by UnDisfellowshipped 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
I know Brian May is God, but I'm not sure if he's the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.
This doesn't sound like something that anyone from this world would invent.
True...perhaps a snake perpetually eating it's own tail is also an actual entity. Who could invent something like that on their own?
Carmel said:
"Research the scripture where Jesus claimed to be the "perfect IMAGE of His Father" Explains much about why one might think Jesus was God when he in fact claimed to perfectly reflect. Different than being the essense of that which is reflected."
"Robertson's Word Pictures" has this to say about Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15:
Hebrews 1:3:
The effulgence of his glory (apaugasma te¯s doxe¯s). The word apaugasma, late substantive from apaugazo¯, to emit brightness (auge¯, augazo¯ in 2Co_4:4), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in Joh_12:45; Joh_14:9. “The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos” (Moffatt). The meaning “effulgence” suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (Joh_1:1), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in 2Co_4:6.
The very image of his substance (charakte¯r te¯s hupostaseo¯s). Charakte¯r is an old word from charasso¯, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = te¯r) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Act_17:29; Rev_13:16.). Menander had already used (Moffatt) charakte¯r in the sense of our “character.” The word occurs in the inscriptions for “person” as well as for “exact reproduction” of a person. The word hupostasis for the being or essence of God “is a philosophical rather than a religious term” (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In Heb_11:1 hypostasis is like the “title-deed” idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used Heb_1:1-4 in his controversy with Arius. Paul in Phi_2:5-11 pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul’s simpler phrase morphe¯ theou (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of Logos in John 1:1-18 is parallel to Heb_1:1-4.
Colossians 1:15:
The image (eiko¯n). In predicate and no article. On eiko¯n, see 2Co_4:4; 2Co_3:18; Rom_8:29; Col_3:10. Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation (Joh_17:5) and is now (Phi_2:5-11; Heb_1:3).
Of the invisible God (tou theou tou aoratou). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God (Joh_14:9). See this verbal adjective (a privative and horao¯) in Rom_1:20.
-------------------------------------------
Jaimieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary says the following about Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15:
Hebrews 1:3:
brightness of his glory — Greek, the effulgence of His glory. “Light of (from) light” [Nicene Creed]. “Who is so senseless as to doubt concerning the eternal being of the Son? For when has one seen light without effulgence?” [Athanasius, Against Arius, Orations, 2]. “The sun is never seen without effulgence, nor the Father without the Son” [Theophylact]. It is because He is the brightness, etc., and because He upholds, etc., that He sat down on the right hand, etc. It was a return to His divine glory (Joh_6:62; Joh_17:5; compare Wisdom of Solomon 7:25, 26, where similar things are said of wisdom).
express image — “impress.” But veiled in the flesh.
The Sun of God in glory beams
Too bright for us to scan;
But we can face the light that streams
For the mild Son of man.
(2Co_3:18).
of his person — Greek, “of His substantial essence”; “hypostasis.”
Colossians 1:15:
image — exact likeness and perfect Representative. Adam was made “in the image of God” (Gen_1:27). But Christ, the second Adam, perfectly reflected visibly “the invisible God” (1Ti_1:17), whose glories the first Adam only in part represented. “Image” (eicon) involves “likeness” (homoiosis); but “likeness” does not involve “image.” “Image” always supposes a prototype, which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn: the exact counterpart, as the reflection of the sun in the water: the child the living image of the parent. “Likeness” implies mere resemblance, not the exact counterpart and derivation as “image” expresses; hence it is nowhere applied to the Son, while “image” is here, compare 1Co_11:7 [Trench]. (Joh_1:18; Joh_14:9; 2Co_4:4; 1Ti_3:16; Heb_1:3). Even before His incarnation He was the image of the invisible God, as the Word (Joh_1:1-3) by whom God created the worlds, and by whom God appeared to the patriarchs. Thus His essential character as always “the image of God,” (1) before the incarnation, (2) in the days of His flesh, and (3) now in His glorified state, is, I think, contemplated here by the verb “is.”
-------------------------------------------
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says this about Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15:
Hebrews 1:3:
The brightness of his glory - ?pa??asµa t?? d???? The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets apa??asµa by ??????? fe????, the splendor of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wis. 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: “For she is the splendor of eternal light, apa??asµa ?a? est? f?t?? a??d???, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness.” The word a??asµa is that which has splendor in itself apa??asµa is the splendor emitted from it; but the inherent splendor and the exhibited splendor are radically and essentially the same.
The express image of his person - ?a?a?t?? t?? ??p?stase?? a?t??? The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.
From these words it is evident,
1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the apa??asµa, or proceeding splendor, must be the same with the a??asµa, or inherent splendor.
2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one a???, or splendor, produce another a???, or splendor, the produced splendor must be of the same essence with that which produces it.
3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the a??asµa, or inherent splendor, cannot subsist without its apa??asµa, or proceeding splendor, nor the proceeding splendor subsist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds.
4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendor must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendor. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.
Colossians 1:15:
Who is the image of the invisible God - The counterpart of God Almighty, and if the image of the invisible God, consequently nothing that appeared in him could be that image; for if it could be visible in the Son, it could also be visible in the Father; but if the Father be invisible, consequently his image in the Son must be invisible also. This is that form of God of which he divested himself; the ineffable glory in which he not only did not appear, as to its splendor and accompaniments, but concealed also its essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly see. This was that Divine nature, the fullness of the Godhead bodily, which dwelt in him.
---------------------------------------
From the above information, it is clear to me that when the Bible says Jesus is the "Exact Image of God's Essence" and "The Visible Image of the Invisible God," it is saying that The Son is exactly like The Father because they both share the same Nature or Essence.
Notice that Adam Clarke had a different understanding of Colossians 1:15, which is very interesting, and should be considered as a possibility.
Perry, hi how are you?
You said:
"Excellent points Undisfellowshipped!"
Thank you very much. I am indebted to many good apologetic works, including the books by Norman Geisler ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" and "Why I Am a Christian"), C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity" and all of his other writings) and many other sources.
You said:
"May I add that God is by necessity a First Cause. As such, that would make him absolutely UNIQUE. Unique means one of a kind. So although we are in his image, spirit, soul, and body; he is still one of a kind. He is three in one... three persons but just one God."
Very good points! Thank you. Yes, even scientists admit the truth that the Big Bang (an effect) was caused by something.
Terry, thank you for your comments:
Terry said:
You can't win a Trinity argument with anybody pro or con. Why? Because it is a litmus test. Of what? Of your consciousness. How so? Wanting to understand something like a Triune God is a rational quest. If you are rational, then, your consciousness is human, finite and de facto sinful, fallen, wretched, evil and feckless.
But--if you accept on Faith a Triune God you have been called to faith by God and given to Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. You have become something irrational, unfallen and--therefore, reborn to a different way of "seeing".
There is the rub!
Only fleshly people not born of the spirit will bother to engage in these sorts of arguments over words demonstrating their fallen status! You cannot choose to understand. Your earthly, fleshy mind craves logical, rational, gestalt-driven comprehension which CATCH 22-wise, means you are doomed.
If you accept the Triune God, you don't need persuading by scripture reference, argument, debate or fact-sifting dialogues. You prove God has called you to his own.
See how this works?
My Response:
I agree that we finite, sinful human beings can never fully understand the Infinite God. Truth about God can go beyond rational understanding, but it cannot go against rational understanding. It cannot contradict something that we know to be absolutely true.
It also cannot be self-defeating or self-contradictory. God cannot be both One God and Three Gods at the same time in the same sense. He cannot be both only One Person (Unitarianism) and Three Persons (Trinitarianism) at the same time. But, there is no contradiction in saying that God is One God, but Three Persons.
The Apostle Peter taught the following:
1 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV): but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
Peter said all Christians must be prepared to provide, to unbelievers, apologetics, a defense of the faith, and provide reasons why they believe in Christ. If that doesn't include the true identity and Deity of Christ, and the true Nature and Tri-Unity of God, then what was Peter speaking about?
According to the Bible, the Apostle Paul's custom was to "reason with," "explain," "prove," and "persuade" people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Many put faith in Jesus because of Paul doing this:
Acts 17:2-4 (ESV): And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
Acts 17:11-12 (ESV): Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
Acts 24:24-25 (ESV): After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, "Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you."
Acts 28:23-24 (ESV): When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved.
Should we not follow Peter and Paul's inspired advice?
Paul also gave this advice:
1 Corinthians 14:20 (ESV): Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.
1 Corinthians 10:15 (ESV): I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
1 Corinthians 13:11 (ESV): When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 (ESV): Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
Paul taught us Christians to be "mature in our thinking," to be "sensible," and to "test everything" that you hear. Was he not describing rational thinking, logic, and using your mind?
Jesus Christ taught that the Greatest Command of God is that you love God with all of your mind, heart, soul, and strength.
What does it mean to love God with all of your mind?
VoidEater said:
I know Brian May is God, but I'm not sure if he's the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.
This doesn't sound like something that anyone from this world would invent.
True...perhaps a snake perpetually eating it's own tail is also an actual entity. Who could invent something like that on their own?
I think you just made a very good point, VoidEater. Just because something sounds so odd or different or unique, does not, in itself, prove that it must have been divine in origin.
A better argument, in my opinion, is to say this:
1:) In the first century the Jews were very strict monotheists. They believed that God was only One Person (The Father).
2:) They also believed that their Messiah would come and destroy the Romans and live forever to rule the world as King from Jerusalem.
So, if the Apostles and disciples were making up the entire Gospel story about Jesus, why would they have taught that:
1:) Jesus was God in the Flesh, a 2nd Person who is God.
and
2:) The Messiah was crucified and was not going to destroy the Romans.
If you were making up a new religion and trying to convince the Jews to believe it, why would you have made those two teachings (which Jews hated) your main beliefs?
Mouthy, what's up? How are you doing?
You said:
"In Phillip 2:7 says HE emptied himself. Of what did he empty then? I have 8 translations. The Jerusalem Bible puts it that way, (also RSV) The Living Bible says "although he was God He laid aside his power..." NIV Says "but made himself nothing taking the very nature of a servant." I Believe Jesus is GOD ...God had a son he became God (just as man has a son he becomes man). I understand it like this. The Queen of England has power...But imagine if she came to my house to clean my bathroom, She is still woman like me. the only differance I have no mighty power, she has, so she emptied herself for the time she came to my place ..."
My Reply:
I think you are correct when you say that Philippians 2:7 is speaking about Jesus laying aside His mighty position and outward appearance of glory and honor for a time to humbly serve His fellow humans.
The best commentary on Philippians 2:7 that I have seen so far is Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. Here is what this commentary said:
But made himself of no reputation - This translation by no means conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is e?a?t?? e??e´??se? heauton ekeno¯sen. The word ?e??´? kenoo¯ means literally, to empty, “to make empty, to make vain or void.” It is rendered: “made void” in Rom_4:14; “made of none effect,” 1Co_1:17; “make void,” 1Co_9:15; “should be vain,” 2Co_9:3. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.
In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:
(1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and good.
(2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections. Yet,
(3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud, or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase “being in the form of God” - and took upon himself another form and manifestation in the condition of a servant.
And took upon him the form of a servant - The phrase “form of a servant,” should be allowed to explain the phrase “form of God,” in Phi_2:6. The “form of a servant” is that which indicates the condition of a servant, in contradistinction from one of higher rank. It means to appear as a servant, to perform the offices of a servant, and to be regarded as such. He was made like a servant in the lowly condition which he assumed. The whole connection and force of the argument here demands this interpretation. Storr and Rosenmuller interpret this as meaning that he became the servant or minister of God, and that in doing it, it was necessary that he should become a man. But the objection to this is obvious. It greatly weakens the force of the apostle’s argument. His object is to state the depth of humiliation to which he descended, and this was best done by saying that he descended to the lowest condition of humanity and appeared in the most humble garb. The idea of being a “servant or minister of God” would not express that, for this is a term which might be applied to the highest angel in heaven.
Though the Lord Jesus was not literally a servant or slave, yet what is here affirmed was true of him in the following respects:
(1) He occupied a most lowly condition in life.
(2) he condescended to perform such acts as are appropriate only to those who are servants. “I am among you as he that serveth;” Luk_22:27; compare Joh_13:4-15.
And was made in the likeness of men - Margin, habit. The Greek word means likeness, resemblance. The meaning is, he was made like unto people by assuming such a body as theirs; see the notes at Rom_8:3. ---------------------------------------------------
Mouthy said:
"Frank> So what does it mean to put God "in a box," an expression often used by Trinitarians to label non-Trinitarians. Your allowed to say that But I am a Trinity believer & my God "aint" in no box my friend"
I totally agree with you -- the Infinite Triune God is so far beyond anything in creation, I don't know how anyone can say that we are "putting God in a box."
When I started to question my faith in the WT and did some independent study and research I started to lean to that same conclusion. On of the reasons was that the WTBTS in their version of the bible changed those "problem" scriptures and I started to see this as a way to make Jesus seem less important and draw more power to themselves, some kind of conspiracy if you want. Of course as most of you know I no longer believe in the bible but I can understand why some one who does would come to the conclusion that Jesus was god.
Hello Mr. Anti, thank you for your comments.
You said:
When I started to question my faith in the WT and did some independent study and research I started to lean to that same conclusion. On of the reasons was that the WTBTS in their version of the bible changed those "problem" scriptures and I started to see this as a way to make Jesus seem less important and draw more power to themselves, some kind of conspiracy if you want. Of course as most of you know I no longer believe in the bible but I can understand why some one who does would come to the conclusion that Jesus was god.
Do you mind if I ask you why you no longer believe in the Bible?
LD,
I am finally getting back to you about some better Trinity illustrations. Here are a few web pages I found that provide and explain some better illustrations, and even explain why the "egg" illustration is not very accurate:
http://www.gracecommunityallentown.org/TrinityTract.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/show3n1.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
http://moravians.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=26
I hope those help you.
Do you mind if I ask you why you no longer believe in the Bible?
Sure no problem, I just don't feel like starting a debate. There are many reason why I lost my faith. I discovered that it was not only the WT that "edited" the bible but many religions did the same. I was shocked when I discovered there were many books that did not make in the official "bible" for me the fact that religious leaders decided what should be accepted and not kinds of throws the whole inspired hypothesis out the window in my opinion. Other factors like certain contradictions and questionable morals also weighs in the balance. I started topics on this if you look at my topics you will see more details. I do think that the bible can be useful in understanding who we are, what influences it had in the shaping of our western society. There are so many ancient book out there that in my opinion deserve as much if not more of our attention. By spending so much energy on one book I believe we miss out on a lot of interesting and profound knowledge, philosophy and poetry from different cultures.
