is a perfect representative of Jehovah's. Then the scriptures open up to you. The Holy spirit which is almost forgotten in these discussions is not an entity at all but Jehovah's force or power.

People have found basis in belief for trinity in Bible passages. So what "Churches" have said is irrelevant to this. What is "clear" as you say is what we are disagreeing on, yet we can discuss this. I am not forgetting to discuss the "Holy spirit" but as salvation is tied to the Lord Jesus, I have found it important to stay on the topic of him, rather than to get too side-tracked. Other disagreements are certain to be found, but we can stay with what is most important.

>All of this is in the bible, and put there by Jehovah is such away as to mislead the ones that want to be mislead. That is what the bible means when it says a 'form of Godly devotion'

I did not understand what you were meaning with this point.

From earlier, I have also already dealt with the idea that Jesus came as an example to Satan, and to show obedience to God. That was not really it by itself, you can see my previous response. And for that purpose, it is understandable that God came for us.

I tried to tell you that you have not been able to name one actual case from Babylonian or any religion that could have influenced Christianity having any instance of "3 entities in one". It has already been shown and you can see it if you look that there already is a scriptural basis for 3 in one God to start with, and so it is not a matter of pagan influence, those who believe in trinity find it based on all these passages. I meant with this for you to name three persons of paganism named as one god.

>When Jesus came he was the only way.

We agree on this point.

>We know more today than they did, and the bible says at the time of the end, the knowledge will become abundant. This is the hidden knowledge or sacred secret that the bible talks about .
“To you the sacred secret [Gr., my‧ste′ri‧on] of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations"

I might ask you how we can know we have that "sacred secret" of the kingdom of God. And how is it hidden if the knowledge is become abundant?

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

it'sme you keep posting this same copy/paste from WTBS false anti-Christian writings as if they have some merit and I keep exposing them, showing how a bunch of anonymous men at WTBS deliberately misquote and quote out-of-context legitimate sources trying to make them say the opposite of what they do say. Repeatedly ignoring the truth for the deliberate false information of your leaders will not change the truth or make it go away.

Here are the quotes you posted above in context, your misquotes shown in blue. The alleged quote from Encyclopedia Americana is so old, 50+ years, it is virtually impossible to verify. So my quote is from a more current edition. Remember this, as recently as the 50s encyclopedias were still showing the famous picture of monkeys evolving into human beings as scientific fact.

"Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christianity that asserts that God is one in essence but three in "person," Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them-i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them mi the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness 'as "persons" (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is "of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father," even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126)

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. color=red]But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.[/color] Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)

TRINITY, The central and characteristic Christian doctrine of God is that He exists in Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ("Holy Ghost" is the traditional English translation of Sanctus Spiritus and means the same as "Holy Spirit.") At the same time, the Christian church insists that God is One in "sub- stance" (Latin substantia, existence or inner essence), and thus combines in it "mystery" (a formula or conception which really transcends human understanding) the truths set forth in the Holy Scriptures. It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the data upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church's encounter with Greek philosophy. The earliest development of the doctrine may in fact be viewed its an attempt to preserve the balance between the various statements of Scripture, or their implications, without yielding to views which, though logical enough, would have destroyed or abandoned important areas of Christian belief. The simplest affirmation is that God is "Three in One, and One in Three," without making use of such technical terms, derived from law or philosophy, as "substance" or "person." God is Father, and the Father is God; God is Son, and the Son is God; God is Spirit, and the Spirit is God. The statement is often seen, in Latin, in early stained-glass church windows, with three circles at the corners of it triangle and an inner circle connected with each (Fig. 1). The doctrine thus graphically symbolized might perhaps better be described as that of the divine "Triunity" rather than the "Trinity." At best the terms "substance" and "person" are themselves only symbolic, and point to a mysterious reality which cannot be either literally described or mathematically formulated. Furthermore, these two terms are, in English, only the rough equivalents of their Latin originals, which had far wider connotations than the English words now possess. The term "Trinity" (Greek Trias) was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (fl. c. 180 A.D.), and provide a convenient term of reference, though it did not provide a definition. [ . . . ] Eventually, Judaism emerged from the long struggle as a religion with one and only one God, the purest monotheism in the ancient world. Such expressions as "Let us make man" (Genesis 1:26) is probably only an echo of the early Hebrew, conception of a divine court, the "company of heaven," supernatural or angelic beings surrounding God in heaven. There was no other God beside Him (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 46:9). This theistic faith is completely taken for granted in the New Testament and in the early Christian creeds. Instead of a reversion in the direction of polytheism, with a plurality of divine beings, the development of Trinitarian doctrine was guided by the same principle of divine revelation as that reflected in the Old Testament, that is, from plurality to unity. For the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God: required the use of theistic language. [ . . . ](Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)

 

[it'sme]

That is exactly why you take the bible as the final word.
There no trinity in the bible. That is a doctrine that is made up by man.
Jesus many time says he is God's Son. Jehovah , when Jesus was being baptized, said this is my Son who I have approved, and then at John 20:17

(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
This was after Jesus was resurrected, Jesus would have had no reason to say this at this time, if it wasn't true.
Man did not kill God, they killed his son.

 

[it'sme]

Thanks for waiting for me to be available again. It occurs to me that we might miss the forest for the trees. I mean that, in explaining away a great many verses, we may do it for a point we hold as true, without that point having a basis as does the argument with all the verses used as support for it.


Jesus did have a beginning. That is why he is called the firstborn of all creation. He was Micheal in his prehuman existence.
In Psalm it says

(Psalm 83:16-18) Fill their faces with dishonor, That people may search for your name, O Jehovah. 17 O may they be ashamed and be disturbed for all times, And may they become abashed and perish; 18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
This would have been a perfect place to add Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but Jehovah did not.

Jesus told us many time he was God's Son.

And in John 20: 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
Jesus made a point of this to Mary, and even told her that she should tell the others what he said. Jesus says here he has a Father and a God. This fits with Jesus being Jehovah Son. Orthodox Christianity is wrong on their stand that Jesus is Jehovah. The bible says there are many Gods and many Lords. So there is no problem, with calling Jesus God, but he is not Jehovah God. Satan is called the God of this system of things. Does that make Satan Jehovah also? So this term God can mean different things to different people. Jesus is one with Jehovah just like Jesus followers are one with him. It just means unity.

John 10:22 At that time the festival of dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was wintertime, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Sol′o‧mon. 24 Therefore the Jews encircled him and began to say to him: “How long are you to keep our souls in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us outspokenly.” 25 Jesus answered them: “I told YOU, and yet YOU do not believe. The works that I am doing in the name of my Father, these bear witness about me. 26 But YOU do not believe, because YOU are none of my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.” 39 Therefore they tried again to seize him; but he got out of their reach.
Jesus when pressed here confirms he is Gods Son and yet Orthodox Christianity, does not believe Jesus. They have taken the side of the Jews that wanted Jesus dead.

John 6:38 because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 This is the will of him that sent me, that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given me but that I should resurrect it at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day

John 8:16 And yet if I do judge, my judgment is truthful, because I am not alone, but the Father who sent me is with me. 17 Also, in YOUR own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ 18 I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.
So even in the Jewish Law you need two witnesses , to confirm a matter. Here Jesus is saying he is not alone that there is an other and that was his father.
There is no question about this. Orthodox Christianity, or those that believe in the trinity are not listening to Jesus words.

I might ask you how we can know we have that "sacred secret" of the kingdom of God. And how is it hidden if the knowledge is become abundant?

This sacred secret is about Jesus, and who he is Jesus is God's Son. ( do you not think Jehovah did not know that all these false teachings would come about) That is why Jehovah said I will make my name known. Orthodox Christianity almost buried that name. If it wasn't for us that name would have been forgotten.
Also this sacred secret is about the prophecies in Daniel, and Revelation.

Matthew 3:10 Now when he got to be alone, those around him with the twelve began questioning him on the illustrations. 11 And he proceeded to say to them: “To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, 12 in order that, though looking, they may look and yet not see, and, though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.” 13 Further, he said to them: “YOU do not know this illustration, and so how will YOU understand all the other illustrations?


Daniel 12:4 “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.”

This knowledge is about our time, that we are living in now. It is about Babylon the Great, the governments today, it is about the man of lawlessness , and Jesus second coming.
Actually this to me is the most interesting part of the bible because we are living it. The bible compares this time to Noah's day, though this it will not be a flood put the results for man is the same. Few will be on that 'Ark' when Armageddon happens. ( compared to the worlds population.)
Noah knew and told people what was going to happen but they took no note. That is the same today.

 

[FredVB]

2ducklow, it is a lot to me to be catching up with, not having that much time, but I will respond to you. You may have been more sensitive than I was taking into account, but without trying to belittle your character at all, I would stand by the position that your arguments previously were weak.

You wrote various points which I respond to below:

>Jesus is the plan of god for man. So god's plan for man is his word which has it's greatest fulfillment in Jesus, who is the image of god, not god.

I have answered this a little while ago. Regarding the term image, it would be illogical, and unreasonable, to suppose that Christ, who is the image imprinted by the substance of Yahweh is not of the substance of Yahweh and hence God. No creation is ever declared to be of God's very substance or essence (upostaseos): therefore the eternal Word, who is "the fulness of Deity bodily" (Colossians 2 v 9), cannot be a creation or created being.
If we interpret that the Word is the plan of God for man, we would be reading in the beginning the plan of God for us was with God and the plan of God for us was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him ... It may be seen this view does not make sense. The meaning of 'the Word', based on the Greek idea expressed with the term for the creative principle, is clear and is shown to be the one who in becoming flesh is the Lord Jesus Christ.

>"The Word we are told became flesh and dwelt among us, referring to the incarnation we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. So it certainly is not the personification of a plan or such."


>Incarnation is not in the bible , it is your interpretation of 'the word became flesh. I believe the word is being personified in john 1. which means it is spoken of sometimes as if it were an individual. I never said the word was a personification of the plan. I'd have to think about that, but in john 1.14 for example I believe that 'the word became flesh" could be considered a personification, regardless of what you call it, I believe the meaning is that gods word or plan (the Greek word logos means more than jsut word it also means plan) became flesh or Jesus with the birth of Jesus, not literally, the word of god did not turn into a clump of flesh or literally turn into Jesus. Jesus was begotten and conceived, not incarnated. to say it means Jesus was incarnated, to me, would be to contradict scriptures that say Jesus was begotten of god and conceived of Mary.

My previous statement above clarifies that the Word is not a personification, it would not have made sense. This answer from you suggests that you deny the pre-existence of Christ before his birth. Is that what you mean to say? The denial can clearly be refuted from scripture.

>"The burden should be on you to show the examples that God names other saviors."


>I might . I just Dnuked my hard drive and reinstalled my OS so i don't have all the resources put back on my computer to show you as easily as I could have formerly. My comnputer was freezing up and running slow so I figured I had a virus so I Dnuked it and reinstalled the OS, but it still froze up and ran slow, turns out the mouse was bad cause when I put a new mouse on it voila, it runs like a charm again, I got dual core 1.8 ghz with 2 gb of ram. fantastic.
Obviously neither one of us is going to change the others opinon right? we both know that.

Probably not, but it would be fair, if when you can you show the examples that God names other saviors. It seems to me a contradiction of what God says in the quoted passage in Isaiah, and God makes a point of saying he would know, which he certainly does.

>"Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus, who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is the same Yahweh."
>it is your interpretation that Jesus is literally the word, it is my interpretation that Jesus is figuratively the word, a door, a lamp, a good shepard, the bread of heaven, etc.

The fact I had said the "Word" corresponds to the Greek idea of the creative principle distinguishes it from other terms used figuratively for Jesus, although not completely figurative in these cases, for there is a real sense in which Jesus is a door for us, a light for us, bread for us, and for those of us who are followers, he shepherds us.

>the word is not literally god, God is not literally what he says. figurative. some bible translates it as 'what the word was god was." which I suppose is true, even though it's not a translation but an interpretation. but I see it as the same as saying "george is football". you know I don't mean George is the football game, you know I mean that george is some kind of football fanatic or something. Likewise, if you take the word to mean what God says, you have to approach "the word was god" with the same sort of view in mind.
I see no justification for sayin here in john 1 the word is some being, and everywhere else in the bible the word is what god says. you have no scripture for that.

It does not translate this way, I have basically refuted it, and I can see from the Greek text that I have, and with lexicon, that this is not true.

>"As I said this would be a faulty assumption."
>how do you get that the word of god is what god says is a faulty assumption?

The Greek text if nothing else makes it clear for these passages.

>But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. the earliest Greek manuscripts say His kingdom not your kingdom, thus the first part cannot be translated "your throne , o God,..." It has to be an exclamation, and since God would not utter the exclamation "o God" the meaning has to be "God is thy throne". Or "thy throne is God", because god or throne have to be predicate nominatives. God and throne are in the nominative case, not the vocative case, and persons or god are never addressed in the nominative or nameing case, it's always the vocative case, and the vocative case for God is thee, not theos as is in heb. 1.8.

>some bibles recognise these facts and translate it differently than is commonly the way it is translated.

>The problem with this interpretation is that in Hebrews this passage shows the Father addressing the Son, and why would the Father possibly be referring to just God's kingdom, and not of the Son, in speaking to him? It would be irrelevant for the context.
​

>you've misunderstood the correct reading of the earliest manuscripts. they say "his kingdom" refering to the son, not God.

Not in the Greek text I can look at.

>"Of course it does mean so, because equal here means equality with God, and so Jesus is equal with the Father, and as there is certainly, and is here established, only one God, so the Father and the Son, each a person, are both the same God. People who reject this outright have difficulty with it, but those who conform there belief to the Bible can see that God is different then we are, and in transcendence beyond what we know, God as one being can be more than one person." I believe I have to go with the Brain God gave me. and my brain tells me what you are saying is that 3 beings are one being. that is a contradiction, therefore, I reject it on those grounds. what you are saying in essence, in my opinon, is throw away reasoning, throw away rational thought and just accept it cause you see no other alternative. I say if what you or anyone says results in contradictions and illogic, then something is wrong with what you or anyone is saying,

I have also said something about not putting our ability to reason above what is revealed in scripture.

>"This is certainly not meant in this use in scripture. Jesus is the manifestation of God to us, as it must be so as he is equal to God."


>the scripture says "who in the image of god" , refering to Jesus, and you say it doesn't mean Jesus is the image of God becaise Jesus is the manifestation of God.? 1 tim 3.16 says who was manifested, not God was manifested.

See my statement above dealing with Colossians passages.

>1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.ASV

>actually he isn't in there either, it's just who or which. As I recall, there are manuscript variants on this verse that would support either' god', who or which. but that who is the more probable. the question is who does who or which refer to, "mystery" which actually isn't the word mystery but really means sacred secret. or does who or which refer to godliness. I can't recall off hand.

I do not know about these variations.

>they are one, thus they are in accord, thus they are both the alpha and omega. Doesn't mean a man is a spirit, or Jesus is god.

>"You are missing the meaning of him being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending of everything. This is characteristic only of God."
​

>God has no beginning or ending. Jesus has a beginning, an origin, according to scripture.

You believe this because you disagree with Bible passages that have been presented.

>"Of course, in essence by nature, God is self-existent Creator, infinite, eternal, almighty,... and not a man, but with all God's power, God could come in a human incarnation. And this argument using Jesus statement is after his resurrection, and proves he was not just a spirit, but returned as a living physical man."
​

>I know that trintiarians have no meaning for the words essence and nature. trinitarians don't use essence to mean essence, and they don't use nature to mean nature. the words have no meaning and therefore what you have just said has no meaning.

>perhaps I should have just asked for what he means when he says essence and nature. I was trying to word it politely though. I think i was thinking that I probably wouldn't get an answer if i just asked for his def. so I sorta cut to the chase. my mistake, I should have just asked for a def. and if he didn't give one, just let it be.

I surely can say something that defines what is meant by essence and nature in these cases. God is the self-existent Creator, whom exists as the necessary existence, which there is, otherwise there would not be anything. This 'essence' of his necessity of being, which implies absolutely infiniteness of presence, duration, and attributes, including the ability to create from nothing, is his by nature, and persists eternally.

__________________
>God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5

This last statement at the end of the posts from Jesus after the resurrection shows he returned in body, not just as spirit.

 

[2ducklow]

Thanks for waiting for me to be available again. It occurs to me that we might miss the forest for the trees. I mean that, in explaining away a great many verses, we may do it for a point we hold as true, without that point having a basis as does the argument with all the verses used as support for it.


Jesus did have a beginning. That is why he is called the firstborn of all creation. He was Micheal in his prehuman existence.
In Psalm it says

the bible says that no angel became the son of god.
Heb. 1.5-8
For unto which of those messengers (aka angels. 2dl) said the scripture
at any time, Thou art my son: this day begat I thee ? and again: / will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and again, when it introduceth the first-born into his dispensation, it saith : And let all the messengers of God pay homage to him. And of these messengers indeed the scripture saith; Who maketh his messengers, winds ; and his ministers, a flame of fire: but of the son it saith: God is thy throne for ever and ever ; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a straight sceptre. G.Wakefield

 

[it'sme]

Fred

I have answered this a little while ago. Regarding the term image, it would be illogical, and unreasonable, to suppose that Christ, who is the image imprinted by the substance of Yahweh is not of the substance of Yahweh and hence God.

Actually Fred there is nothing in our experience that can understand, a trinity idea. It is really a pagan idea and is not supported in the bible.
Jesus plainly tells us who he is. But most of Christendom does not listen to him. Even as a a spirit creature Jesus says he has a God. And when pressed by the Jews, Jesus makes a point of saying he is God's Son. You have to have the teachings of men to come up with something else. And then that something else is a mystery. In other words no man can grasp it. We were not created to understand something like that. And Jehovah created us to understand him and know him.
It is the same with a spirit that lives on in death. That also does not make any sense. Jehovah made us physical, if our purpose was to become an angel why not make us all angles in the first place, just like he made the angels. Jehovah's purpose for man was to be physical and live on the earth forever. That is what the bible says.
Besides Jesus was to die so that we could live. But if we live on anyway , we don't need Jesus sacrifice. This idea of an after life also is pagan and is not in the bible.

The understanding of the scriptures comes only after someone gets the correct understanding of this.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow, it is a lot to me to be catching up with, not having that much time, but I will respond to you. You may have been more sensitive than I was taking into account, but without trying to belittle your character at all,

sure you were. " You make weak arguments" isn't belittling someone? Plus, you added to it this time by saying I'm sensitive. You think saying some one is too sensitive isn't belittling someone? yep sure thing. the reason people begin rebutals/arguments with put downs, is to make the rest of what they say sound more presuasive. It colors the entire response and builds it up to says somone is an idiot or some such thing, that's the whole purpose behind it. I've noticed that you begin evry rebutal with some putdown, weak putdowns but putdowns none the less, for example you said it's me ' is 'hung up" I make "weak arugments'. I'll give you a test, try beginning a rebutal without some put down and you will see that your reply will have to float on it's own ,and won't have the added help of some put down to build it up, thus making any weak argument shine forth as a weak argument. If one has a weak arguement the best way to make it sound strong is to belittle anyone opposed to it, if you have a strong argument, just belittle your opponent and your stong argument will sound even stronger.. everybody does it. even me sometimes, it's so easy to do that you can do it without even knowing it.

I would stand by the position that your arguments previously were weak.

and why do you feel the need to begin your rebutal
by saying I make weak arguments and I'm too sensitive? Your last two rebutals both began with aspersions cast my way about my abilities.

You wrote various points which I respond to below:

>Jesus is the plan of god for man. So god's plan for man is his word which has it's greatest fulfillment in Jesus, who is the image of god, not god.

I have answered this a little while ago. Regarding the term image, it would be illogical, and unreasonable, to suppose that Christ, who is the image imprinted by the substance of Yahweh is not of the substance of Yahweh and hence God. No creation is ever declared to be of God's very substance or essence (upostaseos): therefore the eternal Word, who is "the fulness of Deity bodily" (Colossians 2 v 9), cannot be a creation or created being.

No scriputre says that Jesus is the image of a yahweh substance imprinting. that is your interrpetation. Yahweh is spirit not a substance. no scripture says Jesus is the substance or essence of Yahweh. No scripture says that the eternal word, or Jesus is the fulness of diety bodily.' the scripture you refer to say all the fulness of the diety dwells in him, not is him.

[SIZE=+0](NASB) Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, [/SIZE]

(Young) Colossians 2:9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

Young changed theotes which means diety to Godhead, and the NASB added form on the end of the verse. so what God said was that in him all the fulness of the diety dwells bodily.

as to jesus not being a created being, scriptures indicate that he is such as 'firstborn of all (new) creation." or god hath created a new thing, a woman shall compass (go around) a man (to conceive).

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

or mathew which says the origin of Jesus christ was his conception/begatting.

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation (the Greek word is gennisis which means origin or generation, it is not the greek word for just birth that is another Greek word.)Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

In this light the meaning of the gospel's opening Words: "Book of the origin of Jesus Christ" can more adequately be understood. It is not immediately apparent whether they are intended as a superscription of the whole composition or only the introduction to the genealogical table, which follows. The latter seems more logical since the genealogy presents the origin of Jesus as the culmination of the historical process of Israel's begetting. Although such a continuity is implied, verse 18, which clarifies the ambiguity of verse 16, discloses that there is no immediate link between Joseph and Jesus. The progression of father begetting son moves forward uninterrupted for forty generations. At the forty-first the continuity is broken. Jesus who was generated by the holy Spirit introduces a disjunction. In this respect he is like Abraham who stands at the beginning of the genealogy as the grand patriarch of Israel, the originator of a new people and their unique history. As a result, the superscription: "Book of the origin of Jesus Christ" cannot apply only to the genealogical table. It reaches beyond it to 1:18-25 which explains the origin of Jesus and his relationship to the preceding generations.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ymf-duCYDNkJ:www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp%3Ftitle%3D30+the+origin+of+Jesus+Christ&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If we interpret that the Word is the plan of God for man, we would be reading in the beginning the plan of God for us was with God and the plan of God for us was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him ... It may be seen this view does not make sense. The meaning of 'the Word', based on the Greek idea expressed with the term for the creative principle, is clear and is shown to be the one who in becoming flesh is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe the word is the word of God , what God says. so what god said was " the word was towards god, and the word was god. what god says was towards god, or pointing towards god inother words, and what god says was god (in a figurative sense, like saying "george is football", or "president Obama is america", or "Hitler is Germany" etc.
the meaning is God's plan for man points us towards God, because gods plan is everything that God is and God's plan is for us to be like his son who is like god. that makes sense to me, if it don't make sense to you fine.

 

[2ducklow]

Probably not, but it would be fair, if when you can you show the examples that God names other saviors. It seems to me a contradiction of what God says in the quoted passage in Isaiah, and God makes a point of saying he would know, which he certainly does.

No it's not a contradiction because when God said there are no other saviors besides him, he was speaking hyperbolically.

(Darby) Judges 3:9 And the children of Israel cried to Jehovah; and Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.
(Rotherham) Judges 3:9 And the sons of Israel made outcry unto Yahweh, so Yahweh raised up a saviour unto the sons of Israel, who saved them,--even Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.

>"Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus, who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is the same Yahweh."
>it is your interpretation that Jesus is literally the word, it is my interpretation that Jesus is figuratively the word, a door, a lamp, a good shepard, the bread of heaven, etc.

The fact I had said the "Word" corresponds to the Greek idea of the creative principle distinguishes it from other terms used figuratively for Jesus, although not completely figurative in these cases, for there is a real sense in which Jesus is a door for us, a light for us, bread for us, and for those of us who are followers, he shepherds us.

I don't really get your drift. there is a figurative sense in which Jesus is a door and a figurative sense in which he is what God says. that works for me. no way is Jesus literally a door or what God says, not even slightly.

>the word is not literally god, God is not literally what he says. figurative. some bible translates it as 'what the word was god was." which I suppose is true, even though it's not a translation but an interpretation. but I see it as the same as saying "george is football". you know I don't mean George is the football game, you know I mean that george is some kind of football fanatic or something. Likewise, if you take the word to mean what God says, you have to approach "the word was god" with the same sort of view in mind.
I see no justification for sayin here in john 1 the word is some being, and everywhere else in the bible the word is what god says. you have no scripture for that.

It does not translate this way, I have basically refuted it, and I can see from the Greek text that I have, and with lexicon, that this is not true.

the word of god is what god says either orally or written down. Everyone knows that, except when they talk about john 1.

>"As I said this would be a faulty assumption."
>how do you get that the word of god is what god says is a faulty assumption?

The Greek text if nothing else makes it clear for these passages. >But to the Son he says: "your throne, O

God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. the earliest Greek manuscripts say His kingdom not your kingdom, thus the first part cannot be translated "your throne , o God,..." It has to be an exclamation, and since God would not utter the exclamation "o God" the meaning has to be "God is thy throne". Or "thy throne is God", because god or throne have to be predicate nominatives. God and throne are in the nominative case, not the vocative case, and persons or god are never addressed in the nominative or nameing case, it's always the vocative case, and the vocative case for God is thee, not theos as is in heb. 1.8.

>some bibles recognise these facts and translate it differently than is commonly the way it is translated.

>The problem with this interpretation is that in Hebrews this passage shows the Father addressing the Son, and why would the Father possibly be referring to just God's kingdom, and not of the Son, in speaking to him? It would be irrelevant for the context.

​

i see nothing hard to understand with this paritally more correct translation.

hebrews 1.8: but of the son it saith: God is thy throne for ever and ever ; the sceptre of thy (the earliest Greek manuscripts say his not thy) kingdom is a straight sceptre.G. Wakefield 1820.

​

>"Of course it does mean so, because equal here means equality with God, and so Jesus is equal with the Father, and as there is certainly, and is here established, only one God, so the Father and the Son, each a person, are both the same God.

and you have no idea why what you just said appears illogical to all non trinitarians?

People who reject this outright have difficulty with it, but those who conform there belief to the Bible can see that God is different then we are, and in transcendence beyond what we know, God as one being can be more than one person."

The bible doesn't say that, that is your interpretation. you are in effect asking me to transcend my intellect to accept your interpretation of the bible that one god is 3 persons because you interpet john 1 to mean Jesus is god, and you interpret other scriptures to mean that the holy spirit is a person of god distinct from God the Father. what you are saying is that 3 beings are one being and that is your interpretation and I'm suppose to accept it cause? cause your interpretation cant be wrong? or? I say most verse, maybe all, can be intrpreted different ways, including john 1. I say how we determine if an interpretation is correct is by lining it up with the rest of scripture and liniing your interpretation that 3 beings are one being with the rest of scripture I get zero support.

(Darby) Philippians 2:6 who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;

it just means that Jesus knew better than to claim equality with God, but that because he was in the form or morphe of god (i.e. was always manifesting God who dwelt within Him, Jesus) that He, Jesus didn't let this heady experience go to his head so to speak. Satan did, Jesus didn't make that same mistake satan did.

I believe I have to go with the Brain God gave me. and my brain tells me what you are saying is that 3 beings are one being. that is a contradiction, therefore, I reject it on those grounds. what you are saying in essence, in my opinon, is throw away reasoning, throw away rational thought and just accept it cause you see no other alternative. I say if what you or anyone says results in contradictions and illogic, then something is wrong with what you or anyone is saying,

I have also said something about not putting our ability to reason above what is revealed in scripture.

I put my reason above anyones faulty logic, shouldn't I? yep. It is your logic that 3 persons are one god, or one being, it is not the word of god, you say scripture reveals that. where? what scripture says that? the reality is that that is your interpretation, not anything scripture says or says about scripture or is revealed in scripture. Just because you feel god revealed to you that he is 3 persons, doesn't mean that that is any proof. it isn't. you can't base a doctrine on what god revealed to you. you have to base it on scriptures.

>"This is certainly not meant in this use in scripture. Jesus is the manifestation of God to us, as it must be so as he is equal to God."


>the scripture says "who in the image of god" , refering to Jesus, and you say it doesn't mean Jesus is the image of God becaise Jesus is the manifestation of God.? 1 tim 3.16 says who was manifested, not God was manifested.

See my statement above dealing with Colossians passages.

>1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.ASV

>actually he isn't in there either, it's just who or which. As I recall, there are manuscript variants on this verse that would support either' god', who or which. but that who is the more probable. the question is who does who or which refer to, "mystery" which actually isn't the word mystery but really means sacred secret. or does who or which refer to godliness. I can't recall off hand.

I do not know about these variations.

>they are one, thus they are in accord, thus they are both the alpha and omega. Doesn't mean a man is a spirit, or Jesus is god.

>"You are missing the meaning of him being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending of everything. This is characteristic only of God."
​

>God has no beginning or ending. Jesus has a beginning, an origin, according to scripture.

You believe this because you disagree with Bible passages that have been presented.

>"Of course, in essence by nature, God is self-existent Creator, infinite, eternal, almighty,... and not a man, but with all God's power, God could come in a human incarnation. And this argument using Jesus statement is after his resurrection, and proves he was not just a spirit, but returned as a living physical man."
​

>I know that trintiarians have no meaning for the words essence and nature. trinitarians don't use essence to mean essence, and they don't use nature to mean nature. the words have no meaning and therefore what you have just said has no meaning.

>perhaps I should have just asked for what he means when he says essence and nature. I was trying to word it politely though. I think i was thinking that I probably wouldn't get an answer if i just asked for his def. so I sorta cut to the chase. my mistake, I should have just asked for a def. and if he didn't give one, just let it be.

I surely can say something that defines what is meant by essence and nature in these cases. God is the self-existent Creator, whom exists as the necessary existence, which there is, otherwise there would not be anything. This 'essence' of his necessity of being, which implies absolutely infiniteness of presence, duration, and attributes, including the ability to create from nothing, is his by nature, and persists eternally.

you're on your own when you start talking about the nature and essence of god, you have no scriptures for it.