Posts by Anastasis

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

>>>Obviously it makes a great difference that Stephen is able to see Jesus. Jesus is the one that receives the spirit of that this saint, which is basically his life conduct ensuring him a place in the book of life. He is assured that Christ will raise him at the last day, having received this authority from God "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

What does the name "Jesus" mean? Again, Im a bit puzzled about where you get your interpretations from. Is Jesus really a new name? No its not. It means "YHWH is salvation", like Emanuel means "God with us" and Jehu (Israliete King) "he is YHWH". It is even shared with Joshua. These are names that signifies that the ones holding them do the work of God. A name is just a name and the name of Jesus is simply that YHWH is salvation.<<<

The name (as of now) is irrelevant. It is the process of prayer

of which I speak. Note that at Stephen's last dying breath, he calls on Jesus. Remember what is said of prayer? That it should be done in Jesus' name ?

And why does "seeing" Jesus matter? It doesn't. What matters is that

AS Stephen was being stoned he was calling upon Jesus to recieve his spirit. Why did he choose these words at his LAST dying breath?"

- Let us start of clearing a fundamental misunderstanding:

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Stephen actually addresses God and then he asks Jesus to receive his Spirit. Prayers are done in the name of Jesus but directed to the Father, the one you normally speak to is the Father (Matt. 6). Stephen doesnt pray to Jesus in the vision, he speaks to him. It is totally fundamental of this vision in Acts 7:55 onward that Stephen sees Jesus. If he hadnt seen him, we have the rest of NT aswell as Matt. 6 as evidence that he would not be talking to him. Jesus even stands next to.. whom..? The Father or God the Father? No, it merely says GOD so Jesus is not God, but standing next to God. Jesus is the divine mediator and high priest receiving prayers. What says Scripture? Well; "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17). Jesus receives the prayers of the saints and we ask of God to let them go through Jesus as they are only acceptable to God in Jesus. Jesus is a being on his own yet nessary in human relationship to God. The spirit represent either the power or lifeconduct/style of a person, forinstance the spirit of Elijah (2 Kings 2:15) or of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), while Gods Spirit goes beyond human limitations. Thus what Stephen really says is "Lord Jesus receive my sacrifice, give it to God, grant me life".

To sum up; praying to Jesus goes against the instruction of Jesus and not a singel person in the Bible prays to Jesus. You pray to the Father, Jesus is the high priest. The scene in Acts 7:55- is not a prayer but a vision in which Stephen sees his high priest and talks to him. This is simply the logic and rational interpretation of Scriptures without adding any superstion. However abused the passage may be, it just sums up the teaching on Hebrews 8 which is very non trinitarian. In your argumentation, you have broken the instruction of Jesus, ignored the clear teaching of Hebrews about Jesus as high priest and read something into Acts 7:59 it doesnt say at all.

"

>>>As for the Word, John 1 speaks of the Word of God. The world is obviously the Jewish world, Acts 14:16 tells us that God "in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways", they are not accountable to YHWH beyond the grave. The personified Word came to its own, those that had received the Word of God. Jesus as a person?? No no, but the LAW. That way what I have said here fits the context perfectly. OT thinking is the way to understand the NT, otherwise you go wrong. <<<

The context speaks otherwise. The OT law is summed in Christ, no? Yes. ;) Therefore Christ IS the 'Word'. Now note the context. Vs10 speaks of who? The word. The 'Word' did what? Created the world (vs1-3,10). Now see vs12. What is the 'Word's name on which to believe? Jesus. Note in vs10 that the 'Word' ie. Jesus is rejected just like in the gospels. See also 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. Jesus is THE Word. Notice in the gospels how Jesus says that HE is the 'bread that came down from heaven' HE is the 'True Light' etc.."

- The OT law is summed in Christ? I havent seen that in Sciptures. Jesus is however the bread of life that came down from Heaven. Is that literal? Is Jesus bread from Heaven? No, but he came from God and gives life. He is the life and resurrection because he is the one men of the new covenant must believe in. Christ is the word of God that became flesh. A word is not being anymore than the Law is a being. You confuse literal speaking with non literal speaking. It is true Gods word created the world. See;

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (.) 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The word of God is; his what God says and intents to do. He created the world by giving orders as we see in Genesis 1. That is hardly literal but it is the way we are told.

I think 1 John clearly shows that the word was not a being before that word became flesh. The word is God's word, life, bread from Heaven;

1 John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

It was with the Father and it became flesh, which is an OT expression for a man (or animal). As Jesus is the word made flesh, made a person, it is no surprise that the Bible 2 times call him the word of life (above and Rev. 19:13).

"

>>>"Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:11-12" speaks of the feets of YHWH. Does YHWH literally have feet? He is Spirit, not flesh and bones, unless you are a Mormon. Jesus have literally feet though and since we have that "God was in Christ reconciling the world" (2 Cor. 5:19) we can see that YHWH and Jesus will come back the same way YHWH and Jesus left. In the same way YHWH was crucified, that is through his Son who was mortal and flesh and blood. <<<

YHWH can have 'feet' because the incarnated Christ IS YHWH. See Rev22:3-4. Does God have a 'face'? Note that the one who's face is seen is the one who is SERVED. Can you serve a mere creature? No."

- Why do you feel a need to say 'feet'? Because you mix a human being with God? "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19).

As for Revelations, let us solve the problem;

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

From this we determine that verse 4 speaks of God. People saw the face of Jesus. Still it was a man of flesh and bones that walked the earth. You are not a Mormon are you?

Naturally God is the one being served. Jesus is also being served, but he serves God.

What kind of question is "can you serve a mere creature?" Of cause you can. Ask any person that has a job.

"

>>>The main problem with your interpretation of the verses in Heb. 1:10-12 is that they ignore the context of Ps. 102. This is a believer adressing YHWH. Notice what it says in verse 18; "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD". The writer here is part of this creation. If we have in mind that the apostle is the one that speaks in Hebrews 1 while YHWH is merely being quoted, then we wont go off track because, as I detailed earlier, the "who writes what and to whom" is very different in verses 8-9 compared to 10-12. Every singel verses quoting YHWH starts of with the writer telling us who speaks to who; <<<

That may seem viable on the outside, but what did we forget? That it is the 'Spirit of YHWH' within the prophets who speak. Not the prophet of his own accord. This is like saying that the 'OT Law' is actually Moses' because he is the 'speaker' in regards to the children of Israel."

- That fascinating comment obviously nullify any context argument from the Bible :). No no, it is a believer that speaks in Ps. 102, not God. Obviously through the Holy Spirit. That still makes it impossible that it suddenly is God that speaks following the context.

"

>>>This is obviously not the case in verses 8-12;

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. <<<

Now let's think about this one. Note that it was originally applied to 'Solomon' but is here specifically applied to Christ. Remember the Psalms "..you will not allow your holy one to see decay"? How it was 'applied to David' but was in actuality not applied to him at all, but to Christ?"

- David would not be called Holy One. David wrote of Jesus (Acts 2:25). Now lets think about this one. God having a God? How blasphemous. No, proposal rejected. "God" doesnt mean YHWH all the time as shown in my original post.

"

>>>Apostle addressing YHWH (In the verses from OT, a NT saint addressing YHWH): <<<

Rather, Apostle speaking by the Spirit of God."

- But still in the context that a believer speaks. You cant make YHWH speak as a believer needing of salvation and praying to YHWH. God is not the one that needs salvation as the writer of Ps. 102. Your argument is truly her because it distorts the context and makes YHWH a believer.

"

>>>Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

On the contrary the writer skips from God speaking to a saint speaking, no longer telling us who he speaks to but instead calling YHWH "you".<<<

But you forgot the Grk word "kai" which means 'and' that joins the two quotes. "But about the Son he say...[this]....AND....[this]"....See what I mean? And remember by this the "you" refers to the Father as speaker. Therefore He [YHWH] addresses His Son [also YHWH] through the words of the prophet onto paper."

- Truly "you" is the The Father but you seem to forget that the speaker is the writer of Hebrews, YHWH is being quoted. You already lost it by claiming that YHWH needs salvation (Ps. 102:18-24), as the speaker of Ps. 102 needs salvation.

"

>>>Thus we can see that his style is very consistent. It would indeed be a let down if he had ignored who speaks to who in Ps. 102:25-27. He would be quoting out of context if he had applied Hebrews 1:10-12 as YHWHs words to the Son. The writing style here is wellknown for the timeperiod of Hebrews.<<<

Would not be odd at all. What would be strange is if the writer of Hebrews suddenly interjected in mid-context to quote a passage of OT to merely emphasize YHWH eternality? What is the point of that, and how does it fit in with context? Note the sudden return to context in vs13..."but to the angels He says"...Should'nt he have waited until the end of the topic? Now remember the word "and" and how he is quoting two scriptures as applied to the Son."

- The point would certainly be to praise God. You just forget that the writer of Hebrews is speaking, not YHWH, who is merely quoted. There is not oddity in verse 13, "he" is the one being quoted, thus showing that the one calling YHWH "you" is another one that this "he".

"

>>>Finally the prayer thing. My last post really explains it all. The Bible explains something the trinitarians would like to refute, namely that Christ receives prayers and mediator while being subject to YHWH. Where is the Son of God preached in the OT apart from "things to come"? Moses does indeed talk a bit of Jesus as "a prophet raised among you" (Deu. 18:15; Acts 3:22) but where does Moses call on Jesus? Where does he call him Lord? I would like to see it ;). Moses had one Lord, and he was himself Lord over his people. The people were "baptised into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), which obviously does not mean what it means to be baptised into Christ. But as I have told, we had no mediator in the OT but the Law and the Law is not a person. <<<

Simply because Jesus did not formally obtain the name "Jesus" ie. 'God our salvation' until the time of His manifestation. However you can read Judges13 to see where the Angel of YHWH (theophany) was invoked in a blessing ALONG WITH YHWH."

- Interesting claim made necessary because you cant find Jesus in the OT. Why all this strange reading in. Please explain your points about Judges 13, including verses. This goes beyond my fantasy, but I would like to see it.

"

>>>Again, Jesus is never prayed to anywhere, but as he is the chief angel (or let us call him messenger, otherwise you get me wrong), both Paul and John has contact with their Lord and speaks to him after Christ has become immortal. Note the intro to Revelations;

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

That way it should not surprise us that it was possible for the apostles to talk to the Lord. Btw, notice how that verse does not call Jesus God in this context? Why? I thought he was God the Son, so you told me<<<

Why did you ignore the scriptures I cited that address this very thing?"

- Not a singel one of them dealt with prayers. But you are wellcome to show exactly what you want to make out to be prayers. List every verse here. I just havent got time enough to comment on something so totally unnessary so you need to do some work for me. Is it that Jesus speaks to Saul? Is that a prayer?? Sorry, cant follow you. I obviously do comment heavily on Acts 7:59 in this post though.

"As for message. See 1Peter1:11. The Spirit of 'Who?' IN 'whom?'...cf...Rom8:9."

- I quote from previous in this response;

The spirit represent either the power or lifeconduct/style of a person, forinstance the spirit of Elijah (2 Kings 2:15) or of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), while Gods Spirit goes beyond human limitations.

A bad trinity argument, very bad.

"As for delineation. Why is this a problem for Trinitarians? The Son was sent forth from the Father, not the other way around. I may as well ask you to read Jude4 then tell me why the Father is excluded from the ONE Lord in 1Cor8:6?"

- Jude 4:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (KJV).

What is the problem here then? Perhaps a wishfull translation? It is the exactly same thing with Titus 2:13. The true rendering is:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Context.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 16 October 2002 18:45:32

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

These following verses gives us a clear indication of what Jesus is NOT and what he was ABOUT;

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business?

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

There you have it. A seperate person, being subject to God, who is all about his Fathers business and a seperate person manifesting God. That is Jesus for you.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 15 October 2002 4:49:45

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Jeremiah Lee,

Hi there. Let us see what you have to say.

Obviously it makes a great difference that Stephen is able to see Jesus. Jesus is the one that receives the spirit of that this saint, which is basically his life conduct ensuring him a place in the book of life. He is assured that Christ will raise him at the last day, having received this authority from God "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

What does the name "Jesus" mean? Again, Im a bit puzzled about where you get your interpretations from. Is Jesus really a new name? No its not. It means "YHWH is salvation", like Emanuel means "God with us" and Jehu (Israliete King) "he is YHWH". It is even shared with Joshua. These are names that signifies that the ones holding them do the work of God. A name is just a name and the name of Jesus is simply that YHWH is salvation.

As for the Word, John 1 speaks of the Word of God. The world is obviously the Jewish world, Acts 14:16 tells us that God "in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways", they are not accountable to YHWH beyond the grave. The personified Word came to its own, those that had received the Word of God. Jesus as a person?? No no, but the LAW. That way what I have said here fits the context perfectly. OT thinking is the way to understand the NT, otherwise you go wrong.

"Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:11-12" speaks of the feets of YHWH. Does YHWH literally have feet? He is Spirit, not flesh and bones, unless you are a Mormon. Jesus have literally feet though and since we have that "God was in Christ reconciling the world" (2 Cor. 5:19) we can see that YHWH and Jesus will come back the same way YHWH and Jesus left. In the same way YHWH was crucified, that is through his Son who was mortal and flesh and blood.

The main problem with your interpretation of the verses in Heb. 1:10-12 is that they ignore the context of Ps. 102. This is a believer adressing YHWH. Notice what it says in verse 18; "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD". The writer here is part of this creation. If we have in mind that the apostle is the one that speaks in Hebrews 1 while YHWH is merely being quoted, then we wont go off track because, as I detailed earlier, the "who writes what and to whom" is very different in verses 8-9 compared to 10-12. Every singel verses quoting YHWH starts of with the writer telling us who speaks to who;

YHWH addressing Son (In the verses from OT, Solomon which was a type of Christ):

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

YHWH addressing Angels:

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

This is obviously not the case in verses 8-12;

YHWH addressing Son (In the verses from OT, Solomon which was a type of Christ):

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Apostle addressing YHWH (In the verses from OT, a NT saint addressing YHWH):

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

On the contrary the writer skips from God speaking to a saint speaking, no longer telling us who he speaks to but instead calling YHWH "you". Thus we can see that his style is very consistent. It would indeed be a let down if he had ignored who speaks to who in Ps. 102:25-27. He would be quoting out of context if he had applied Hebrews 1:10-12 as YHWHs words to the Son. The writing style here is wellknown for the timeperiod of Hebrews.

Last thing on this. You speak about the eternal throne of YHWH. What throne did Solomon sit on? His own? . No;

1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So, the throne is YHWHs. This is obviously more symbolic of the power than a literal throne.

Finally the prayer thing. My last post really explains it all. The Bible explains something the trinitarians would like to refute, namely that Christ receives prayers and mediator while being subject to YHWH. Where is the Son of God preached in the OT apart from "things to come"? Moses does indeed talk a bit of Jesus as "a prophet raised among you" (Deu. 18:15; Acts 3:22) but where does Moses call on Jesus? Where does he call him Lord? I would like to see it ;). Moses had one Lord, and he was himself Lord over his people. The people were "baptised into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), which obviously does not mean what it means to be baptised into Christ. But as I have told, we had no mediator in the OT but the Law and the Law is not a person.

Again, Jesus is never prayed to anywhere, but as he is the chief angel (or let us call him messenger, otherwise you get me wrong), both Paul and John has contact with their Lord and speaks to him after Christ has become immortal. Note the intro to Revelations;

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

That way it should not surprise us that it was possible for the apostles to talk to the Lord. Btw, notice how that verse does not call Jesus God in this context? Why? I thought he was God the Son, so you told me J .

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 15 October 2002 4:43:49

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Undishfellowshipped,

One final thing before I will let you comment. It puzzles me how you seem to use the OT against the NTs teaching of God and Jesus. As there is no Jesus speaking to people in the OT how could you then expect Yahweh to speak of him in the OT? This enormous difference between OT and NT is shown here;

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

This is so fundamental that the mediator of the covenant is no longer the Law but a being. There is no such mediator in the OT and thus all this backward-reasoning you have showed like "who searches the hearts" or "who is alone to "worshipped/honoured" " etc... is bad because it goes against context. I might add that to bow to Solomon or Jesus would be honouring (or this alienated word "worshipping") God, as it pleases him that men honours his temples. There is no man who went up to Heaven as mediator in the OT. There is only the Law between God and man. Now God has made Christ his image and given him divine powers, we should not question that he has that ability and the verses from Hebrews surely tells that.

Christ is never prayed to in the OT but he is spoken to in a number of cases. Stephen sees his mediator in a vision and speaks to him and Paul spoke to him. Angels speak to people throughout the Bible. Christ receives prayers but as he teaches in Matthew 6:8-9 we are to pray to the Father. Christ is the mediator. God, the Father is not the mediator.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 14 October 2002 20:42:14

Edited by - Anastasis on 14 October 2002 20:44:7

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

UnDisfellowshipped,

You make the claim that Christ did create the Universe!! That is some claim for sure.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

In the light of the above verses alone I find that idea totally impossible. Not only that Jesus started his life / existence in Bethlehem but also that the Jesus, whom many Trinitarians identify himself with Yahweh in John 8:58, does speak of the Creator as another person.

Jesus makes it quit clear than he is not Yahweh;

John 5:30 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.

That does not sound like the Creator to me.

As for John 1, this is a personification of the Word of God proceeding from the Father and becoming flesh, which is an OT phrase for becoming man (or animal). Two essential verses;

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Surely Jesus came out of Heaven, he came from God, this man was on a mission for sure. The Word of God is the one God creates with according to Genesis 1 and in Ps. 33:6; 9 we have the essential indentification of Gods Word; "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made (.) For he spake, and it was done..". So we are indeed dealing with words coming out of Gods mouth (Isa. 55:11 again), not a being. That word became flesh in the Lamb Jesus, and that is what John 1 tells us and personifies.

Then you touch Colossians 1. As for verses 15 and 16, it is possible as the KJV to say "by him" but it is just as possible, as almost any other Bibles does, to say "in him". In him and for him captures the whole point of these verses about the Son God loves.

Ephesians 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

With a prober understanding of predestination and Gods purpose we are quit able to make perfect Biblical sense out of the above statement. In/through the sacrifice of Christ, the world will be brought into harmony with God as God planned and knew from the beginning that the world would become one day. All will one day be reconciled because those that are not children of God will be wiped out finally.

Then we get to Hebrews 1. Verses 8-9 are indeed quit different to 10-12. The God of verses 8-9 has a God as we read, "your God", and that is quit understandable as the subordinate God is King Solomon. People would be helped here if the God of verses 8 were rendered "mighty one" while we for traditions sake kept the God title in verse 9. The apostle then makes it apply to the last and highest Davidic King, the Lord Jesus.

Verses 10-12 are not directed to either Solomon or Jesus. They are the words of a believer to Yahweh, not Yahwehs words to the Davidic King. Here it really helps to consider the quoted verses. When we overlook the whole structure of Hebrews 1, it all becomes reasonable. The apostle is the one speaking here, and he fittingly calls God "you", after he quoted Gods words to the Davidic King. Like in other places, the apostles finds it fitting to praise God after he praised the David King, which to the apostle is Jesus not Solomon. That way we can understand the chapter harmonous. Verse 4 is a strong indication that Jesus never earlier on had a name higher than angels outside Gods mind as he inherited that name by his sacrifice and verse 4 tells us that God made the ages/worlds (Greek "aion") by Jesus, through the predestinated sacrifice on the cross.

Genesis 1:26-27 is some verses that have given room to lots of speculation. Yet it is speculation because the OT is utterly silent of whom God could have spoken too, although we know angels were present in the creation (Job 38:7). That is all we are told about them. It is clearly not the subject or consideration of that chapter to tell us who God spoke to. The thing to note here is that the Highest being, the Creator is one person. Note; "Us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness (..) God created man in His own Image..". So the Creator is one.

When man is in Gods image and Jesus the image of God, it doesnt require much fantasy to suggest that angels are that too. Commentators suggest that God speaks to them, as his all present servants. Others suggest the pluralis majestaetis "We the King". Jews though, have traditionally understood this as God speaking to nature. Note; "and the earth brought forth.." (Gen. 1:12). That is hard for a western mind to understand but note that God creates with his voice (which again COULD suggest that he used angels giving them commands, the verses that say God creates alone means nothing in this context, because that means that he created by his own power and not by the help of Gods equal or higher than him). That God creates with his voice is equally hard for us to understand as God talking to the earth, but it might be the intended meaning God did form man of the dust (Gen. 2:7). I like than explenation however odd to my western mind because it doesnt add anything and makes sense with Gen. 2:7.

It is easy to show that men were not made in the image of Gods Son, because that is only the saints;

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Again, the Son is person that is in existence in the NT and forward, not in the OT. He did after all start his life in Betlehem.

God Bless

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Pomegranate,

" John 8:54 My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

What glory is Father giving the Son here? Someone elses? Surely, if Jesus says the Father is glorifying him, it is the Father's glory that is being given to Jesus. COMMON SENSE. And again:

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Father certainly has to be giving Jesus glory here too. Father gives his glory to Jesus. Jesus gives his glory to Father."

- Rather a case of extraordinary misunderstanding. The Father's own glory means the glory he himselfs receives and possesses, not the one he gives lol. It is a bit like I having money yet Im able to give money to other people. There is no problem as such if Jesus receives the same glory as God, if God wished it so and being the loving father he is, but it is not so. God glorified Solomon in this way;

1 Chronicles 29:25 And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel.

Christ even receives higher glory than this. As the verse in Phil. 2:11, the WORSHIP (worship being a made up modern word just as God) given to Jesus is to the glory of God himself. Micah 5:4 says Jesus will reign in the name of Yahweh, his God. John 8:54 tells the same as 17:3; Jesus is not the true God. To ask if he is then a false God, is an unbiblical question because the Bible doesn't work that way. We have Gods that are pro or contra YAHWEH, but he alone is the true God as he, atleast up to Christ's resurrection, upholded Christ's life aswell as any other God either of spirit or stone.

Secondly there's John 17:5. Now that one is a clear lesson in how God thinks. Consider;

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Now God calls things that are not as if they were because he knows they will be. If Jesus pre-existed due to John 17:5, so did Jeremiah. God knew them both and their destiny, the later Messianic King, the image of God / the visible God. I hope I solve Undishfellowshipped's problem then, because the verse is nothing more than a lesson in predestination and divine purpose.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 14 October 2002 21:7:29

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Undishfellowshipped,

A bit more for you before I will be gone for a few days. Now the topic is Christ and if we start up from the logic point, the Father is God. Jesus appears on the stage in the NT. From where? Luke 1:35 tells us that God "overshadowed" and a child was born. That is it. That is where we start off from.

I will comment some of the verses you bring up here;

Isaiah 42:8: I am Jehovah; that is My Name; and I will not give My Glory to another

This is supposed to be a proof text of Jesus being God. Of cause this speaks of Gods glory that he will always keep. Consider;

1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 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.

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Does God ever give his "own glory" to Jesus? No, never. Just an example for you to consider.

Im tempted to discuss this verse with you too;

Isaiah 43:10 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.

Now does God not acknowledge other gods than him? Of cause he does;

Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. (.) 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

He even calls them his children. What is obscured by modern tradition is that to say something like there is only one god is the same as saying that there is only one strong being. Its an absurdity at face value from human point, but it makes sense comparetively and from Gods perspective it is true as none can match him. God is the Most High or the only "true God".

That is the way Scripture should be read, tongue in cheeck and finding the over all context and topic.

Another thing is the how many Lords/Gods issue. It was no problem for the Jews in the OT to have more than one Lord;

1 Kings 1:37 As the LORD hath been with my lord the king, even so be he with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David.

As God is considered higher than Lord, Paul says the following;

1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 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.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

On a singel basis, God may also be called Lord and Jesus also be called God, although that is in fact very rare in the Bible. Lord is one you serve, God is a mighty being. I think it is ok to call them both both these titles.

You also list the following verses;

[Matthew 24:30: And then the Sign of the Son of Man will appear in the Heavens. And then all the tribes of the land will wail. And they will see the Son of Man Coming on the clouds of Heaven with power and much Glory. (See Daniel 7:13)

Matthew 25:31: But when the Son of Man Comes in His Glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His Glory.]

To which I reply;

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Do you think this is a literal throne? Some throne then, both God, Jesus and all the saints will sit on it. No, of cause not, it is a symbol of power.

Another one;

[WHO is the "Rock of Offense" and the "Stone of Stumbling"?

Isaiah 8:13: Yahweh of Hosts, Him shall you sanctify; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.

Isaiah 8:14: He shall be for a Sanctuary; but for a Stone of Stumbling and for a Rock of Offense to both the houses of Israel, for a Gin and for a Snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

1st Peter 2:6: Because it is contained in Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a Chief Cornerstone, Elect, Precious: He who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1st Peter 2:7: For you therefore who believe is the honor, but for such as are disobedient, "The Stone which the builders rejected, Has become the Chief Cornerstone,"

1st Peter 2:8: and, "A Stone of Stumbling, and a Rock of Offense." For they stumble at the Word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.]

How about;

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God is not a human being of flesh and bones, but the human being Jesus manifested God. He was one with him in Spirit. Thus they are both stumbling stones, they were both crucified, but only Jesus in a literal sense, God in a symbolic sense.

Last one for now;

[Joshua 5:13: And it happened, when Joshua was beside Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked. And, behold! A Man stood in front of him, and His drawn sword was in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, Are You for us, or for our foes?

Joshua 5:14: And He said, No, for I now come as the Commander of the Army of Jehovah. And Joshua fell on his face to the Earth and worshiped. And he said to Him, What does my Lord speak to His slave?

Joshua 5:15: And the Commander of the Army of Jehovah said to Joshua, Take your shoe off your foot, for the place on which you are standing is Holy. And Joshua did so.

Joshua 6:1: And Jericho was closed, and was shut in from the face of the sons of Israel; no one going out, and no one coming in.

Joshua 6:2: And Jehovah said to Joshua, See I have given Jericho and its king, mighty warriors, into your hand.]

1. There is nothing that proofs that 5:15 and 6:1 is the same conversation, 2. Angels are messengers, they speak on Gods behalf not themselves. A good example to bring this out of the world is Judges 6, verse 20 and onward where the angel of the LORD talks to Gideon and after he disappears, God continues to talk to Gideon. God does not need to speak through a visible angel in order to communicate with people.

Judges 6:20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. 21 Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight. 22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. 23 And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die. 24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovahshalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

The Hebrew word used for worship in Joshua 5 is shacach. The excact same word is used here;

Genesis 23:7 And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself (shacach) to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.

So Abraham also worshipped these people if Joshua worshipped the angel, it is the same word. Dont mix translators inventions with what the Bible says.

Again, consider the worship of David;

1 Chronicles 29:20 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.

The distinction between bowing to and worshipping is an unbiblical concept.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 12 October 2002 7:10:0

29

The Sins of the Father: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

joe alward .

the bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers.

in one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the lord orders the murder of suckling babes.

Anastasis

Good point Joseph. God provokes nations against each other. Nebukadnezar is probably the most prominent mighty man the Bible. He is called both god, king of kings and "my servant".

But let us also remember that if you are not in covenant relantionship with God, you are without God and without hope (Eph. 2:12). The law given to Moses has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions of gentile nations, they have in fact no rights. Perhaps the contradtive JW view of Jehovah as humanistic is the real problem here. And.. those that consider Jesus to be God himself must be totally of the track here. In Hebrews 13 the writer tells us that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. I can't find God descending in the OT and starting to discuss anything with the gentile kings.

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 12 October 2002 6:7:34

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Hi Undisfellowshipped,

I will be gone for a few days. I only got time to post two things for you. One thing is the idea of only God can be "worshipped", which was a thing I stumbled over. The other thing is bit about who Jesus is.

Worship:

Worship of Elisha:

2 Kings 4:37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself (Hebrew word: Shachah) to the ground, and took up her son, and went out. (KJV)

Worship of David:

1 Chronicles 29:20 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 (Hebrew word: Qadad) their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. (KJV)

Worship of YHWH opposed to other gods:

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself (Hebrew word: Shachah) to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (KJV)

Exodus 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship (Hebrew word: Shachah) ye afar off. (KJV)

SO once again, it is the translators that make the "trinitarian rules". Bowing to, worship is the same word in Hebrew (and in Greek - Proskuneo). To say that you are not allowed to bow to someone (Trinitarian "worship" falsehood) is just as absurd as to say that there is only one mighty one (Trinitarian "only one god" falsehood again "god" is a non biblical word, that everyone has just accepted to use). Context explains the real meaning, not the translators opinion. You will find that most of the trinitarian arguments build on modern day words. Forinstance "honour the Son as you honour the Father". He never says so. He says they shall both be honoured. That is something very different. Nor does Jesus ever say that we should pray to him, but he receives prayers - a difference some easily go wrong of. Prayers of the saints go through Jesus to God. Again, the trinitarian reasoning falls short, because Jesus instructs us to pray to the Father (Matt. 6). So we could go on, step by step revealing another agenda in the Bible than the trinitarian.

Jesus:

We should always make our conclusions based on a rational study of the Bible. As I see it both "traditional christianity" and JWs fail to harmonize the two testaments. In the OT, God is one. In the NT, God is also one but he has a Son he loves. This Son was born in Betlehem. Not in "eternity" or "before the world was", but 2002 years ago. That is very simple. No Jesus or "God the Word" in the OT. Yet Jesus did "pre-exist" in some form in God's plan. His sacrifice was forordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), it is God's will to reconcile all in Christ (Col. 1:20) and as God also loves Jesus, all was made through Jesus and for Jesus (Col. 1:15-16), although God always stays behind Jesus as his God (1 Cor. 15:27, Rev. 3:12). The loving relationship is very obscurely revealed in the OT. Again logic comes in, because why would God give details in the OT about a Son he did not have yet from our timeperspective?? Even more so as God knew Jeremiah before he was born (Jeremiah 1:4) as he has foreknowledge, he also knew Jesus (John 17:5). I might add that the addition to Eph. 3:9 " who created all things through Jesus Christ" is spurious, while "by whom he also made the ages/worlds" (Heb. 1:3) isn't and is to be explained like Col. 1:15-16.

Jesus was a man of our nature (Heb. 2:17). That way he can declare in Rev. 1:18 that he was dead, death had simply dominion over him (Rom. 6:9) and now he is the firstbegotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5). He was annihilated but his flesh was kept fresh for him to be resurrected in (Acts 2:27). The Almighty (Rev. 1:8) is the one that gave Jesus this Revelation (1:1) and he never died.

Concerning John 8:56-58, there are different ways to view that one. I think this is the most contextual;

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

First of all, let us remove the mystyfying "I am". It means what it says. The Greek eigo eimi carries no tense and so it could be rendered like the JWs render it too. Likewise in Exodus 3:14, why not render Hayah like they all do in Exodus 3:12 and the we get "I will become" instead of I am, as God hadn' t saved Israel yet at this point. The discussion in the verses from John 8 a day Jesus has that Abraham saw. What day I wonder? In Hebrews 11:13, 17 we see that the OT saints saw the promise "far off", ie. they were given the promise of life, but not the life itself Heb. 11:39, that will wait to Christ's 2nd coming. So from my perspective, the Pharisee misunderstands with or without purpose Jesus and believes he speaks of his own existence, while he in fact speaks of his day as the promise, the life and resurrection (John 11:25). So we can replace literal Jesus with symbolic Jesus in John 8:58 and thus we get that Jesus was before Abraham, as HIS SACRIFICE was forordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19-20).

God Bless

Edited by - Anastasis on 11 October 2002 18:56:37

36

Only one "God" trinitarians?

by Anastasis in

in the english language "god" is an odd alienated word.

it is an anglican word that millions of people take to be the name of a specific god.

but really, the hebrew words eloah/elohim/el etc.

Anastasis

Undisfellowshipped,

You are quit mistaken if you think God's people refuse to be bowed to/worshipped in the Bible. That happens a number of times, I can show you verses later. But context again, when forinstance God is in a vision, God is to be bowed to / worshipped. Notice that I say bowed to / worshipped. The difference is in fact man made, as the Bible uses the same words.

God Bless