Posts by herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

hooberus,

The apostle Paul warned about those who preach "another Jesus, whom we have not preached"

You can't point to a single text that shows Paul or any other apostle as preaching the Trinity doctrine, namely, that God is three persons known as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. There isn't even a hint in their preaching that the number three is connected in any way with the Godhead. The ones that "preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached" are the trinitarians, not those who accept the unitarian preaching of Jewish Jesus and his Jewish apostles about who God is and about Jesus' relationship with him.

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

LittleToe,

would you deny that Revelation calls Jesus "the first and the last"?

Jesus calls himself the first and the last at Revelation 1:17 and 2:8. In both instances, the context clarifies in what sense he is the first and the last.

1:17, 18 - "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
2:8 - "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive."

Now, in what way is Jesus "the first" with respect to being "he that liveth," "he that ... was dead," and he that is "alive for evermore"? Chapter 1, verse 5, calls him "the first begotten of the dead." He was the first person on earth that God raised from the dead to be "alive for evermore."

Jesus is also the last person who was raised from the dead directly by God himself. God is no longer the one who raises the dead since he gave the keys to unlock "hell and ... death" to Jesus. So, Jesus is the first and the last with regard to resurrection from the dead.

your logic in saying that Jesus "could not have been" seems very human, IMHO
Who are we to say what "God" can or can't do or be?

Am I to conclude that you view the Bible and Christianity to be without logic? If the Bible says Jesus "emptied himself" and trinitarians insist that he emptied himself of being God, what is wrong with concluding by means of logic that he could not be God on earth if he emptied himself of being God? Somehow your point escapes me.

How would you explain Judges 6:12-16, etc. (I just happened to read it right now). Here the "angel of the LORD (YHWH)", evidently "the Word", is called "the LORD".

If we take the Bible for what it says, there is no need for an explanation here. The text shows clearly that an angel was called "the LORD." This is a point that trinitarians just don't seem able to grasp. Jesus is not the only agent of God who is called "God" and "the LORD" in the Bible. The angel is not a member of a triune Godhead because he is called "the LORD," and neither is Jesus. Only the Father is "the only true God," and all others who are designated by him as "God" and "the Lord" are those who speak and act for him as his agents or representatives. (John 17:3)

There is no suggestion in the Bible that the angel was "the word" of John 1:1.

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

Sirona,

I think that a close examination of the scriptures is required to see if the bible says Jesus and God Almighty are One.

Yes, they are One in the same sense that Jesus prayed for his disciples to be One with him and with his Father. At John 17:11, 22, Jesus prayed: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Jesus and his Father do not belong to a Trinity, and he surely was not praying that his disciples become part of a Trinity.

There are scriptures where God is called the Rock and similarly Jesus is, and where God is Alpha and Omega, and similarly Jesus is referred to this way.

Peter was also called a Rock, but he was not a part of God. Upon careful examination of the book of Revelation, it will become clear that Jesus was not called Alpha and Omega as some trinitarians claim.

I near on convinced myself that the bible was saying Jesus is God and that he emptied himself and took on a human form.

The Bible does say that Jesus "emptied himself," but it doesn't say that he emptied himself of being God. It says he was "in the form of God." That could not mean that he was the very nature of God, for then Jesus could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians claim, since being "in the form of God" is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth. Jesus was in the form of God by his resemblance to God mentally and morally. His character was the express image or reflection of his Father's person. (Hebrews 1:3)

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

bebu,

(Messianic Jews). Do they tend to be mainly trinitarian or unitarian?

Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok wrote a book called Messianic Judaism. He is a Professor of Judaism at the University of Wales. While the majority of Messianic Jews are trinitarian, he claims that an increasing number of them are forming into unitarian congregations.

But the dilemma they face is that Messianic Jews who are trinitarian tend not to view them as Christians but as unconverted Jews or as Jews who have fallen away from Christianity. Trinitarians pass such judgments despite the fact that Jesus and the apostles and all the earliest Christians were Jews and most certainly were not trinitarians.

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

Sirona,

I believe that the bible says that Jesus is God - the two are both God.

Angels, Moses, the judges and kings of Israel, as well as Jesus, are all called "God" due to being the agents of the Almighty. However, none of them is equal to the God they represent. Even the devil is called ho theos at 2 Corinthians 4:4, but he is Almighty God only in the minds of those who worship him.

Thomas called Jesus ho theos. But a comparison of Hebrews 1:8, 9, with Psalm 45:6 will show that the kings of Israel were also addressed in that way. In Psalm 45, a king is called Elohim, and this is translated as God with a capital "G" in many Bibles. Hebrews 1 translates Elohim as ho theos. Now note this footnote on Psalm 45:6 in the NIV Study Bible:

O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king (the "LORD's anointed," 2 Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the "son of God (see 2:7; 2 Sa 7:14; 1 Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his "splendor and majesty" (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called "god" as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8-9).

The NIV Study Bible uses "God" in the main text but uses "God" and "god" in its footnote. But the thing to note is that the Hebrew word is translated as ho theos in the New Testament, the same expression that Thomas fittingly applied to Jesus, the ultimate king to sit upon the Davidic throne.

The throne of David was also called the throne of the Lord, not because David was actually the Lord God Almighty, but because he ruled and spoke for the Lord.

When Jesus asked the apostles who they thought he was, Peter identified Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter did not say "You are God." Jesus responded by telling Peter that "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt. 16:15-17) God did not reveal to Peter that Jesus is God, and thus the Trinity is not a revelation from God. It is a concept that was invented and publicized by men. The Trinity is therefore very distant from the understanding that Peter expressed concerning Jesus' relationship with God. The only way that trinitarians will ever receive a correct understanding about the Father and Christ is by paying attention to what the Bible actually says instead of to what men and institutions claim that it says. Yes, the Bible says Jesus is God. But the question is, Is he God in the sense that the Father is God or in the sense that Moses, David and others were spoken of as God?

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

hooberus,

On several earlier threads I posted scriptures showing that Jesus Christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

Fine. But you also completely ignored the thousands of texts that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Father alone is Almighty God. You selectively used texts that can be interpreted in more than one way in your excessive desire to prove that Jesus is also the Almighty. Interestingly, you well-nigh ignored the "Third Person" of your mythical deity borrowed from paganism.

herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

herk

But how can Jesus Christ and the Father both be LORD? "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

64

Did Jesus pray to himself ?

by hooberus in

while trinitarians believe that the father, son, and the holy spirit, are god, they also believe that they are distinct persons within the one god.

thus they are able to speak to one another.

so jesus (one person) speaking to the father (another person) in prayer is not a problem.

herk

hooberus,

With all due respect, your last three posts appear to be a lot of gibberish.

It seems to me that in these translations the word "one" simply means the generic term "one" as in the hypothetical phrase "the one soldier said to the other"

On what basis do you disagree with translators who are being guided by the latest advances in knowledge of Bible languages? Are you capable of reading NT Greek to the extent you are qualified to present such a challenge?

Hebrews 5:7 is but one example, as I've shown, where hos is translated in the NASB, NIV and other recent versions as "the One." You seem to be saying you just don't care what others say who are far wiser than you.

This seems to turn the pronoun used in Hebrews 5:7 into some sort of title. I do not myself follow this practice. I see no need for the word to be made into the capitalized phrase "the One" (as in some sort of title), instead of the simple uncapitalized "the one" as the above NIV version uses it.

Due to the antecedent of the relative pronoun, "the One" is the only correct way to translate hos in the examples I gave above, including Hebrews 5:7.

I see no need to defend myself againist arguments based on this. If you wish to discuss with those Trinitrians who argue that the word in Hebrews 5:7 should be translated as "the One" ( capitalized into some sort of title), the fact that you feel that they are being inconsistent in their interpretation of the phrase "the One" (capitalized) you should contact them.

Do you realize how silly your paragraph is? You are saying, in other words, "I don't choose to go by an accurate translation of the Bible. I prefer a Bible that is based upon outdated knowledge of ancient manuscripts. So your argument, herk, is with those who prefer to use more accurate translations."

While it is true that the JW's interpret "the One" as refering to one individual in both Hebrews 5:7 (NWT "the One") as well as John 19:37 (NWT "the One") the fact remains that they interpret the capitalized phrase "the One" NWT in one instance as refering to God and in another as refering to a creature.

The NWT is not the only Bible that does this. At Matthew 11:3, for example, several translations use a capital "O" for "One" as applied to Jesus. The context makes clear that the ones speaking did not expect Jesus to be God. Instead, they were expecting a Prophet, a Messiah born as a human and sent by God. (Compare Amplified Bible, NASB, NKJV, New Life Version, New Living Translation, The Message and others.) You seem to be under the impression that "One" with a capital "O" can only refer to God, but that is not the point of translators in using the capital "O". Their emphasis is on the fact that the individual "One" is special and that he is the only "One" in his category.

When Trinitarians such as myself say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. We are saying that they are one God. Hense, I do not claim that the phrase "one" means "three."

First you say that the three--Father, Son and Spirit--are "one," and then you say "I do not claim that the phrase 'one' means 'three'." Hello!!!

herk

15

Revelation 22:12 refers to Jesus! (says a recent WT !)

by hooberus in

a recent wt (i believe the december 1, or 15, 2003 wt).

has revelation 22:12 referring to jesus christ !

i will give the reference shortly.. .

herk

Ozzie,

Thanks. I wouldn't argue with you about that. Going back and forth in their explanation of Revelation 22:12 certainly doesn't help their cause against the Trinity doctrine. But as I see it, one of the major faults of the JWs is their brushing aside of each of their errors as "a small fault." The accumulation of all these so-called "small faults" is monumental evidence that JWs are not truly Christian in many of their teachings and practices.

herk

15

Revelation 22:12 refers to Jesus! (says a recent WT !)

by hooberus in

a recent wt (i believe the december 1, or 15, 2003 wt).

has revelation 22:12 referring to jesus christ !

i will give the reference shortly.. .

herk

ozziepost,

In fairness, I think the JW reference to "a small fault" is to the waffling in interpretation of the text, not to knowing God's identity.

herk