That has happened many times to me where I have not seen a post.
That is right. Spirits are invisible, however, some people have seen spirits.
We all have our own spirit living inside us. It looks like us yet it is see through, it has no flesh and bones.
Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God.
Obviously Jesus was taught like humans are taught, but Jesus was also taught by God the Father.
John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.
John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.
John 12:49 I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it.
John 12:50 And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say."
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, carrying out His work.
That is right.
He was speaking to the Father in heaven. He was as a Man on earth. To whom should a man speak to when praying?
There are three.
There is God the Father who is Spirit, invisible, and lives in unapproachable light.
There is God the Father who is Spirit and has a physical body that is Jesus Christ.
There is God the Father's Spirit whom He can and does send forth.
Please don't think my lack of response to your post here is me ignoring anything you've said. I just wish to ask some additional question so I can better understand your viewpoint of the scriptures.
How many Fathers are there, are there three separate fathers are is there one Father according to your understanding?
Does anyone of the Fathers, namely fleshly Father, invisible Father or the Father that gets sent forth have greater authority than any of the others? Or do any of them receive a greater level of worship than any of the others?
Which father is the ultimate source of life or are all the three Fathers equally the source of life?
Who created all things? All three of the Fathers you mentioned? One of them?
Out of the three Fathers which one sent Jesus?
What does the term eternal mean to you?
I don't need long explanations on any of the questions I've asked, just short answers. If you want to give longer answers feel free, I'd prefer it.
I don't believe Lon's stories about JWs for a minute. You say they are "bad." Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus said that all manner of lies would be told about his true followers, and we should be happy because "in that way they persecuted the prophets prior to you." (Matt.5:11,12)
"How many Fathers are there, are there three separate fathers are is there one Father according to your understanding?"
There is ultimately One Creator GOD (FATHER)
"Does anyone of the Fathers, namely fleshly Father, invisible Father or the Father that gets sent forth have greater authority than any of the others?"
The FATHER doesn't get anything done to IT; it sends forth IT'S Spirit.
" Or do any of them receive a greater level of worship than any of the others?"
All worship (regardless of if it is to some lesser being/spirit or even men, or things of nature) is to be towards the FATHER ultimately, as all is because of, and of the FATHER.
"Which father is the ultimate source of life or are all the three Fathers equally the source of life?"
The same One Creator GOD (FATHER).
"Who created all things?"
The same One Creator GOD (FATHER)
"All three of the Fathers you mentioned? One of them?"
Answered
"Out of the three Fathers which one sent Jesus?"
There is only One.
"What does the term eternal mean to you?"
It could mean without beginning or without end, and too, both.
Why do you say you only want clarification of one's views when you are really looking to be painfully redundant?
I made an OP that allowed us to discuss this matter a little more "clearly". We can come back here when you have shown if you disavow your "theological father" like [MENTION=17493]KingdomRose[/MENTION] did.
My beginning of my replies and rebuttals to you are here...
If you don't want to answer... all the better... I'm not going to get any nicer. Just saying. The gentle and coddling method isn't typically mine. If you can't handle it... It's all understood... but the doors open and the invitation is sent...
If you want me to continue our conversation here... it's no biggie... I'll simply copy our words back and forth to build the point of my other thread.
Nope. and I'll swear to them (but I don't lie and my yes is yes). I used to have a thread about the perversions even on TOL. One made a very foul joke in my Triune thread. Another has been banned a couple of times for bad language. Christians have as well. You don't see me defending them. I have no idea why KR has a clouded unrealistic view. You can actually find the bans of JW's/Unitarians on TOL, so at least some of my observations are verifiable. My personal interactions are not but you'll never find me lying about anything purposefully. :nono: KR has repeatedly said otherwise. He must stand before God for false accusation. -Lon
If there can be ONLY saviour how is it possible that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are referred to as saviour using exactly the Hebrew term as applied to God in Isaiah 43:11 that you mentioned? According to Judges 3:9,15 does scripture allow for their to be more than one Savior?
Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
Easy... God is Body, Spirit and Soul like you and I... but way COOLER... NEXT... or do you deny that Jehovah was seen in some form or another in the OT?
How does this response answer any of the questions I asked shown above? Try again, how is it possible Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) if there can only be literally one saviour?
NWL said:
When God the Father subjected "all things" or gave "all authority" to Jesus, was God the Father himself included? Whether a yes or no please give an explanation, even if it's brief, so I can better understand your position.
Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
Is not the Body, Spirit and Soul subject amongst itself?
Since you haven't answered directly I'll have to ask you to claify your answer. Are you trying to express that since you believe in the trinity, and that you believe each person of the trinity represents one of either the body spirit or soul that each part is in subject to itself and thus this explains that the Father was subject to Jesus?
If it is then it doesn't make sense, since scripture further states that the when God the Father subjected all things under Jesus that he himself wasn't included in it.
(1 Corinthians 15:27) "..For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.."
So I'll ask you again, since you didn't give a clear answer, was the Father included in the all things when it states all things were subjected to the son? And if not does that mean "all things" doesn't have to literally mean every single thing. (don't forget we're discussing this because you claimed that Jesus name is above every name including the name of Jehovah, you'll see soon why I'm reminding you of this).
Another question on the same subject matter. In Hebrews 2:8 it talks of the authority mankind had but lost which was passed onto Jesus as shown in the next verse, v9. The verses states in regards to man, "All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him". Since the verse says God subject "all things to Man" and that when God did this he left "Nothing not subject" man does that mean God along with Gods Angels were subject to Man?
Before you read the account I'm aware v9 talks of Jesus, it holds no relevance to my point since v9 is in regards to Man. I only saay this because 90% of people who I show this verse bring up the fact Jesus is mentioned in v9 which doesn't change anything in regards to my argument or question.
(Hebrews 2:6,8, 9) ".. But in one place a certain witness said: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or a son of man that you take care of him? All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone.."
Well.. because "Classical" and Biblical are two different matters. More to come... I'll edit more in a bit. ... Okay... I'm back... LUCKY Y-O-U!
Ok, then can you please confirm you do not believe in the classical trinitarain doctrine that has been taught dogmatically since the 4th. That God is one who's name is Jehovah, who is three persons that form one God. None of them are God separately but all of them are the one God collectively, with them all being co-equal and co-eternal. Please confirm that you don't believe in this classical understanding of the trinity doctrine.
Tertullian is who you are referring to... and though he was a "key" underwriter of "extra-biblical" creed... his full stance was known to be incorrect. He taught the sort of "Divine Tri-Ad" that is indeed "Poly-Theistic". He had rivals that expressed the Unity of GOD... and thus... he OVER differentiated the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again... He is actually rejected in the very "Creed" that quotes some of his writing.
Now... if you get biblical... you know that the Ruach HaKadesh... or Holy Spirit ... is a genuine manifestation or "Invisible Presence" of G-O-D. If you are honest with yourself... you will see that Jehovah covered a rock and "passed before Moses" ... Hind Side. This shows that God can "manifest" Himself...
But we know by the works of John that only those who "The Word/Logos... a.k.a. Son..." is the Revelation of the "Invisible" Father.
So... if you really want to look into this... we can continue.
I'm so very glad you laughed... it's good for your soul... and you're about to get theologically exposed more than the Romans 10:13 thing... which might I add is a plus in my favor.
You've yet to show me how you exposed me with Romans 10:13, its becoming a custom for you to claim you exposed me with Romans 10:13 and for me to show me how. Please please show me and pleas please answer the question I've posed to you regarding it. Here it is again.
When Romans 10:11 compares Jesus as the cornerstone saying "No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed", which is a quote from Isaiah 28:16 that states Jehovah laid that corner stone, is Jesus Jehovah who laid the cornerstone or is Jesus the cornerstone that Jehovah laid?
Also... you laughed at linking Isaiah to scripture, when I can drop Isaiah 9:6 and end this Garbage in a second. The second one of us says... that verse was added or some other garbage... is the second the debate is over and someones name gets run up a flag pole with their dirty undies!
I have no issue with discussing Isaiah 9:6, it certainly doesn't prove Jesus is God, being part of a trinity. And I don't believe it's spurious.
God does too. He alone is God and He doesn't share His "Glory" with any other. That's in the OT and if you twist it with verses about Israel worshiping Kings and such... I'll know you're a deadite that has no original understanding.
Yup... you worship the VERY GLORY ... Heb. 1:3 of YHWH ... You worship the Glory that bound to our Sin. That whole "Atonement" thing depends on it.
That makes no sense in light of this...
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
God doesn't share his glory with anyone, not once have I stated or even implied such a notion. You fail to grasp Phil 2:11, "and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father". Giving Jesus homage isn't retracting glory from the Father since, as the verse states if you bend the knee to Jesus it doesn't go to him BUT the father.
Again , no one goes to the Father except through Jesus. This is biblical fact! We worship the father through Jesus. Thus if we glorify Jesus he passes that glory onto the Father, and keeps none for himself. Thus, God the Father doesn't share his glory.
The two important points you need to stop forgetting, one, Jesus said no ones comes to the Father except through him, thus the only way to worship the Father is to worship through Jesus. Two, Phil 2:11 states that when everything on heaven and on earth bends the knee to Jesus it is to the Fathers Glory, NOT Jesus. Jesus words "no ones comes to the Father except through him" are being applied in Phil 2:11.
Funny thing about that word "Image"...
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
We can see that the IMAGE thing is kind of contradictory to Isaiah...
How about this?
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
And??? Actually think about the two verses you just cited. What does an mirror do? It reflects, Jesus, according to Hebrews 1:3 is a reflection/radiance of Gods glory. Absolute statements are not as absolute as they seem, where just starting to scrape the service as to what I mean, when you answer the questions I've already ask it will become clearer. All I'll say is when it says God doesn;t share his glory it can only be understood as far as the surrounding verse context allows. Everytime God talks about not sharing is glory its in relation to other false Gods of the nation.
The Bible has many example of Gods glory being shwon through his representatives. In Jesus case he is Gods greatest representative, thus he's a reflection of Gods glory.
Need proof of what I just said regarding representives of God radiate Gods glory, here it is.
An angel shared Gods glory - "..Suddenly Gods angel stood before them, and the Lords glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful.." (Luke 2:9)
Followers of Christ reflect Gods glory - (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18) "..Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, exactly as it is done by Jehovah the Spirit.."
Oops... You're forgetting that All Knees... EVERYWHERE Bow! Does the Father Bow to the Son?
Find a verse that suggests He doesn't... If He is not ONE with the Son like John 10:30 actually says... then He will bow too... According to the exact verbiage of Php. 2:9f, 11 ... and I'm relentless... the second you bible correct or question a verse... I'll run those skivvies up the flag pole!
Just no, so much twisted logic. It states in Phil 2:9 that it was the Father who ordained that action be taken towards the son. In v11 it states its to the father glory so God is obviously not included in the submission since he ordained it, remember what we learned from 1 Corinthians 15:27?? For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.
In light of 1 Cor 15:27 lets read Phil 2:9-11.
(Philippians 2:9-11) "..For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."
When reviewing both 1 Cor 15:27 and Phil 2:9-11 it's so so clear that the Father isn't included to the bending of the knee. I think you've forgotten you're the one that claim when something says all things it literally mean all things. You don't understand the bibles use of definite language,you can't separate what is said from its context.
So.... here it is.... You just proved that God swears by HIMSELF... just as the Son did all things By the Father. Nope... you can't wiggle out of it.... keep Isaiah coming because by Isaiah 9:6 you'll either buy a birthday cake, or be so visibly ripped apart by scripture that no matter how tall you "stand"... everyone will know you were beaten 40 ways to purgatory!
Again you think you have me stumped with Isaiah 45:23, answer my question regarding it! Since glory ultimately goes to God in Phil 2:11 who do people in effect bend the knee to? Do you recall what I told you to remember, "no one comes to the Father except through who..." Does Jesus get the glory in Phil 2:11 or does the Father? The Father! So yes, God has sworn by himself, that he will be the one who ultimately is gloried who people bend the knee to.
So... [MENTION=15324]NWL[/MENTION] ... you thought I had forgotten you? I can respond now... every verse you posted proves that Jesus is YHWH and on that note... your founder backs me. True... he bought the whole "Created" malarkey... but... he did get the Almighty part correct. So put er there pal... shall we continue our discussion?
Again, I'm not trying to insult, but if you actually believe the stuff you say, like the statement above, you're out of your mind. Lets see if you can answer the questions I've asked directly and honestly.
Please don't think my lack of response to your post here is me ignoring anything you've said. I just wish to ask some additional question so I can better understand your viewpoint of the scriptures.
How many Fathers are there, are there three separate fathers are is there one Father according to your understanding?
Does anyone of the Fathers, namely fleshly Father, invisible Father or the Father that gets sent forth have greater authority than any of the others? Or do any of them receive a greater level of worship than any of the others?
Which father is the ultimate source of life or are all the three Fathers equally the source of life?
Who created all things? All three of the Fathers you mentioned? One of them?
Out of the three Fathers which one sent Jesus?
What does the term eternal mean to you?
I don't need long explanations on any of the questions I've asked, just short answers. If you want to give longer answers feel free, I'd prefer it.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.
Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.
Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
If you cannot defend something you are unable to explain, how then can you allow such a statement of faith define who you understand God is and who to worship. Seems a bit risky to me.
Are you addressing me there, or was that a rhetorical musing? I understand that you may have learned all sorts of anti-Trinity arguments and you're probably waiting for the chance to use them, but they don't have application here. I don't use Statements of Faith to dictate belief, and I don't answer to a council or a society. Please drop the "straw man argument" approach.
Spoiler
Previously posted by Rosenritter,
I will ask another time, please stop attempting to assign "Trinity" doctrine to me. It's a straw man argument. There's a poll above asking "Is the Trinity Biblical" and "is the Trinity taught in the Bible." I answered "no" and was even blocked by one of the die-hard Calvinist Trinitarians here because of that (though in all honesty, for anyone who would be that block-headed it's no big loss.)
Besides, attempting to debate "Trinity" is an effort doomed to fail because it's an undefined moving target. Some people like James White and Bright Raven have a three-God model, and it ranges all the way to people who could easily be classified as "Oneness" and "Jesus Only." It's about impossible to get an agreed upon definition when more than a few people enter the discussion (and the scripture doesn't give a definition either, thus my aforementioned negative vote) and as such you can't hit a moving target.
So don't ask me "what person of the Trinity talked to Abraham?" Ask someone who wants to be dogmatic about Trinity doctrine. I said that Hebrews is about the Son of God being none other than our Creator, the One God.
Of course, the reason why I asked for you to give your thoughts on who the speaker was, was to better understand your stance so that I could show you how none of the persons in the trinity directly appeared to Abraham. Hebrews show that Jesus didn't speak to Abraham, since again, Hebrews 1:1 shows the Father didn't use Jesus to speak until the 1CE, remember the expression "God, Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son" in hebrews 1:1,2 implying when God spoke to the forefather in Hebrews 1:1 that it wasn't done by means of Jesus. Scripture also shows that the Father didn't speak to Abraham since "no one has seen the Father" (John 6:46). So unless you think it was Gods HS that spoke to Abraham you're stuck.
Again, why waste time on irrelevant arguments? Have you heard me make any argument that presumed a Trinity? I could also spend a dozen paragraphs proving to you that Zeus and Apollo never spoke to Abraham, but what would be the point of that?
However, since you seem to have a question of "who spoke to Abraham" I would say it isn't wrong to say Jesus spoke to Abraham, it's imprecise if the names are used for specific time frames. Ultimately we would be talking about the same person, even if he didn't use the names of Jehovah or Jesus until a later time (Genesis 17:1, Exodus 6:3)
Spoiler
Genesis 17:1 KJV
(1) And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Exodus 6:2-3 KJV
(2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
(3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Then let me show it plainly to you. Psalms 45 is in regards a human Israelite King, this is not me inserting anything but letting the scripture speak for itself. The fact that ...
Psalms 45:6-7 KJV
(6) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
(7) Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
I am not familiar with the Jehovah's Witness argument concerning this passage. Which Israelite king is this supposed to apply to? If they "love righteousness, and hate wickedness" there's a limit on the pool of candidates right away. Which king was this?
Psalms 45:11 KJV
(11) So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.
Psalms 45 even explains that this king has daughters suggesting even more he was in fact a literal king.
But that's not even what it says that it the version you posted. You're not reading it very closely. It says "king's daughters" are among they honorable women. Meaning that even the daughters of Kings are subservient to this Lord, of whom it says, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Here's your quote and the King James side by side:
(Psalm 45:1,5,6-7,9) "..My heart is stirred by something good. I say: “My song is about a king.” May my tongue be the stylus of a skilled copyist... God is your throne forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions...The daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor. The royal consort has taken her stand at your right hand, adorned in gold of Oʹphir.
Psalms 45:9 KJV
(9) Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
Sometimes passages are written to where a casual or careless glance might mistake the subject of the prophecy for someone else. Don't get lost in the poetry, Paul assigned this Psalm to Jesus, and Paul didn't hesitate to acknowledge Jesus as God in other context as well. I think you are getting confused with the "physical rule" aspect because you may not be allowing God himself to return to establish physical rule over the earth again.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
You said the Bible never says God was manifest in the flesh. You were absolutely wrong and you knew better. But let's take a look at your reasoning why you think the King James doesn't represent the Bible.
The KJV adds in the word God here when it shouldn't according to older manuscript evidence. If you choose to support one of the only bible translations that render God for he/who in 1 Tim 3:16, having literally zero manuscript evidence prior to the 8CE, with evidence suggest it was added it into some later manuscripts after the 8CE, to support that Jesus is God then you go right ahead buddy.
First, I will clarify that I have already heard this argument of yours before, and I've seen the twists it has to take in the process. I'll summarize your argument, as I understand and anticipate it, just to save some time. It's been a few years since I visited this but it should have the general jist of things:
1) The founding premise is that you wish to say "the bible never calls Jesus God" and you can try to evade most of them by claiming most everyplace is "Jesus is speaking on behalf of God" but you have some pesky verses that say precisely that Jesus is God without any potential for wiggle room. The answer? Attack the text itself in those select locations.
2) The solution lies in that if you look long and hard enough, you can find a damaged or defective manuscript. These are very few in number: the last I checked I think they numbered at a grand total of four. Four versus how many now? Attention is diverted away from their tiny number with a heated ongoing argument about a fifth, over whether a line was actually added to strengthen a fading light mark or whether the documentation lied and it was added anew.
3) This minority flawed reading could be the results of age upon the documents, or it is possible that someone made a flawed copy on purpose. Early on Marcion "the heretic" was known for his propensity for "editing the scripture with a penknife" and the New World Translation also inserts the word "Jehovah in the New Testament without claiming even one piece of manuscript evidence, so anything remains a possibility.
4) Proponents of the flawed minority manuscript neglect to mention that their resulting reading is flawed, grammatically or in not making normal sense. "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh...." (majority text) makes sense because the mystery of God then explains about God. The flawed text that you prefer wouldn't make sense, "Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: 'He was made manifest in the flesh, ... " But who would "He" refer to? It would still be the subject of the previous verse, "God" (verse 15) and
5) Just to clarify, since you haven't defined this here, we are talking about whether a dash mark appears above one Greek letter, differentiating between whether the word is a pronoun "He" or designating the word for God, "Theos." Your argument also depends on the assumption that the original text was flawed, and a mass conspiracy long long ago endeavored to take this edit the word "He" out of our Bibles. It's actually far more likely that a light hand made a faded line or a tired copyist missed a single mark in these tiny few minority instances that you find so golden.
I'll say this, based on manuscript evidence, that far out weigh the Textus Receptus or the majority text, no scripture says "God was manifest in the flesh", not even 1 Tim 3:16.
Did I miss something? Possibly. But that's the general flow of how this discussion would proceed.
Sometimes when John, the writer of Revelation, wanted to introduce a NEW speaker he would do so by writing "I" and then the new speakers name, for example, "I, John" or "I, Jesus", this is clearly evident throughout Revelation. For example in Revelation 1:9, as shown above, we have the statements of the A&O in v8 and then in v9 John starts of by introducing himself as a new speaker, "...“I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” 9 I John...". We can see the same thing again in Rev 22:7,8 between the Angel speaking in v7 and John starting to speak in v8 along with some other examples.
So you have an all-purpose escape to evade anything in Revelation? That you can break apart a statement said in a single breath into two parts, as soon as the speaker identifies himself for clarification? Brilliant, that would work on anything you wished. You have freedom to ignore the entire text that way.
Unless we assume that it was not His purpose to confuse us, but to clarify, and unless we assume that when Revelation uses identification, that it is for the purpose of identifying who has been speaking!
(Revelation 1:4, 5) "..John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,”and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ.."
I'll ask you this, according to Rev 1:4,5 is Jesus separate from the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" who is the A&O of v8?
No, absolutely not. Verse seven defines Jesus Christ is to come with clouds, verse eight says that the Alpha and Omega is to come. I could see how one could not catch this if they weren't reading carefully, but the links are being made this early in the book already.
Revelation 1:5-8 KJV (5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Why does it say "and which is to come" unless he was coming in the future?
Anyway, I take back the light sarcasm I had for you with having the freedom to ignore Revelation by subbing in and out different speakers. I now replace it with HEAVY SARCASM.
Revelation 1:11-18 KJV
(11) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
(13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
(16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) 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.
Speakers were swapped between verses 17 and 18? Really? I now switch from heavy sarcasm to disbelief and/or mocking. Is the JW Statement of Faith worth a denial of plain scripture? I keep hearing arguments like "the scripture never says" or an implied "if the scripture said it I would believe it" but when we have statements that are impossible to evade, it seems that there's always plain out denial to fall back on...
May I suggest something? Accept the scripture when it speaks plainly and with force, and apply that backwards instead of relying on previous prejudice. If Jesus is the LORD God Almighty, as he says here, the rest makes sense based on that premise.
Try it! Try believing the Bible here where it speaks plainly. You won't have to make weird constructs to evade what it says in other places.
The angel having Gods name in him is the angel being the representative of Jehovah. The Angel was being instructed by Jehovah and acting in behalf of him
That is the predictable Jehovah's Witness response. However, how do you explain for what reason Moses changed this person's original name from Oshea to Joshua (or in the Greek, Jesus?) When it was this Joshua (Jesus) that was sent before them to bring them into the Amorites, the Hittites, and so forth, and it was this human messenger that they were to obey his voice and do in all that the LORD would speak? Remember, you yourself said that "angel" can have a broader meaning rather than a created spirit.
Exodus 23:20-21 KJV
(20) Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
(21) Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
If I were to guess, I would suggest you would say Moses changed the name for no known reason, and it's pure coincidence. Let's leave it there for you. This is one of the many items that dovetails in with hindsight, not an actual proof by itself.
I wouldn't say physical, since God isn't physical but a spirit, I would say its a more symbolic literal father son relationship. Why else would God use terms which carry along baggage with the definitions. Why wouldn't God compare himself to Jesus as his twin or brother.
If you are asking for speculation, I might say this. In our real world, when fathers physically descend from sons, one might eventually send their son to deal on their behalf. That son would be treated with the respect normally shown to that original father, but given time that son actually succeeds the father, the father dies, and that son inherits all and takes that father's place. He takes on his father's name and becomes the father. There always remains one patriarch.
I don't think anyone takes "Father" and "Son" in the literal sense, no matter what tradition they come from. The Jews didn't take it literally, I don't take it literally, you don't take it literally. We aren't debating whether a metaphor exists, we are discussing what the metaphor must mean.
You use the term "same person" in regards to Jesus being melchizedek in the past. What you keep failing to see and address is that melchizedek never stopped being priest, according to you since you take the KJV as litreal, thefore it makes no sense why the scripture states Jesus became "ANOTHER" priest. If Jesus was the High priest melchizedek then why does the scripture state he became another High priest like Melchizedek. These are point you're are failing to address.
No, it continues to make sense. What might be confusing you is that I often speak of Jesus as being past, present, and future, and then sometimes I speak of Jesus as within the confines of when he walked on earth until 30 AD. The same confusion might enter with Melchizdek: he was present for Abraham during one time, but in the sense that this Melchizadek was the Son of God, ultimately eternal, without beginning or end of days, he abideth still. The language will change depending on how far you zoom in or out.
For clarifications sake, are you saying that the "Jehovah who rained down fire from heaven from Jehovah" was in reference to the two Angels in Sodom?
No. I will suppose it is possible that God handed these two angels (or perhaps many others) a flaming chunk of brimstone and had everyone pitch at one time, but that wasn't my first impression. They may represent God but they do not call themselves God, and the text says the angels spoke, not the LORD.
All I need to show, in our case, is that the two an angels who were represenatives were spoken of as Jehovah, if I can, then there is no reason why the third person who appeared to Abraham can't also be viewed as a representive. My understanding is that all three persons were representtives of Jehovah, but only one person at any given time spoke as if they were Jehovah. This could change from person to person when necessary.
You haven't shown that the two angels were called Jehovah. You showed that the two angels were on the special scout task force on behalf of Jehovah, but even then they referred to Jehovah in the third person as if he weren't present at the time. Contrasting this to the previous chapter, that further reinforces that Jehovah actually spoke to Abraham.
Honestly, this doesn't seem that important to me, other than I know it is one of the instances that would contradict the Jehovah's Witness mindset that God cannot set foot on his creation. It's a somewhat Gnostic assumption that really has more in common with the Trinity concept of God the Father.
I don't need to word only in the text, since Hebrew 1:1,2 directly defines what I'm suggesting. In place of the word "only" I have the word "now". Remember Hebrews 1:1,2 says "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son.."
Yes, you still need to worry about that. Even the added "now" of your version does not mean "never before in any other form."
Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Let's diagram this for a moment. "God hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son" does not preclude God speaking to us in other ways before."
Similarly, "God spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets" does not preclude him speaking to men other than the fathers and by ways other than the prophets. Was Pharaoh one of the fathers? Did God speak to Necho king of Egypt when he chose? Was he restricted by only speaking to the fathers by the prophets?
2 Chronicles 35:20-21 KJV
(20) After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.
(21) But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
Please don't add more to the passage than what it says. God spoke to the fathers by his prophets, now he speaks to us by his Son. It's a general statement.
I am speaking on behalf of anyone who is truly a Christian, using Jesus words in doing so. Jesus professed that true worshippers would worship, not him, not the HS, but rather the Father.
"..You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.." (John 4:22-24)
Nice question. Hebrews 1:3 states in regards to Jesus that he is the charaktēr of Gods very being. The Greek word charaktēr is literally the equivalent of a wax stamp, when you stamp a bit of wax with a signet ring the impression left behind is the charaktēr of the signet ring, it is a "copy" or "represenation". In Jesus case according to Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the exact copy of Gods very being. Hence why Jesus is referred to as the image of God (col 1:15) because he is litreally a copy of what God is.
Since Jesus is an exact copy of God the only difference between the two are the things which are not transferred over when making a "copy" of something, be it age, authority and knowledge. So to answer your question Jesus and God the Father are identical expect when it comes to age, authority and knowledge and it is on that basis I would tell the difference.
Age? What does Jesus say when asked about his age? He said that "before Abraham was, I am" and also mentioned that he was there when the Satan fell from heaven like lightning. I know you aren't arguing against that, but please consider for a moment that you've also attributed Jesus to being older than the creation.
Authority? What does Jesus say about authority? He has received all authority in heaven and earth, when it was noted that only God can forgive sins, he forgave sins. He also apparently has the authority to call himself Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, and to accept the worship of men and angels, Do you see any place where Jesus worships anything? You do see prayer when he is on earth, yes, but worship?
Regardless, if you understand Jesus to be an exact copy of God, how do you reckon that Jesus is a different person? If I made an exact copy of myself, and I shared the same thoughts at the same time, I wouldn't say that was a different person, I'd say I was in more than one place at the same time. If I were worthy of worship, there wouldn't be any trouble which "me" was being worshiped.
If I remember correctly, you are in agreement with James White, who clarifies that he understands "One God" which has "three persons" to mean the same as "One Cat" of which there are many cat persons, or "One rock" when there are many different rocks.
At least I asked about that earlier when I was trying to find out the definition and meaning of Trinity in this context. Could you please clarify whether James White is correct in this matter?
If I remember correctly, you are in agreement with James White, who clarifies that he understands "One God" which has "three persons" to mean the same as "One Cat" of which there are many cat persons, or "One rock" when there are many different rocks.
At least I asked about that earlier when I was trying to find out the definition and meaning of Trinity in this context. Could you please clarify whether James White is correct in this matter?
The trinity doctrine is about three different making one.
The trinity doctrine says there are three different, who all together make one.
They believe that they are NOT the same by being the same Spirit.
They believe that they are NOT the same by all three being Light.
They believe that the Holy Spirit is a shared Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is the proxy of the two others.
That is a false doctrine
They will come on and say I am wrong, but then when they are forced to explain, they will either say it is not explainable; they will say you are condemned, apostate, and a heretic, but what they will not do explain their doctrine, they will not show what the same essence is, and they will deny the truth.
