How is Jesus God?

[Gettingtalents]

Hello.

In what way is Jesus God? The Nicene Creed says that Christ and God are homoousios (same substance), but that same term was rejected by the Christians who assembled at the Synod of Antioch around fifty years before the Nicene Creed was formulated. Furthermore, the Council of Rimini held in 359 AD rejected the Nicene Creed (which was formulated in 325 AD). There were far more bishops at the Council of Rimini than were at Nicea. Furthermore, the homoousios term was FIRST inisited upon at the Council of Nicea by Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, who was presiding over the council and who threatened exile to all who would not sign the creed.

The truth of the matter is that consubstantial Trinitarianism was and is not the original Christian doctrine. It is the product of Roman muscle, passed down through Roman Catholicism, maintained through the reformation. So what was the original Christian doctrine?????

I submit to you that the original Christian doctrine, attested to by early church history and by sound Scriptural exegesis, is that Christ and God are distinct beings. That Christ was in fact created. That Jesus is God only in the sense that he is the image of God. What I mean is, when we see an image of someone, like Abraham Lincoln, we can look at it and say, "That is Abraham Lincoln." It is him, but in reality, it is his image. When we see it, we see him. Yet, none of us have seen the true Abraham Lincoln at any time. The image of Abraham Lincoln is Abraham Lincoln by expression, not by the sharing of a common substance. Likewise, Christ is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15). When we see Christ, we see the Father (John 14:9), but no man has seen God at any time (John 1:18, 1John 4:12). We see God expressed through Christ.

Listen to what Jesus said:

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. (John 7:16-17)
​

Would he have said such a thing if he himself were God? No. He is showing that he is the one THROUGH whom God was being manifested. Christ said what the Father commanded him to say (John 12:49-50). Hence, when we receive Christ, we receive the Father (John 13:20). We are to receive Christ as God, because it is God who, through Christ's submission, was being revealed. We are to honor Christ as we would honor the Father, because it is the Father who is being revealed through Christ (John 5:23). However, Christ understands that these things are of the Father, and not of himself, which is why he said:

I receive not honour from men. (John 5:41)
​

It was the Father who was being glorified through the Son (John 17:4-5). We honor Christ in light of that fact. Do you understand that Christ pointed men to the Father, and that he was not glorifying himself as being God by nature???? Notice this statement, and ponder it.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (John 12:44)
​

Why would he say that?

I hope this will be a fruitful discussion. Please consider these things carefully and prayerfully and, if they are true, allow them to bear fruit in you and through you. I know many many more questions will be raised on this matter, and I hope, with God's help in Christ, to be able to answer them. Please be patient with me and be honest in your analysis. I am trying, in Christ, to gain more talents (Matthew 25:14-29). I know that many will probably fight this, but I am hoping and praying that at least one or two will receive these things if, by your honest investigation, they are found to be true.

Thank you for reading this.
Your brother in Christ,
Jason

​

 

[Rescued One]

It's really quite simple: either God reveals it to you or He does not. Perhaps the following will help:


9And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. 10And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Revelation 19

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I'll be interested to see the discussion your question prompts.

It's always seemed to me that Jesus and The Father were never quite as "equal."

I kind of feel like emanations cosmology might account for this type of distinction as Christ and Sophia would probably be manifestations of different aspects of God.

 

[Gettingtalents]

Hello.

I see a few things in the passage you quoted that should be addressed on this subject:

• We know that Christ is "worshipped" in the Bible, but, in Revelation 19:10, and again in Revelation 22:8, John is forbidden from worshipping the Angel. Yet, Christ never corrected anyone who worshipped him. Does this mean that he must be God? Were there others who received worship in the Scriptures? Does "worship" (Greek = proskuneo) mean "worship as God" or "as divine"? I know that is how we use it today, but is that the case presented in the Scriptures?

• His name is called "King o Kings and Lord of Lords" in Revelation 19:16. Is this a title applicable only to God? Are there others in the Bible who were given this title in the Scriptures? In fact, there are two other men, other than our Lord, who were called by the title "king of kings" in the Old Testament. Furthermore, when God is called "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (1Timothy 6:15) the Greek is different than when Christ or those other two men are (reading from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament dating back to 300 BC).

I have to go to work now, but I hope to discuss these issues more thoroughly this evening. And any others that anyone brings up. I only want to "get more talents." I had a dream this week that I was hiding some money in the ground because, as long as I had it, it was bringing persecution. I know this was a sign to me. For a long time I was silent on this issue because it was so touchy, and I tried to avoid conflict with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but now I believe our Lord would have me to share it. I just want to hear "Well done." Amen?

Your fellow member of the body of Christ,
Jason

 

[Gettingtalents]

Hello family. I want to discuss what the Bible means when it says men are worshipped. I know that we use the term "worship" when we speak of the homage that is due to God alone, but that is not the case in the Bible. The words translated as "worship" in the Scriptures are primarily shachah (Strong's #7812) in the Hebrew, and proskuneo (Strong's #4532) in the Greek.

In regards to the Hebrew language (the original OT language), the word shachah is used in reference to worship given to God:

"Worship (shachah) the Lord thy God" (1 Samuel 15:30)
​

And, this same word is used of others:

Abraham bowed himself (shachah) to the people of Canaan. (Genesis 23:7,12)

Isaac said the nations would shachah Jacob (Genesis 27:29)

David gave this kind of homage to Saul (shachah is translated as "bowed himself") (1Samuel 24:8)
​

The word "shachah" does not mean worship as God, but rather is "homage to royalty or God" etc. (Strong's #7812).

In regards to the New Testament, the Greek word proskuneo is used in a similar way:

The servant is said to worship (proskuneo) the king in the parable about the servant who owed his king money (Matthew 18:26)

Furthermore, Jesus says he will make the false Jews come and "worship (proskuneo) before the feet" of the Christians (Revelation 3:9)
​

Now, in regard to this last example, some have said that Christ was only saying the false Jews would come worship God before the feet of the saints. The say that "worship before the feet" of someone does not mean worshipping them. However, notice the wording in the following text:

And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. (Revelation 22:8)
​

This passage is often used as an example of where someone other than Christ was receiving worship, and they then go on to show how the angel would not recieve the worship in Revelation 22:9. If John was worshipping the angel, to be consistent, when we read "worship before thy feet" in Revelation 3:9, we should understand the worship there as directed to saints mentioned.

But why, if proskuneo does not mean "worship as God" would the angel not receive the worship from John? The angel tells him...

"Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant" (Revelation 22:9)
​

He did not say, "I am not God" but "I am thy fellow servant." Since worship is given to those in superior positions, the angel, being his fellow servant, explained that it was not applicable to him.

There is also another example of worship being refused... In Acts 10, Cornelius attempted to worship Peter, but Peter would not receive it. Why?

Look at what Peter said:

"Stand up; I myself am also a man" (Acts 10:26)
​

Peter was correcting the notion that he was a god, which was a sommon assumption in the minds of the pagans. We see a similar occurance in Acts 14:11-15, which reads:

"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you" (Acts 14:11-15)
​

The people thought that Paul and Barabas may have been gods... Peter was making sure that Corenlius was not making the same mistake.

The NIV Study Bible note on Acts 10:26 says:

I am only a man. Possible Cornelius was only intending to honor Peter as one having a rank superior to his own, since he was God's messenger. But Peter allowed no chance for misunderstanding - he was not to be worshipped as more than a created being.
​

Christ is our Lord. It is right to worship him as such. Nevertheless, worship, in the Bible, does not mean "worship as God."

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

I was at the health club yesterday soakin in the hot tub and talking to another christian about christian stuff. the conversation went around to who is and isn't christian AND I told him that most christians wouldn't consider me a christian cause I don't believe Jesus is God. I said i believe jesus is the son of god, the last adam, the new man, the new creation of god. He thought a little while and said. "Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead, only God could do that." I declined to enter into a debate on the matter gracefully, but my point in all this is this. Everytime someone wants to prove Jesus is God they go to something like that, they never go to a scripture that says "Jesus is God'' or The son of god is god, or Christ is god. Why? cause it isn't in the bible, I on the other hand go to john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6 to explicitly show from the scripture that only god the Father is God. I have scripture for my belief you guys don't. Just interpretations. You guys always have to go into some long explanation how this scripture means Jesus is God because these other ones mean Jesus is God as well, your's is always an explanation of scripture, mine is scripture, what it says. My response is swift and to the point, your's always meanders all over the place showing how you interpret so many scriptures to contradict john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6.




That should raise a giant red flag in your mind but alas it doesn't. any other subject but Jesus is or isn't God, and it would, IMO.

 

[Gettingtalents]

Everytime someone wants to prove Jesus is God they go to something like that, they never go to a scripture that says "Jesus is God'' or The son of god is god, or Christ is god. Why? cause it isn't in the bible, I on the other hand go to john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6 to explicitly show from the scripture that only god the Father is God.

I hear you. I understand your frustration. I think 1 Corinthians 8:6 is plain. It would definitely have been an ideal place for an explanation of, or even a mention of God being three persons.

The most common argument made in defense of the Trinity in regards to 1Corinthian 8:6 is that Paul not only says "to us there is but one God, the Father" but he also says "and one Lord Jesus Christ." The argument goes like this:

"The text says that the Father is our one God and it also says that Jesus is our one Lord. Though the Father is called our one God, and Christ is called our one Lord, it is not saying that Jesus is not God just as it is not saying that the Father is not Lord. If the Father being called the one God over all Christians excludes Jesus from being our God, then, to be consistent, Jesus being called our one Lord must exclude the Father from being our Lord as well. Yet, this is not true, because, after all, there are many places throughout the Scriptures where the Father is called Lord and the Son is called God"
​

The catalyst for this argument is a misunderstanding of how the Greek word kurios (Lord) is used. The word kurios is sometimes used as a translation of the Tetragrammaton (the YHVH name of God in the Old Testament), but it is not used exclusively in that way. The word kurios simply means Lord, not God, and is used of many men in the NT who were neither God nor Christ.

kurios is used in the following passages:

Sara called Abraham "Lord" (kurios) (1Peter 3:6)
Translated as "sir" in Matthew 13:27, 21:30, 27:63, etc.
in the plural as "sirs" (Acts 16:30), "masters" (Ephesians 6:5, 6:9, etc.)
​

Furthermore, it would produce a nonsensical translation if we just translated kurios as "God" in every instance. For example: The woman at the well would have said, "God (kurios), I perceive that thou art a prophet." (John14:9), John 20:15 would read, "She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, God (kurios), if thou hast born him hence...," Phillip would have been called "God" in John 12:21, etc.

It is evident that kurios (Lord) does not mean God. The definition is just what we use it as in the English language. Lord means a ruler or superior. We use it of God as well, but it does not mean "God." Sometimes we use it in reference to God and sometimes we use it in reference to rulers (more commonly in the old days).

The fact of the matter is that both God and Christ are called kurios (Lord), but in different connotations. Abraham was Sarah's kurios (1Peter 3:6) because he was in authority over her, not because he was her God. Now, God has put Christ over all things, making him Lord.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
​

This does not mean, "God hath made that same Jesus both God and Christ," but rather that God has made him Lord by putting all things under his feet and making him the head over the church. Christ is the one ruler that God has placed over us. He is our one Lord. And this is why Paul says, "to us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ" (1Corinthians 8:6).

What then, does God not rule us as well? Yes, he does, but only in an indirect sense, and that is because Jesus rules us according to God's will. It is not that God is someties ordering us and Jesus is ordering us at other times. No. God does not go around Christ to rule us.

Christ is the mediator between God and men through whom God's will is revealed. We do not know the will of God by direct interaction, but only through Christ:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]." (Matthew 11:27)
​

No man can know the Father except Christ reveal him, so also no man can know the will of the Father unless Christ reveals that will to us as well. We have one Lord, Jesus Christ (who reveals the will of God to us), and it is by serving him that we serve God.

By way of analogy, suppose we had a job where there was only one supervisor with whom we ever interacted. Suppose also that this one supervisor of ours was ruling over the company for the owner of the company who had given him that position. Now suppose that the owner, having entrusted the entire busiess to the supervisor, never saught to command the employees at the business during the time of the supervisor's rule, but rather always allowed the supervisor to command the employees as he willed. And yet, suppose that supervisor, who had authority to rule as he willed, did not seek his own will while ruling the company, but instead ruled only according to the will of the owner. Take a few seconds to ponder that situation.... Would we be able to say that we had two supervisors, or rather that we only had one? We would have only one supervisor no doubt. This example expresses principles that are parallel to the manner in which Christ is Lord over God's kingdom.

The Bible says:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (John 5:22)
​

But after this, Jesus also said:

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)
​

God has committed "all" judgment over to Christ, but Christ judges only as he hears from God.

We have only one Lord, Jesus Christ, but since our Lord rules according to the will of God then we are serving God as well when we obey Christ.

In reference to our previous owner/supervisor scenario, suppose that after the supervisor completed a certain project he was to give the position of supervisor back over to the owner. At that time the owner would become the supervisor over the entire business again (and over the previous supervisor as well). This scenario contains similar principle to those Paul spoke of in 1Corinthians 15:24-28, saying:

"Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. ... And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1Corinthians 15:24-25,28)
​

This shows that Jesus is ruling over the kingdom "till" the end, when he will deliver the kingdom's rulership back to God. God has given the kingdom over to Jesus so that Jesus can rule (be Lord) over it until that time. God did not give the kingdom to Jesus and somebody else... Jesus is the one Lord over the kingdom at this time. Hence, to us, there is but one Lord (when we understand that Lord is used in reference to position rather than to translate the Tetragrammaton).

It is key that he says "to us there is one Lord." Jesus is called "our Lord" over 75 times in the New Testament, but God is never referred to, in regard to this present time, as "our Lord" (although he is called "Lord" in referece to the Tetragramaton, he is not called "our Lord"). The only time he is referred to as "our Lord" is in the end, when the Son hands the kingdom back over to God, at the last trumpet, when death is swallowed up in victory, then, at the last trumpet, they say the kingdoms are become the kingdoms of "our Lord and of his Christ." (Revelation 11:15) This is in reference to the end, not this present time, during which only Christ is our Lord.

Hence, we do have only one Lord at this time.... And we also have only one God, the Father. This is the Scripture. "But to us there is nut one God, the Father."

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

I hear you. I understand your frustration. I think 1 Corinthians 8:6 is plain. It would definitely have been an ideal place for an explanation of, or even a mention of God being three persons.

The most common argument made in defense of the Trinity in regards to 1Corinthian 8:6 is that Paul not only says "to us there is but one God, the Father" but he also says "and one Lord Jesus Christ." The argument goes like this:

"The text says that the Father is our one God and it also says that Jesus is our one Lord. Though the Father is called our one God, and Christ is called our one Lord, it is not saying that Jesus is not God just as it is not saying that the Father is not Lord. If the Father being called the one God over all Christians excludes Jesus from being our God, then, to be consistent, Jesus being called our one Lord must exclude the Father from being our Lord as well. Yet, this is not true, because, after all, there are many places throughout the Scriptures where the Father is called Lord and the Son is called God"
​

it's just a means of negating the first part, "one God, the Father' with the second part, "one lord, Jesus Christ". THis methodology is used quite often, negate one scripture with another, or one part of a scripture with another part.
That argument says one God, the Father doesn’t mean what it says, it means others are one God as well. That argument says there isn’t one Lord, Jesus Christ, as the bible says (when translated that way) there are others that are Lord as well as Jesus. It’s all a game of negating scripture with scripture, A methodology used often to negate scritpures that do not fit one’s doctrine.

I believe the correct translation should be “one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ”. No comma between Lord and Jesus Christ, but a comma between God and the Father. That way the meaning is that there is one God, the Father, and only one Lord Jesus Christ, not 2 or 3 lord Jesus Christs. Remember there are no commas in the original manuscripts, and remember too that many came before and after Christ claiming to be the Christ. So placing the commas there, makes the verse fit with the rest of scriptures. Saying there is only one lord, Jesus Christ” does not fit, cause the Bible lists numerous others as being Lord. And saying there is "one God, the Father" fits with the rest of scripture because no one else is listed in scripture as being the one God, except YHWH, therefore, YHWH is God the Father.

That’s how the NKJV et. al. ranslates it.
(NKJV) 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us [there is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things, and through whom we [live.]

[SIZE=+0](Douay-Rheims) 1 Corinthians 8:6 Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. [/SIZE]


​

The catalyst for this argument is a misunderstanding of how the Greek word kurios (Lord) is used. The word kurios is sometimes used as a translation of the Tetragrammaton (the YHVH name of God in the Old Testament), but it is not used exclusively in that way. The word kurios simply means Lord, not God, and is used of many men in the NT who were neither God nor Christ.

kurios is used in the following passages:

Sara called Abraham "Lord" (kurios) (1Peter 3:6)
Translated as "sir" in Matthew 13:27, 21:30, 27:63, etc.
in the plural as "sirs" (Acts 16:30), "masters" (Ephesians 6:5, 6:9, etc.)
​

Furthermore, it would produce a nonsensical translation if we just translated kurios as "God" in every instance. For example: The woman at the well would have said, "God (kurios), I perceive that thou art a prophet." (John14:9), John 20:15 would read, "She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, God (kurios), if thou hast born him hence...," Phillip would have been called "God" in John 12:21, etc.

It is evident that kurios (Lord) does not mean God. The definition is just what we use it as in the English language. Lord means a ruler. We use it of God as well, but it does not mean "God." Sometimes we use it in refernce to God and sometimes we use it in refernce to rulers (more commonly in the old days).

The fact of the matter is that both God and Christ are called kurios (Lord), but in different connotations. Abraham was Sarah's kurios (1Peter 3:6) because he was in authority over her, not because he was her God. Now, God has put Christ over all things, making him Lord"

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
​

This does not mean, "God hath made that same Jesus both God and Christ," but rather that God has made him Lord by putting all things under his feet and making him the head over the church. Christ is the one ruler that God has placed over us. He is our one Lord. And this is why Paul says, "to us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ" (1Corinthians 8:6).

What then, does God not rule us as well? Yes, he does, but only in an indirect sense, and that is because Jesus rules us according to God's will. It is not that God is someties ordering us and jesus is ordering us at other times. No. God does not go around Christ to rule us.

Christ is the mediator between God and men through whom God's will is revealed. We do not know the will of God by direct interaction, but only through Christ:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]." (Matthew 11:27)
​

No man can know the Father except Christ reveal him, so also no man can know the will of the Father unless Christ reveals that will to us as well. We have one Lord, Jesus Christ (who reveals the will of God to us), and it is by serving him that we serve God.

By way of analogy, suppose we had a job where there was only one supervisor with whom we ever interacted. Suppose also that this one supervisor of ours was ruling over the company for the owner of the company who had given him that position. Now suppose that the owner, having entrusted the entire busiess to teh supervisor, never saught to command the employees at the business during the time of the supervisor's rule, but rather always allowed the supervisor to command the employees as he willed. And yet, suppose that supervisor, who had authority to rule as he willed, did not seek his own will while ruling the company, but instead ruled oonly according to the will of the owner. Take a few seconds to iagine that situation.... Would we be able to say that we had two supervisors, or rather that we only had one? We would have only one supervisor no doubt. This example expresses principles that are parallel to the manner in which Christ is Lord over God's kingdom.

The Bible says:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (John 5:22)
​

But after this, Jesus also said:

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)
​

God has committed "all" judgment over to Christ, but Christ judges only as he hears from God.

We have only one Lord, Jesus Christ, but since our Lord rules according to the will of God then we are serving God as well when we obey Christ.

In reference to our previous owner/supervisor scenario, suppose that sfter the supervisor completed a certain project he was to give the position of supervisor back over to the owner. At that time the owner would become the supervisor over the entire business again (and over the previous supervisor as well). This scenario contains similar principle to those Paul spoke of in 1Corinthians 15:24-28, saying:

"Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. ... And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1Corinthians 15:24-25,28)
​

This shows that Jesus is ruling over the kingdom "till" the end, when he will deliver the kingdom's rulership back to God. God has given the kingdom over to Jesus so that Jesus can rule (be Lord) over it until that time. God did not give the kingdom to Jesus and somebody else... Jesus is the one Lord over the kingdom at this time. Hence, to us, there is but one Lord (when we understand that Lord is used in refernce to position rather than to translate the Tetragrammaton).

It is key that he says "to us there is one Lord." Jesus is called "our Lord" over 75 times in the New Testament, but God is never referred to, in regard to this present time, as "our Lord" (although he is called "Lord" in referece to the Tetragramaton, he is not called "our Lord"). The only time he is referred to as "our Lord" is in the end, when the Son hands the kingdom back over to God, at the Last trumpet, when death is swallowed up in victory, then, at the last trumpet, they say the kingdoms are become the kingdoms of "our Lord and of his Christ." (Revelation 11:15) This is in reference to the end, not this present time, during which only Christ is our Lord.

Hence, we do have only one Lord at this time.... And we also have only one God, the Father. This is the Scripture. "But to us there is nut one God, the Father."

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

well I see it differently. , I do not believe there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. I believe there is one Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JoJo50]

Hello

Satan wants confusion, and destruction to fall on ALL humans. So he has false ministers, doing his work, (2Cor.-11:13-15, For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works). We can either believe man, or believe the son of God, Jesus. Who as a human, (man), taught the total truth.

Of course Jesus can be called a God, so can satan, someone’s car, other humans, etc., (1Cor.8:5,6- For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him). Many seen this scripture, yet they still follow lies. He’s like his Father, but NOT trying to be the Father ,(Phil.2:5,6-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God). man!...wants to ignore his words, and make him the Father in some way.

Dispite what many are taught, and want to believe, for the reason they and God know. Jesus was the first of Jehovah God’s creations ,(Colo.1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature). And (Heb. 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they). Other words from Jesus concerning HIS Father….
1.Matt.7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, (stop believing it’s Jesus will we should do, he said do his Father’s will).

2.Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father, (he shows, he don’t even know when the end will come. Though he will when he come to destroy).

3.Heb.12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God, (my minister bro-in law, tried to explain Jesus was in heaven as both Father and son. Funny, Jehovah God gave a commonsense. Yet we continually
Allow satan to take it away.

4.John 17:3 -And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, (IF we want life, we better start trying to know who his Father is).

true followers of Jesus will allow Jehovah’s HS to lead the way. And not allow satan to perform his tricks, (Ephe.6:11 -Put on the whole Armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles, (tricks), of the devil). And (1Cor.2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices). peace

 

[Gettingtalents]

[/quote] well I see it differently. , I do not believe there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. I believe there is one Lord Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]

Hey brother. I understand. I believe there is one Lord to us. Compare 1Corinthians 8: 6 to Ephesians 4: 5-6.

Your brother in Christ
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

Hey brother. I understand. I believe there is one Lord to us. Compare 1Corinthians 8: 6 to Ephesians 4: 5-6.

Your brother in Christ
Jason

Rotherham eph 4:
4 One body, and one spirit, even as ye were also called in one hope of your calling, 5 One Lord, one faith, one immersion, 6 One God and Father of all--who is over all, and through all, and in all.

one body = one church,
one spirit = the holy Spirit
One Lord = Jesus and the Father are one lord (in that they both are in total agreement on everything, and the Father is in Jesus manifesting himself out to us)
one faith = we all gotta believe the same things, which one day we will.
one immersion or baptism = only one way to be baptised (in Jesus name) or one spirit baptism which is the same for everyone.
one God the Father = no other Gods

that's my take on it.

 

[Gettingtalents]

It may seem strange that we would have one Lord when it is evident that others are called Lord (kurios) in the Scriptures.

Jesus said:

"No servant can serve two masters (plural form of kurios)" (Luke 16:13)
​

And yet the Bible says elsewhere:

"Servants be obedient to them that are your masters (plural form of kurios)." (Ephesians 6:5)
​

When Paul says servants should obey their "masters" he uses the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said that no man could serve two masters. The word translated as "masters" in both instances is the plural form of the Greek word kurios, which means lord. So how is it that Paul says those men who served Christ had other lords as well? How could a servant have another lord here on earth and still say that they had only one Lord, Jesus Christ? Actually, the Bible commands servants to obey their earthly masters , so someone cannot truly be a servant of Christ without doing just that. A person is serving Christ by serving their earthly master.

This principle is shownto be true when Paul says:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:" (Ephesisans 6:5-7)
​

So then, while the servant was serving the earthly master he was simultaneously serving Christ. If the earthly master should command the servant to do something that Christ would not allow, then at that time the servant would refuse to do the will of the earthly master and continue doing the will of that one master, Christ, whom he had been serviing all along. In this way, while having two masters the servant truly only has one. He is serving the lower master out of service to the higher master.

It is for this cause that Paul writes:

"For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman." (1 Corinthians 7:22)
​

The servant is freed from the earthly master and has become the servant of Christ. It has now become in service to Christ that the servant continues to serve his old earthly master. Therefore, even Christians who have masters on earth continue to have only one true master, Jesus Christ.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

It may seem strange that we would have one Lord when it is evident that others are called Lord (kurios) in the Scriptures.

Jesus said:

"No servant can serve two masters (plural form of kurios)" (Luke 16:13)
​

And yet the Bible says elsewhere:

"Servants be obedient to them that are your masters (plural form of kurios)." (Ephesians 6:5)
​

When Paul says servants should obey their "masters" he uses the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said that no man could serve two masters. The word translated as "masters" in both instances is the plural form of the Greek word kurios, which means lord. So how is it that Paul says those men who served Christ had other lords as well? How could a servant have another lord here on earth and still say that they had only one Lord, Jesus Christ? Actually, the Bible commands servants to obey their earthly masters , so someone cannot truly be a servant of Christ without doing just that. A person is serving Christ by serving their earthly master.

This principle is shownto be true when Paul says:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:" (Ephesisans 6:5-7)
​

So then, while the servant was serving the earthly master he was simultaneously serving Christ. If the earthly master should command the servant to do something that Christ would not allow, then at that time the servant would refuse to do the will of the earthly master and continue doing the will of that one master, Christ, whom he had been serviing all along. In this way, while having two masters the servant truly only has one. He is serving the lower master out of service to the higher master.

It is for this cause that Paul writes:

"For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman." (1 Corinthians 7:22)
​

The servant is freed from the earthly master and has become the servant of Christ. It has now become in service to Christ that the servant continues to serve his old earthly master. Therefore, even Christians who have masters on earth continue to have only one true master, Jesus Christ.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

So what you're saying means is that any other lords or masters that we might serve are in some sense one with Christ and therefore they all with Christ are one Lord? If So how does an totally evil Lord fit in that picture? Like Stalin or Hitler.?

 

[Gettingtalents]

So what you're saying means is that any other lords or masters that we might serve are in some sense one with Christ and therefore they all with Christ are one Lord? If So how does an totally evil Lord fit in that picture? Like Stalin or Hitler.?

That is not what I meant. What I wrote is this:

If the earthly master should command the servant to do something that Christ would not allow, then at that time the servant would refuse to do the will of the earthly master and continue doing the will of that one master, Christ, whom he had been serviing all along. In this way, while having two masters the servant truly only has one. He is serving the lower master out of service to the higher master.

It is for this cause that Paul writes:

"For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman." (1 Corinthians 7:22)

​

This becomes even more evident when we look at 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 in it's entirety:

"Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather. For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."
​

The Christian has one Lord, Christ, but serves the earthly master only to the extent that his one true master, Christ, permits. If it were Hitler, he would refuse to do the will of Hitler and remain obedient to his one true Lord. Does that help to carify what I am saying? It is like a boss at work. He is our boss, but if he tells us to steal, we refuse, becase our one Lord will not allow it. In this way, Christ is our Lord only, the boss is served only as it is acceptable to Christ.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[DamianWarS]

Hello family. I want to discuss what the Bible means when it says men are worshipped ... [it] does not mean worship as God, but rather is "homage to royalty or God" ... In regards to the New Testament, the Greek word proskuneo is used...

I understand your reasoning for the greek word προσκυνέω (proskyneo) being used for a general homage shown to those of superior rank rather than exclusively toward God. But you also have to recognize that proskyneo is largely the only word used for worship and can refer to exclusive worship toward God as well. For example:

Mat 4:9,10 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "

clearly this passage is rejecting worship of Satan and confirming a worship toward God and God only. Both uses of the word should be seen as a type of worship that exclusively is reserved for God and not merely a form of respect for someone with a greater rank. The greek communicates this with the word proskyneo.

So although I understand how the word can be ambiguous, it isn't always and it is expanded upon as a very specific form of worship toward God and God alone. How then are we to know what form is taking place? Context can help and sometimes it would appear that the worship is more of a gesture of respect where other times it appears to be something that is of much greater significance. But when it comes down to it because this word can be exclusively used for worship toward God than we know this word can be fairly represented this way in scripture. You highlight the word like in every instance it is ambiguous which is inaccurate to the actual use of the word in scripture and irresponsible to leave out these very specific and clear examples.

I do understand your struggle and I don't mean to simply sound like I reject whatever it is you say but I will still challenge your arguments when they are being misrepresented.

 

[Gettingtalents]

Mat 4:9,10 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "

clearly this passage is rejecting worship of Satan and confirming a worship toward God and God only.

Hello.

Indeed, this passage does contain the word proskuneo, directed at God instead of Satan. It does not say, "Worship only God," but only that we should worship God. However, the logic that one might use to consider this as a command to worship only God would be as follows:

Since Satan's request was that Christ worship him, then by Christ saying, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God," he was affirming that the reason he could not worship Satan was because the commandment actually means that we are to worship God alone.
​

Worship, if it is genuine, shows homage to the one to whom it is given. We are to worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23), which Christ did (notice the "we" in John 4:22). I know you would agree that it is frankly impossible to worship God in truth while simultaneously worshipping Satan. Therefore, the request by Satan to worship him, if consented to, would have nullified Christ's ability to worship God. Can you imagine if someone said, "I worship God and Satan"? Would the worship of God be true?

Nevertheless, there may be more to Christ's response than this... If we take proskuneo as generally signifying an act given to one in a superior position, then the yielding of the worship, by Christ, would have actually signified that Christ was in some form pledging servitude to Satan. Hence, the response by Christ, to "Worship God and serve him ONLY" would come into play. One could not serve God and the devil, seeing that they are opposed to one another.

I do understand your struggle and I don't mean to simply sound like I reject whatever it is you say but I will still challenge your arguments when they are being misrepresented.

I welcome the challenges. What I am writing is the result of thousands of hours of study, prayerful study (and that by the power of Christ in my life). I began as a Trinitarian but did not see that doctrine in the Bible, so I began to seek for the truth. Many times I would accept changes to my beliefs when I found them to be in conflict with the Scriptures. If a point s brought up that refutes what I currently believe, then I hope to change what I believe. I honestly just want to be fruitful in Christ. I just want to hear "Well done" when I see him. And I believe this is your motive too.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[Gettingtalents]

In regards to worship (proskuneo), I believe it is very noteworthy that the Bible says:

"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20)
​

In the Septuagint the word for "worship" is proskuneo. So we see that proskuneo was given to the LORD and the king (David). This proskuneo was given by the people simultaneously to both one who was and one who was not God. If it were understood that proskuneo, when applied to God, had to indicate "worship as God" then this passage would seem to indicate that King David was God as well.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

That is not what I meant. What I wrote is this:

yes it is.

If the earthly master should command the servant to do something that Christ would not allow, then at that time the servant would refuse to do the will of the earthly master and continue doing the will of that one master, Christ, whom he had been serviing all along. In this way, while having two masters the servant truly only has one. He is serving the lower master out of service to the higher master.

Your doctrine is this. All Lords of a christian are one Lord, Christ the Lord. That is what i said, though less precisely. I had to gleen from your comments exactly what your doctrine is because it is never clearly stated anywhere.





As for me I've thought about this some and these thoughts came to my mind.
The Kingdom of Jesus and his Father is not of this world, therefore his Lordship and his Fathers are not of this world. therefore, we christians have one Lord that is not of this world but many Lords that are of this world.


Also, Jesus said "I and my Father are one". Jesus and his Father are one Lord. So one Lord could also mean that and probably does.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In regards to worship (proskuneo), I believe it is very noteworthy that the Bible says:

"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20)
​

In the Septuagint the word for "worship" is proskuneo. So we see that proskuneo was given to the LORD and the king (David). This proskuneo was given by the people simultaneously to both one who was and one who was not God. If it were understood that proskuneo, when applied to God, had to indicate "worship as God" then this passage would seem to indicate that King David was God as well.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

Revelation 22 appears to be similar, when John tried to worship the angel that was speaking to him. Note how the angel responded

NKJV] Reve 22:8Now I John saw and heard these things.
And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship/proskunhsai <4352> (5658) before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, "See [that you do] not [do that.] For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

 

[Gettingtalents]

Revelation 22 appears to be similar, when John tried to worship the angel that was speaking to him. Note how the angel responded

NKJV] Reve 22:8Now I John saw and heard these things.
And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship/proskunhsai <4352> (5658) before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, "See [that you do] not [do that.] For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

This is soomething I posted previously on this subject:

In regards to the New Testament, the Greek word proskuneo is used in a similar way:

The servant is said to worship (proskuneo) the king in the parable about the servant who owed his king money (Matthew 18:26)

Furthermore, Jesus says he will make the false Jews come and "worship (proskuneo) before the feet" of the Christians (Revelation 3:9)
​

Now, in regard to this last example, some have said that Christ was only saying the false Jews would come worship God before the feet of the saints. The say that "worship before the feet" of someone does not mean worshipping them. However, notice the wording in the following text:

And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. (Revelation 22:8)

​

This passage is often used as an example of where someone other than Christ was receiving worship, and they then go on to show how the angel would not recieve the worship in Revelation 22:9. If John was worshipping the angel, to be consistent, when we read "worship before thy feet" in Revelation 3:9, we should understand the worship there as directed to saints mentioned.

But why, if proskuneo does not mean "worship as God" would the angel not receive the worship from John? The angel tells him...

"Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant" (Revelation 22:9)
​

He did not say, "I am not God" but "I am thy fellow servant." Since worship is given to those in superior positions, the angel, being his fellow servant, explained that it was not applicable to him.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason