Jesus and the Trinity

[hybrid]

I prefer to think of myself as something akin to a memeber of the mission Impossible team, or secret agent man. Never saw the movie austin powers. .

austin powers is a secret agent , starring mike myers, i like the way he said that...OH YEAH BABY.

 

[hybrid]

Who says that the modern day bibles are a more "literal and faithful reflection of the original text?, the scholars? well I don't believe they don't have a religious agenda of their own. Who actually has these "original texts" are they available to anybody who is searching? Who is to say they are telling the truth even, when they say they are better translations. Why so many conflicting ideas amongst the translators? Bible study should be easy and beneficial, not on a par with a University assignment as some would have it be.

Of course the main problem with the jw bible to you, would be the subsituteing of Jehovah for theos, this makes it possible to prove that Jesus is God according to the jw bible. You say I am using an outdated bible, but you only look for translations that suit what you want to believe. Whenever they don't you label them incorrect translations. That is nonsensical.

The Word became flesh, just what the bible says. I understand this as He dwelt among us as a human, with like flesh. It is not that hard to understand, it is you that makes everything nonsensical trying to make sense of it. Now your saying I am interpreting it to mean the word became a clump of flesh????...A literal clump. Would you actually understand it better if it said flesh and bone and arteries and organs, etc............What do you think this "flesh" represents then?.

I agree with Timothy on this one. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" 1 Tim 3:16

God manifest in the flesh seems like one of the mysteries of godliness to me. I am not for a moment going to try to understand what God deems to be a mystery.

It makes perfect sense to me, I never said that Jesus and the Father were two Gods but just one, Never. What I did say however, was that the Father is the one true God, and seeing as Jesus came forth from the Father, he too is God by virtue of his coming forth or birth. (And I am not talking about the human birth here) There is a difference, not that hard to understand though. Jesus has been exalted to equal with the Father, (Phil 2:6), that is not hard to understand either. We have one true God, the Father, and Jesus His Son, also God because He is His Son, just like my son is human, because he came forth from me and I am human. This doesn't however make my son the parent, only human. Not that hard to understand either. I am not wrong just because you say so.

Are you able to mediate between God and man the way Jesus does?. Are you our great High Priest?. The bible doesn't say there are many mediators between God and man, it say one, the man Christ Jesus. There were many prophets of old, did they mediate like Jesus?. Did any of them die for our sins?..........Could you die for our sins?...........it's a whole package deal with Jesus, not just speaking the words of the Father alone.

No, you didn't. If you can mediate like Jesus, well then yes you did, until you can, No you didn't.

Sorry, don't understand how the above scripture is talking about Mary's conception. Perhaps a typo.


Sorry, that is what I thought you were saying. I too believe that Jesus is the second Adam. I believe He is also the Son of God as well, Adam wasn't, Adam was always completely human.

I never said God had to procreate to form a Son. Limiting God to be bound by the laws of humanity takes away His creative attribute. You believe that He can create human seed to fertilize Mary's egg, but, you can't believe that He can form a divine Son from His own substance. Who says He can't?.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, 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. 11. I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me there is no Saviour" Isaiah 43:10-11

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

This is the Father speaking through the Son to tell the disciples that He has given His Son life in himself. Life in oneself is an attribute of divinity. The Son does not rely on the Father for His life, like created beings do. This is how the Son can resurrect the righteous and the wicked at the resurrections. How else could Jesus declare that He was the resurrection and the life. That is not the Father saying that He is the resurrection and the life, that is the Father speaking through the Son declaring that the Son is the resurrection and the life. Remember, Jesus stated, noone comes to the Father, but by me.

The Son has the same attributes as the Father, these have all been given to Him. You want to make the Son of God, a human only.

God Bless

Harlin

Hello again harlin.

man your good and your in the mood.

Based on you posts, is it corrrect to say that Jesus therefore is "True God from True God", "God of Very God,"?


.

 

[2ducklow]

So I'm incorrect?

that is my analysis.

and to show that you have to add to the text to show my understanding wrong?

If you understand anything about greek you know I didn't add to the text.

specifically: I believe that is the meaning of "before Abraham was, I am [B](he)[/B]

<><

Well so do I, so what's the problemo? I am he, the one prophesised even before Abraham. I'm kinda confused first you claim I am adding to the text then you take my prefered reading as the correct one which you claim is an addition to thetext. go figure.

"He" is not in the greek texts but that is because of the difference in greek and english. the greeks can say 'I am' and it either means 'i am" or it means 'I am he". just as in spanish there is no subject in a sentence. the conjugation of the verb determines if it is "I , you, they' etc. so to translate , "Amore" from spanish into english you would translate it "I love"
the spanish word for I isn't there but that is what it means. languages
are different. you can't always translate word for word from one language to another.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,





John 1:1 does not say the beginning of eternity, it says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2. the same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made"

This is the beginning of creation, not the beginning of the Word, as this Word already was in the beginning. The Word was with God in the beginning. Now, if it was with God, and was God, it must be separate from the Father because it was "with" Him.

Incorrect, if the word was with god it cannt be god. you cant be the one you're with. that is a contradiction therefore that is false.

Otherwise this would not make sense, this would be saying that the Father was with Himself. There we have Father and Son, both God.

it supports my contention that the word cannot be god for if it is it results in a contradiction if you believe there is only one god, which I do. you have 2 gods so it isn't a contradiction to you but having 2 gods contradicts scripture that says there is only one god. or are you going to say the word 'both' means 'one'?

The same as "in the beginning " in Genesis is the beginning of creation, it says that God created all things. We are told that the Word created all things, this plainly proves that the Word is God. It doesn't prove that this was the beginning of the Word, at all. It proves that the Word created all things in the beginning.

the bible doesn't say the word created all things. it doesn't even say Jesus created all things , it doesn't even say as many suppose that all things were created 'by him'. you have no verse that says the word created all things.

The Bible shows that the Son of God existed as the Word, before He became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus.

does not.

There is nothing non-sensical about that doctrine, it is very easily understood.

The nonsensicalness of it is that it has the words God speaks morphing into a 2 cell fetus.

It is only when you bring in the Jesus is just a man doctrine, you have to then come up with another description for what the Word of God actually is. But to do that one can just blame the translation.

I know of no verse in the bible that says 'trust the kjv translation and none other'. perhaps you could show me that verse?

You keep quoting Nehemiah 8:8 and yet you fail to see the non-sense in your own doctrine.

So far you haven't shown anything I've said to be nonsensical.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,


Who says that the modern day bibles are a more "literal and faithful reflection of the original text?, the scholars? well I don't believe they don't have a religious agenda of their own. Who actually has these "original texts" are they available to anybody who is searching? Who is to say they are telling the truth even, when they say they are better translations. Why so many conflicting ideas amongst the translators? Bible study should be easy and beneficial, not on a par with a University assignment as some would have it be.

Who says the KJV scholars are more honest than modern day translators?where are the manuscripts the KJV scholars used? I believe some people are honest and some are not honest in any day including today, and includeing the 17th century and including the kjv scholars, the proof is not in who they are or when they lived but in their words and the facts that either back up their words or don't.
The kjv conflicted with the geneva bible , with the tyndale bible. those were popular bibles of the day and people then rejected the kjv for those reasons. however roughly 75 percent of the tyndale bible is used in the KJV.

Of course the main problem with the jw bible to you, would be the subsituteing of Jehovah for theos, this makes it possible to prove that Jesus is God according to the jw bible.

my objection to using jehovah for theos is that is not what theos means. it has nothing to do with my doctrine about the humanity of Jesus.

+You say I am using an outdated bible, but you only look for translations that suit what you want to believe. Whenever they don't you label them incorrect translations. That is nonsensical.

It would be wrong to only look for translations that support ones views. but I don't do that. what is one to do when one has several bibles that all say something slightly different on a particular verse? your solution appparently is to take the kjv and forget the rest. my solution is to examine the evedince through greek interliniars, concordances, commentaries, greek dicitonaries, etc and then determine as best I can which is correct. My solution is therefore not nonsensical. your accusation is based on the assumption that I do no research. I don't do what you acccuse me of doing.

The Word became flesh, just what the bible says.

It doesn't say that it says 'the word was made flesh'.

understand this as He dwelt among us as a human, with like flesh. It is not that hard to understand, it is you that makes everything nonsensical trying to make sense of it.

It is nonsensical to say gods word is a he. just as it would be nonsensical to say my words are a he. God's word did not turn into a 2 cell fetus, that in my book is nonsense supreme. you accuse me of being nonsensical but offer no examples.

Now your saying I am interpreting it to mean the word became a clump of flesh????...A literal clump.

No, I said a literal translation of the verse would result in the word of godbeing made a clump of flesh. because flesh without bone to support it would fall into a clump. I used that to prove that you take john 1:14 figuratively, in that you take flesh as a syncedoche for Jesus. a synecdoche is a figure of speech whereby the lesser stands in for the greater, in this case, flesh the lesser stands in for Jesus the greater.

I agree with Timothy on this one. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" 1 Tim 3:16

God manifest in the flesh seems like one of the mysteries of godliness to me. I am not for a moment going to try to understand what God deems to be a mystery.

bad translation therefore your conclusions are founded on falsitys.

here is what god actually said.

1ti 3:16kai; oJmologoumevnwß mevga ejsti;n to; th'ß eujsebeivaß [[musthvrion: J;oßejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv, ejdikaiwvqh ejn pneuvmati, w~fqh ajggevloiß, ejkhruvcqh ejn e~qnesin, ejpisteuvqh ejn kovsmw/, ajnelhvmfqh ejn dovxh/

The greek word translated incorrectly as god is

[size=+1]o&ß [/size]Hos (hos);
Word Origin: Greek, , Strong #: 3739

1. who, which, what, that

Wigram's count is 1309 not 1393.

so it should be either 'who was manifest in the flesh' or 'which was manifest in the flesh'.

It makes perfect sense to me, I never said that Jesus and the Father were two Gods but just one, Never. What I did say however, was that the Father is the one true God, and seeing as Jesus came forth from the Father, he too is God by virtue of his coming forth or birth. (And I am not talking about the human birth here) There is a difference, not that hard to understand though.

You contradict yourself. first you say Jesus and the father aren't 2 gods, then you say the father is god and Jesus too (also, and ) is god.

Jesus has been exalted to equal with the Father, (Phil 2:6), that is not hard to understand either. We have one true God, the Father, and Jesus His Son, also God because He is His Son, just like my son is human, because he came forth from me and I am human. This doesn't however make my son the parent, only human. Not that hard to understand either. I am not wrong just because you say so.

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,ASV

This verse shows that Jesus considered it a no no to calim equality with god, It doesn't show that Jesus is equal to god.

]

Are you able to mediate between God and man the way Jesus does?. Are you our great High Priest?. The bible doesn't say there are many mediators between God and man, it say one, the man Christ Jesus. There were many prophets of old, did they mediate like Jesus?. Did any of them die for our sins?..........Could you die for our sins?...........it's a whole package deal with Jesus, not just speaking the words of the Father alone.

Hebrews 1:1-2 compares Jesus to the prophets of old, both are said to have had god speak in them.the prophets of old are not mediators , Jesus is. that is a different subject. Jesus being created doesn't negate himi from having the ability to be a mediator between man (1st adam) and god. the second adam is mediating between the first adam and god.

No, you didn't. If you can mediate like Jesus, well then yes you did, until you can, No you didn't.

God speaks through me and in me just as he did in prophets of old and just as he did in Jesus. Do you not remember the verse that says 'we shall be like him and see him as he is'', or the verse that says
"greater things than these shall ye do for I go to my father."?

Sorry, don't understand how the above scripture is talking about Mary's conception. Perhaps a typo.

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.

Mary went around a man or compassed a man to get the thing (male seed) that God created. No man fertilized her egg, god did. If marys egg wasn't used then she isn't the mother of JEsus.

Sorry, that is what I thought you were saying. I too believe that Jesus is the second Adam. I believe He is also the Son of God as well, Adam wasn't, Adam was always completely human.

You believe that because he is the son of god he has to descend in some way from god . I believe the fact that god created a male seed andused this creation of his to fertilize Mary's egg makes him the father of Jesus. You apparently can't see how this makes him the son of god. to me it is plain as day.

I never said God had to procreate to form a Son. Limiting God to be bound by the laws of humanity takes away His creative attribute. You believe that He can create human seed to fertilize Mary's egg, but, you can't believe that He can form a divine Son from His own substance. Who says He can't?.

well I reject your solution based on jer 31:22 and that god is a spirit and to form Jesus a man of body soul and spirit outof spirit doesn't make sense, plus it would mean god took a part of his spirit and morphed it into flesh. which is nonsensical to me.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, 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. 11. I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me there is no Saviour" Isaiah 43:10-11



John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

This is the Father speaking through the Son to tell the disciples that He has given His Son life in himself. Life in oneself is an attribute of divinity. The Son does not rely on the Father for His life, like created beings do. This is how the Son can resurrect the righteous and the wicked at the resurrections. How else could Jesus declare that He was the resurrection and the life.

God was in christ and will be in christ resurecting the dead. so to say christ resurects the dead means god resurects the dead because as Jesus said his father does the work not jesus. jesus can't do anything so he can't resurect the dead.

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The father that dwelleth in Jesus doeth the resurection. God dwelleth in Jesus and Jesus isn't the one who indwells him. you can't be the one you're in. water isn't the glass it is in.

The Son has the same attributes as the Father, these have all been given to Him. You want to make the Son of God, a human only.

God Bless

Harlin

I say Jesus is the son of god, the second adam the glorified son of god who sits at the right hand of the father in heaven. that is not 'just a man'.

 

[hybrid]

I say Jesus is the son of god, the second adam the glorified son of god who sits at the right hand of the father in heaven. that is not 'just a man'.

If Jesus is not just a man, who is Jesus to you in his entirity?

 

[4Pillars]

Who was the TESTATOR during the old testament that must die in order to change it with a new testament, if thou can tell?

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. v16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the TESTATOR. v17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the TESTATOR liveth.

 

[2ducklow]

I see both you guys ignored all the points I brought up. You know what that tells me? It tells me You know I was right but can't admidt it to your selfs so you ignore it. how good can a doctrine be if you can't be honest with yourself about it?
Jesus is the second adam , the new creation of god, the son of god, who sits at the right hand of the only true god, god the father.

4 pillars, Jesus lived in OT times. the testator didn't have to live durring the entirty of OT times. no one did. the new testament times didn't start till after the sacrifice had been accepted by god which was after the sacrifice which was after Jesus life, not durring Jesus life.

 

[4Pillars]

Is that right? So, far you're just telling us your flawed religious views which is not supported by the Scriptures.

Where is your support that cleary documenting us that "the second Adam that your talking about was Jesus", according to your assumption?

 

[2ducklow]

Bingo!!!! So, having said that, you finally admitted that our Lord Jesus Christ already existed - as the Testator - even during the old testament!!!

Therefore, I rest my case.

the scripture doesn't mean that the testator had to live durring the entirety of OT times. Jesus lived in OT times therefore he could be the testator. I could not nor could anyone else because we live in nt. times. If abraham had been sinless and god called him to give his live for us, Abraham could have been the testator. It doesn't mean abraham had to have existed durrring the entirety of the ot times.
If you mean Jesus lived in NT times and lived in OT times without his body. I find that wrong because Jesus lived, after he was born, durring OT times. the NT times didnt start till after the death of JESus .

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus was a man was a real man and he lived durring old testament or contract times. the new testament or new contract could not come about until after the terms of the old contract had been fullfilled. which occured when payment, in the form of jesus giviing his life for us, was made to fullfill the old contract or testament.

 

[Odsolo]

Unfortunately, you can NOT support your assumption with Scripture, because, it is only based on your flawed religious view as I have repeatedly said before.

Jesus said that before Abraham was "I am". He was SENT into this world by his unknown (name) invisible God Father - of whom ye say he is your God.

Now, what is the name of the invisible God Father, if thou can tell? Scripture please.

Easy! [size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH. God's name cannot be a memorial to all generations unless it is known. You are the one with the seriously flawed religious view.

Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH] God [[size=+1]&#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1501;[/size]/elohim] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH] [is] my name for ever, and this [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH] [is] my memorial unto all generations.​

 

[hybrid]

I see both you guys ignored all the points I brought up. You know what that tells me? It tells me You know I was right but can't admidt it to your selfs so you ignore it. how good can a doctrine be if you can't be honest with yourself about it?
Jesus is the second adam , the new creation of god, the son of god, who sits at the right hand of the only true god, god the father.

and i venture to say that you hoped one day you will be like Him (Jesus)?
well what i realy want to know is to what extent do you believe you will be like him when that day comes.

Will you be also all knowing and almighty like Jesus?

 

[2ducklow]

Is that right? So, far you're just telling us your flawed religious views which is not supported by the Scriptures.

You are the one with a nonsensical doctrine which i have shown numerous times, and which you have always run away from. Every time I show you how your doctrine doesn't make any logical sense, you ignore it. you seem to think doctrines that make sense are flawed. which is very strange to me. I think we need a reality check here. look at all the scirptures below that support my view, and look at all the scritpures in this post of yours.

Where is your support that cleary documenting us that "the second Adam that your talking about was Jesus", according to your assumption?

First corinitians, and romans.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man (first adam) came death, by man (second or last adam) came also the resurrection of the dead.
as you can see this whole dialogue is about the first adam, and christ, the second adam.

1CO 15:4525 And so it is written, The x first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a y quickening spirit.

x Adam is called the first man, because he is the root as it were from which we spring. And Christ is the latter man, because he is the beginning of all those that are spiritual, and in him we are all included.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In this verse adam is compared to Christ. and completes the t hought in vs. 21 and defines who the two men are adam and Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam(or second adam, there are only two adam's therefore the second is the last) was made a quickening spirit.


A further continuation of the two adams.
One man saved us.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

and we are sinners because of one man. these two men are different. first adam and the last adam. first adam made us sinners, last adam made us free.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.


we are made righteous by the deeds of one man Christ Jesus, Jesus is not a man like all other men who are from adam. Jesus did not desecend on the male side from anyone who is a desenedant of Adam, therefore, he is a new man, not the old man adam, therefore he is the second or last adam. he is the last adam because there is no need for another new man. Jesus paid it all.

 

[2ducklow]

and i venture to say that you hoped one day you will be like Him (Jesus)?
well what i realy want to know is to what extent do you believe you will be like him when that day comes.

Will you be also all knowing and almighty like Jesus?

first of all Jesus is not almighty. Jesus can do nothing. the almighty can do anything. 2nd Jesus is not all knowing


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.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

But to the main point.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


The question is what is Jesus like?

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

and again.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Also consider,

Colossians 1:19 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;ASV
NOw that doesn't mean we will be equal to god but rather that we will be in his image.
Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,asv

We will be in the form of God, that is in his image , but we will not grasp for equality with god, Just as Jesus never grasped for equality with god.

but it doth not yet appear what we shall be .

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God.

we, the new creations of God wait for the revealing of us as to what we shall be exactly. we the sons of god have not been revealed as of yet. but wehen we are revealed we know we shall be like him.

 

[2ducklow]

Hello 4pillars;

Just to show you that the doctrine of Jesus being the second adam is not something I dreamed up, here is from a trinitarian web site, a good statement of that belief. However, I am not in full accord with eveything here, I do agree with much of it.

THE FIRST ADAM AND THE SECOND ADAM​

​

​

ONE IS EARTHY FROM EARTH THE OTHER FROM HEAVEN-HEAVENLY!

THE FIRST ADAM IS A TYPE AND SHADOW!

THE SECOND ADAM IS THE REALITY!

THE OLD COVENANT WAS A TYPE OF THE NEW COVENANT ONE IS OUTSIDE THE MAN THE OTHER WITHIN THE NEW MAN!

GREETING TRUTH SEEKERS, WE MUST ALL UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF YAHWEH TO BE SAVED. WE FIND THERE IS A GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING OF THIS PURPOSE IN SO-CALLED UNDERSTANDING OF THE TWO ADAMS OR TWO COVENANTS. WITH ONE THERE IS A FALL AND THE OTHER A RESURRECTION BACK TO ADAM'S FIRST ESTATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS-IT IS A DESCENT (THE FALL OF THE FIRST ADAM ) AND A ASCENT BACK TO THAT HEAVENLY STATE ENJOYED BY THE FIRST ADAM IN THAT HEAVENLY GARDEN STATE BEFORE THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW. (YES ADAM WAS NOT DECIEVED YET HE DIED FOR HIS BRIDE A TYPE OF THER MESSIAH DYING FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD FOR US TO BE IN HIM HIS SPIRITUAL BRIDE. HE DIED ON A TREE AS ADAM DID TO FULFILL IT. YES HE GAVE UP THER GHOST OR SPIRIT AND DESCEND INTO HELL OTR BECAME CARNALLY MINDED TILL YAHWEH RESERRUCT HIM IN A SPIRITUAL BODY THE OPERATION OF YAHWEH-IT HAPPEN IN THAT TOMB THE WAY IT SHOULD IN OUR TOMB OR PHYSICAL BODY. YES THAT CHANGE FROM A NATURAL BODY TO A SPIRITUAL BODY/ THE FALL OF ADAM MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO UNDERSTAND. HOW HE DISOBEDED BY THE PURPOSE.. HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT (YAHSHUA) FULFILLED ALL OF IT, THE SECOND ADAM OR THE REAL THING ETERNAL, (ROM.5:14)IN SPIRITUALDYING OF THE FIRST ADAM THAT ALL MAY LIVE IN THE SECOND ADAM-YAHSHUA: THE RESURRECTION OF YAHSHUA IN OUR HEARTS AND MINDS AS THE NEW COVENANT IS WRITTEN IN OUR HEARTS AND IN OURS BY BY SOMEONE BEING SENT TO SPEAK OR PREACH THE TRUE AND ONLY GOSPEL OF YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OUR BELIEVING THE REPORT. THE FIRST ADAM WAS MADE A LIVING SOUL, THE SECOND ADAM A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT OR A QUICKING SPIRIT. HOW DOES THIS WORK? WE MUST SEE A FULL CIRCLE HERE, HOW CAN WE DO THAT? WHEN YAHWEH MADE THE FIRST ADAM HE MADE HIM FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH WHICH IS TYPE OF THE SPIRIT AND HE GOT RIGHT IN THAT MAN . THAT IS WHY HE KNEW WHAT TO NAME ALL THE ANIMALS ETC. WHEN EVE WAS STILL IN THE MAN THEY WERE GIVEN A LAW BY YAHWEH. THAT WAS AND IS NOT TO TOUCH OR EAT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. IF THEY TOUCHED OR ATE IT OR BROKE THAT LAW. THEY WERE TOLD THEY WOULD SURELY DIE,THAT WOULD BE A SPIRITUAL DEATH OR A CONDEMNED, GUILTY CONSCIOUS,CARNAL,NATURAL CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD BECOME THEIR'S. (ONE CAN SEE THIS BECAUSE THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES ,YES PHYSICAL BODIES,DID NOT DIE IN ADAM'S CASE FOR 930 YEARS LATER. IFC ADAM DID NOT DIE AND HE WAS STILL YAHWEH ELOHIM IN A BODY THEN ONE IS SAYING THAT YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH DID NOT DIE ON THAT CROSS-PERIOD! ONE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. ROM.1:19-20. THE SECOND ADAM (ELOHIM BEFORE THAT PHYSICAL MAN) WAS BEGOTTON A SPIRITUAL BODY THAT SUPERINCORPERAL BODY THE ONE WE MUST BE IN OR THE SPIRITUAL ARK THAT WAS SHOWN IN TYPE BY NOAH'S STORY. THE FIRST ADAM WAS PHYSICAL NEVER MEANT TO LIVE FOREVER AS A NATURAL MAN. THE IS A GREAT DIFFENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL, YET IT IS ALL SPIRIT--ROM.1:19-20 1cor.15-gen.2,3-rom5:14

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/yahshuans/adam.html

1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (NKJV)

 

[Harlin]

Hi Hybrid,

Hello again harlin.

man your good and your in the mood.

Based on you posts, is it corrrect to say that Jesus therefore is "True God from True God", "God of Very God,"?


.

Nice to talk to you again,

I believe it would be fair to say Jesus is truly God, but not the "one True God". He is God from the very True God, He is the express image of His Father. This makes Him "truly God", but He still acknowledges the Father as His God, (John 20:17). All things have been given to Him by His Father, including equality with the Father.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

Incorrect, if the word was with god it cannt be god. you cant be the one you're with. that is a contradiction therefore that is false.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 2. the same was in the beginning with God" John 1:1-2

That's what the Bible says. Was God speaking to an inferior when He said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Jesus is equal with the Father, He is God, He dwelt with the Father in the beginning and wrought the Fathers will in creating the world. Otherwise who was God actually speaking to?....Himself?.

You are most likely going to call this a Messianic prophecy, well this can't be, because you can't make man in the image of God while actually making him the image of a man. God said "our" image, not "your" image. If Jesus was just a man, we couldn't have been made in his image then, as we were made in the image of God.

it supports my contention that the word cannot be god for if it is it results in a contradiction if you believe there is only one god, which I do. you have 2 gods so it isn't a contradiction to you but having 2 gods contradicts scripture that says there is only one god. or are you going to say the word 'both' means 'one'?

You know what I believe, yet you play ignorant regarding it every time you address a post of mine. Jesus is the express image of the Father, Jesus was the Word in heaven before coming to this world, man was made in their image, I am only quoting what scripture says, not my own imaginings. The Father calls His own Son God and tells the angels to worship Him (Heb 1:8), Jesus calls the Father the only true God (John 17:3), yet Jesus is equal to the Father (Phil 2:6). They are both rightfully God, yet the Father is the only true God, that is what the Bible says not me........It is you that has a problem with what the scriptures actually say.

the bible doesn't say the word created all things. it doesn't even say Jesus created all things , it doesn't even say as many suppose that all things were created 'by him'. you have no verse that says the word created all things.

For someone who seems to be so opposed to the KJV Bible you sure show a lack of knowledge regarding it's contents.

"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 no any thing made that was made: John 1:1-3

This in context is definitely talking about the Word making all things.

I am sure you have some version or translation to say otherwise, to rob the Son of God of His rightful position as our creator.

The nonsensicalness of it is that it has the words God speaks morphing into a 2 cell fetus.

You say that Jesus was only speaking the words of the Father while on earth, you are quite happy to believe that Jesus can be God's word here on earth, but, when the bible shows Jesus being the Word in heaven you refuse to see it. Jesus has always been the Word of God, Him and the Father are one. No prophet has ever been one with the Father, humans have to go through Jesus.

I know of no verse in the bible that says 'trust the kjv translation and none other'. perhaps you could show me that verse?

I know of no text in the bible that says that God's word would only be correctly translated and understood thousands of years after it was orginally written. In fact God's word was not to change, why would God raise up a reformation, give people the bible in the English language and not have His hand over this special work, so that it was translated so incorrectly that Jesus was actually made out to be the Son of God, equal with the Father when in reality he was only a man. I don't buy it for one second. There are stern warnings in the Bible for changing the word of God.

So far you haven't shown anything I've said to be nonsensical.

Maybe not to you.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 2. the same was in the beginning with God" John 1:1-2

"the car was red" does that mean the car is the color red or does it mean an attribute of the car is that it is red?

"god is love" does that mean god is the emotion love, or does it mean love is an attribute of God?

"Love is kind" does that mean love means kind? or does it mean kind is one of the attributes of LOve?

"The word was god". It either means that gods word is himself, or it means gods word has the quality of coming from god, or that god attaches his power and influence to his word. One makes sense one doesnt.

That's what the Bible says. Was God speaking to an inferior when He said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Jesus is equal with the Father, He is God, He dwelt with the Father in the beginning and wrought the Fathers will in creating the world. Otherwise who was God actually speaking to?....Himself?.

everyone god speaks to is an inferior to him. Jesus always said his father was greater than himself.
No verse says Jesus is equal to the father or god,
God was speaking to Jesus who wasn't there, Just as God was speaking to Jesus who wasn't there when God said "this day have I begotten thee." It's a figure of speech called an apostrophe

You are most likely going to call this a Messianic prophecy, well this can't be, because you can't make man in the image of God while actually making him the image of a man.

HuH?

God said "our" image, not "your" image. If Jesus was just a man, we couldn't have been made in his image then, as we were made in the image of God.

God created us in the image of God, but latter on he and Jesus are making not creating but making us in thier image. Jesus is the only one who is in the image of god. Jesus is the image of the invisible god.

You know what I believe, yet you play ignorant regarding it every time you address a post of mine. Jesus is the express image of the Father, Jesus was the Word in heaven before coming to this world, man was made in their image, I am only quoting what scripture says, not my own imaginings. The Father calls His own Son God and tells the angels to worship Him (Heb 1:8), Jesus calls the Father the only true God (John 17:3), yet Jesus is equal to the Father (Phil 2:6). They are both rightfully God, yet the Father is the only true God, that is what the Bible says not me........It is you that has a problem with what the scriptures actually say.

YOu can't differentiate between your interpetations of scritpure and what it actually says. To you they are the same thing.

For someone who seems to be so opposed to the KJV Bible you sure show a lack of knowledge regarding it's contents.

When I say bible I don't mean kjv or any version really I mean what god actually said, not bad translations of his word or spurious additions to his word. Perhaps I should have said 'the word of god".

"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 no any thing made that was made: John 1:1-3

Bad translation here is a better translation the asv.

John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

since obviously all things werre niot literally made through Jesus, in that the world wasn't created in the belly of Jesus , it has to be figurative.


This in context is definitely talking about the Word making all things.

I am sure you have some version or translation to say otherwise, to rob the Son of God of His rightful position as our creator.

No I rob the bible of stuff that was put in by man is all .

You say that Jesus was only speaking the words of the Father while on earth, you are quite happy to believe that Jesus can be God's word here on earth,

Actually, Jesus is god's word in a figurative sense.

but, when the bible shows Jesus being the Word in heaven[/quote]

it is the bread of heaven that came down not Jesus. Jesus is that bread of heaven in a figurative sense. Jesus isn't a loaf of bread.
'

you refuse to see it. Jesus has always been the Word of God, Him and the Father are one. No prophet has ever been one with the Father, humans have to go through Jesus.

the bible says that we are to be one with the father and the son.
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I know of no text in the bible that says that God's word would only be correctly translated and understood thousands of years after it was orginally written.

so what you're saying is 1550 years is ok but 2000 is too late to translate scritpures?

In fact God's word was not to change, why would God raise up a reformation, give people the bible in the English language and not have His hand over this special work, so that it was translated so incorrectly that Jesus was actually made out to be the Son of God, equal with the Father when in reality he was only a man. I don't buy it for one second. There are stern warnings in the Bible for changing the word of God.

which is why I am carefull to gleen the correct trnalsation on each verse. I see a fundamental difference in something here. I believe the reformation is still on going. you believe it ended some time ago. Also the kjv isn't in modern english it isnt really in our language. Gods people were coming out of extreme darkness durring the reformation. he had to spoon feed them basic truths , like salvation is by faith and not works. we today have more truth available than they did. that is some churches do.

 

[hybrid]

first of all Jesus is not almighty. Jesus can do nothing. the almighty can do anything. 2nd Jesus is not all knowing
.

Peter believed He's all knowing. (John 21:17)

Jesus said all power and authority under heaven and earth was given to him already by the father. What god can possibly do he can also do because he possesed god's power and authority. .(MAtthew 28:18)

I agree that he was not just a man, JesusChrist is co-regent with God over the universe.

He is more than just a prototype of a new man. IMO