Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

Status
Not open for further replies.
meshak

meshak

BANNED
Banned
I just cannot believe how Trinitarians twist around or add to the Scripture to suit their man-made doctrines.

No wonder they cannot represent Jesus' love to the world. They are so busy killing their enemy.
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
KingdomRose said:
Your smugness in the face of overwhelming refutation to your erroneous ideas is astounding and would be almost amusing if it weren't so pathetic. I would take Holman's Christian Standard Bible off my shelf if I were you. He's got Titus 2:13 as saying something misleading. Many Bible committees have seen that this verse includes TWO Persons---God AND our Savior, Jesus Christ. When you move the comma somewhere else, you get an entirely different meaning, and there were NO COMMAS IN GREEK. So Titus 2:13 really says: "while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God AND Savior Jesus Christ."

To call Jesus the Savior doesn't mean that he is the same as God (Jehovah). Jesus is THE MEANS BY WHICH Jehovah saves, therefore, BOTH can hold the title of "Savior," though Jehovah is the SOURCE of salvation because it is He who sent Jesus to be the Savior of the world.

So if you bothered to read this, you can see where your error lies.
Click to expand...

Your error lies come from the fact you're a "Jehovah Witness" cult member.
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
KingdomRose said:
You have been shown that your version of Philippians 2:6 is not a relevant version, as MANY MODERN VERSIONS render that verse as : "Although he was like God in nature, he never even considered seizing the chance to be equal with God." (21st Century New Testament)

Being in the form of God simply means that Jesus is SPIRIT, just as God is Spirit (John 4:24). Nothing more than that. Everything else you say is your speculation and imagination.
Click to expand...

Of course, I would expect you to be wrong, regarding ALL of your "opinions. After all, you're a CULT member.
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
If two distinct entities share the "Throne of God and of the Lamb" then why is there only ONE on the throne and that ONE is God?:

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:5-7).​
Click to expand...

Freelight is a New age occultist/spiritualist and a follower of the "Urantia Book."
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
freelight said:
'God' is Sole Savior,...there is no other Savior.. 'God' uses his anointed AGENT in his work of salvation, the Savior-Messiah, who represents 'God'. Not a problem at all, within a Unitarian context. No need to try to make Jesus fit into an orthodox definition of a Trinity here.
Click to expand...

How's your "UFO Cult" doing these days?
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
daqq said:
When you see it without an article it is most of the time the replacement word for the Name of the Father because of how the same practice was first laid out in the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
'Sounds reasonable. What about the rest of the time?
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
daqq said:
Please support your assertion with some examples.
Click to expand...

This is what is said about how JHWH was translated in the LXX:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."​


daqq said:
You say that Elohim is a "compound unity", correct? Why then do you not treat Theos in the same way, with fairness, honesty, and uprightness?
Click to expand...

In the Scriptures God is spoken of under different names in order to reveal some distinct characteristic of His nature. So let us look at how His name 'elohiym is used here:
"
"And God ('elohiym) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God ('elohiym) created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).​

The Hebrew word 'elohiym is a plural noun. Here God is spoken of as being a plurality. This is a case of a "compound unity," a concept which is spoken of here:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).​

This concept is above the reasoning of our finite minds and that is why Paul calls it a "mystery." Nevertheless, the concept of "compound unity" is found in the Bible and that same concept applies to the Godhead.

The Bible reveals that there is One God in three Divine Persons. That is why we read of the "name" (singular) of God here:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt.28:19).​
 
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Jerry Shugart said:
This is what is said about how JHWH was translated in the LXX:

"Thus, we have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint Bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. We can now say with near certainty that it was a Jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name in paleo-Hebrew or square Aramaic script or in transliteration right into the Greek text of Scripture. This presents a striking comparison with the Christian copies of the Septuagint and the quotations of it in the New Testament which translate the Tetragrammaton as kyrios or theos."​




In the Scriptures God is spoken of under different names in order to reveal some distinct characteristic of His nature. So let us look at how His name 'elohiym is used here:
"
"And God ('elohiym) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God ('elohiym) created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).​

The Hebrew word 'elohiym is a plural noun. Here God is spoken of as being a plurality. This is a case of a "compound unity," a concept which is spoken of here:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).​

This concept is above the reasoning of our finite minds and that is why Paul calls it a "mystery." Nevertheless, the concept of "compound unity" is found in the Bible and that same concept applies to the Godhead.

The Bible reveals that there is One God in three Divine Persons. That is why we read of the "name" (singular) of God here:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt.28:19).​
Click to expand...

Reckon you didn't read the links I provided?
 
freelight

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Matt. 28:19 doesnt prove much.......

Matt. 28:19 doesnt prove much.......

1Mind1Spirit said:
Reckon you didn't read the links I provided?
Click to expand...

That may force a possible paradigm break! It could crush one's formerly held assumption or point of view. A student of truth however ought always be quest-ioning, asking, seeking, knocking, researching all assumptions, perspectives, points of view, for better more accurate information, as well as be open to 'progressive revelation', spiritually or intuitively speaking. We have to be careful that we don't make our 'figurative constructs' to be eternal truths in themselves, besides what eternal truth, value or relational meaning the passage is meaning to communicate. The latter is most important, the concepts being merely 'instrumental'.

God is Spirit. - he is the source of all forms and in-formation of course, but not necessarily limited to or constrained to form. Hence his incorporeal, infinite, omnipresence always transcends and encompasses all forms, limitations and dimensions, and in this sense we can clearly see how Jesus spoke to, loved and worshipped his God and Father, drawing us into an intimate sonship with God as well, one of the main reasons he came to us, to reveal 'God-love' and adopt us into sonship.

The fact of God and God's Son (or sons), anointed by the Spirit, we too as sons of God (elohim){whether angels or mortals}, shows the eternal primacy of the Father-God, we being his 'offspring', and Jesus is certainly and definitely God's Special and Unique SON, no matter how much we deify his human personality by some doctrinal prefiguration or transformative amalgamation of human and divine natures. On this note, I'm pretty flexible and can entertain a more Unitarian or Trinitarian perspective, or some other interesting Christology, since I hold whatever has significant eternal value or meaning about Jesus in the totality of his constitution, role, office and legacy.

'Christ' also 'figuratively' is the 'image' and 'prototype' of so much more about the 'New Man' and 'New Creation', which we ARE in him, at least in Paul's Christology, and as Christ's body we interpret this 'figuratively', the being "in Christ" being a spiritual relationship in the deepest part of our psyche and spirit, affecting our own individual transformation and ultimate ascension in glory. 'Christ in us, the hope of glory'.

The link you provided on Matt. 28: 19 is good, since its well known to some of the problems with using this passage as a 'Trinitarian proof text'. Its possible that the earliest texts may not have included the Trinitarian formula at all, but only spoke of the disciples going forth to baptize in the name of Jesus. Or Jesus saying 'baptizing them in my name'. Here is Brother Kel's page on this passage ;) - the scriptural proof supports more of baptizing beleivers in Jesus Name, and while some may become dogmatic over this issue, I don't see a problem from a Trinitarian POV if an assembly baptizes using the Trinitarian formula, just as long as one's basic Christological knowledge includes the fundamental faith of trusting in the testimony of Jesus, being the Christ, the Son of God, which is fundamental gospel, while any doctrinal add-ons of a God-head are more non-essential, figurative, conceptual teachings one can play with intellectually. No matter,....'God' is ever ONE,....his Name is One...and there is One Word, One Voice of God, One Christ-Son who is a collective of sons as well, figuratively speaking, a mystical body of spirit-born souls generated by God, making up the invisible church, the ecclesia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top