Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus (page 30)

Podobear

... correction, Des surname is spelt... MORTON

watersprout

you people had better start listening to him because he has it absolutely right for the most part.

Why have we GOT to start listening to Godrulz?? Did God say so?? No I don't think so.... It's Christ to whom we go to not some man sat behind his computer.

Listen to him. Pay attention to what he is saying.

I listen to Christ and to what he's saying.

Tec I love you You put it soo beautifully.

2 Cor. 11:4 warns about counterfeit, worthless Christs. ACIM, Urantia Book, Conversations with God, etc. claim to be Christ talking, but they are from demons, angels of light, christs who contradict the biblical, historical Jesus.

Godrulz their are some, myself included that ''hear'' an audible voice... The Christ's voice. Nothing demonic about that. I'm not denying that there are ''false'' Christ's, because the WT is one of them.

Go to the source Godrulz and let Christ teach you. Not from the bible but from the Son Himself.

but many who claim to hear from God have some of the craziest, most unbiblical ideas (proving they are hearing their flesh or a demon).

Are these people those who YOU feel are crazy?? You cannot prove that the voice someone hears is demonic or not...

Ok the season premiere of True Blood is starting. And I believe Vampires exist - truly. Prove me wrong.

Poopsie you can't be proved wrong because vampires DO exist... I know this because I was watching an episode of ''Quantum leap'' and Sam Beckett leapt into a vampires body... At the end of the episode he wanted to see his reflection and it wasn't there! *Shock horror gasp* So that proves that vampires do exist... Sam Beckett proved it. I also really do believe vampires exist... There are vampire covens where they kill animals and drink their blood.. *Shudders*

Peace

Essan

Hi Podo,

Agreed, a 1st century Christianized Jew wouldn't have 2000 years of the trinity doctrine to reflect on or influence their thinking. But they would have an anointing and spiritual revelation, they would also have some of the new Christian writings and they would have the preaching of those who converted them. So, there's no reason that they would not understand Psalms 2 in the light of those things, rather than in isolation based on Jewish misperceptions and false expectations (as discussed by Paul).

Thus, what this Jew may have thought and expected prior to being preached to, baptized, anointed and taught by the Spirit and the NT writers, isn't relevant. It won't help you to interpret Psalms 2 accurately.

You said: "Psalm 2, surely refers to the Almighty addressing his "Son..."

Yes. You continued.

"...as a separate being".

Well, no. It doesn't say that, does it? You added that. That is your interpretation. It's a reasonable interpretation, based on human reasoning. But it doesn't hold up up when compared to all that the Bible says on this matter. It may be a "simple" understanding, but the true nature of Spirit may not be simple from a human standpoint.

Podobear

@Essan: So when THE LORD (Jehovah) said in verse 6: "Yet have I set my King upon my Holy Hill of Zion", you are saying that Jehovah is referring to himself? Not wanting to put interpretation in your mouth or pen... but I think you are very wrong.

We beg to differ.

Essan

Podo, what I'm saying is that if when weighing all the Scriptures together the weight leans to that conclusion that they are the same in being, if not in function, then yes, there isn't really any problem presented by Psalms 2...unless you just can't stop thinking in human terms or aren't willing to harmonize all the Scriptures, in which case there does appear to be a problem. But it's only an appearance.

Yeah, we just have to agree to disagree. My basic position is that the Trinity doctrine is more than possible and reasonable as a Scriptural understanding if all the the Scriptures are weighed together. I can fully understand how people reach a non-trinitarian position based on their understanding of the Scriptures and being human, used to human concepts. I neither judge them or imagine that, if wrong, they will be punished for it. But I do wish that non-Trinitarians and JWs and exJW's particularly, would at least allow for the idea that the Trinity doctrine may be possible and that it arose out of an attempt to harmonize Scripture and that the scholarship behind it is pretty damn good (infinitely better than the non-Trinitarian position, in fact.)

I'm not prepared to make a definite call about what the truth may be, because I think I'd be making an unwarranted leap either way. But I must say, if I were forced to leap (As some may insist I am, although I disagree) then I'd probably have to chose the Trinity as a sincere attempt to harmonize Scripture as best as is humanly possible. The non-trintarian view is more comfortable, simple and familiar - more human - but I just don't see the same basis in Scripture for it. And God isn't human.

godrulz

There is one God, Yahweh. The Messiah is Deity/God (Is. 9:6 with Is. 10:21 'el gibbor'). The Father and Son/Messiah are personally distinct (vs modalism), but they share the same uncreated nature/essence/substance (Deity vs Arianism). They are not separate beings/gods (polytheism). By showing that the Father is not the Son/Messiah, you are showing that modalism is not true (JWs always think they are refuting trinitarianism when they are actually refuting the heresy of Sabellianism, which started before Arianism in church history, but both rightly condemned as heretical). Based on dozens of other verses, you are not showing that Messiah/Jesus is not YHWH.

Ps. 2 is not an issue for trinitarians (and remember that the full revelation is progressive into the NT, so all truth is not in the one passage in the OT).

Podobear

@Essan: Thank you for your comments. They are gracious and penned in a non confrontational way.

However, As I read from Genesis through to the last book Revelation... I see only harmony in all but 25 texts translated into English. The Trinitarian theories (please, I use that term liberally) and the differences inherent in Arianism, Sabellianism, Modalism all add to a murky picture for me.

I see the thread of the Kingdom and the Messiah beautifully weaved throughout Scripture, like Psalm 2... I see a resurrected and exalted Jesus who still cedes to his Father and God through the Greek Scriptures... his words to the faithful brothers of Philadelphia in Revelation 3 surely cannot be more plain.

And yet despite all of that beauty, a Trinitarian will twist the 25 verses and seek to explain the rest of Scripture.

Sorry, Essan, we have to disagree because accepting Jesus as the Messiah, Son of Almighty God and subject to him.. is not just human, it is Spiritual in every way.

Anything aside from that simple truth comes under the warning given by Paul in Galatians 1:8. I have heeded it.

I think our conversation has now become circular... unless you wish to discuss the famous 25 verses (cf. Johndough's listing a few pages back and a few more besides). p.s You referred to the purported supercillious remarks on another thread. You might like to check the phraseology of some of your fellow believers towards me.

I will have no truck with contentiousness... I am happy to reason. All the very best

PSacramento

The Trinity was simply man's attempt to formulise a doctrine that explained Christ's nature and role, trying to reconcile what they knew of Christ with what the OT said of God.

For that time and with their understanding and their language, it was the best they could do.

It is NOT a doctine of Salvation and no where in the NT will you read that Our Salvation is based on ur understanding of God and Christ's nature.

As if mortal man could begin to even comprehend the nature and relationship of Christ and Our Father.

When you have a heresay like Arius's, doctrine was needed to "combat it", they came up with the Trinity.

For Christ to be saviour, to forgive and redeem sins, he must be more than simply Man or Angel, he must be God, so how does one reconcile that with God being Christ's Father?

Paul says it best and says it well enough in Colossians and Phillipians and you woudl think that would have been good enough for all, but not for Arius and as such, The Trinity came into being.

Blame Arius, LOL !

snowbird

Tammy, darlin,' I just love the way you handle your business.

PSac, you said a mouthful and you ain't about to choke.

This debate/discussion has been so revealing.

Syl

designs

Snowbird-

It is revealing, Christians with differing interpretations on the same texts, persons that hear voices and those that don't, some see visons others don't. What to make of it all.

Godrulz- what does a generic Jesus look like, somewhere between Max Von Snydow and William Defoe.

Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus

Share this