No it doesn't. You, once again, distort what the scripture says. It reads: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NASB)
There is no mention there of the Word being God. Not even in John 1:1 where it says that the Word was a god. There is a distinguishing between "the" God and "a" god in the Greek, and when we honor the proper methods of translating Greek into English we can discern this.
John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek scholars know that this is not "a god" but "God." Even without Greek, it tells us, this is the God that created all things.
John 1:3 KJV
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Which God might that be? Certainly not any "god" because there is only one Creator.
Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Isaiah 40:28 KJV
(28) Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
No it doesn't. You, once again, distort what the scripture says. It reads: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NASB)
There is no mention there of the Word being God. Not even in John 1:1 where it says that the Word was a god. There is a distinguishing between "the" God and "a" god in the Greek, and when we honor the proper methods of translating Greek into English we can discern this.
Ah yes... when LA is backed up against a corner... LA gets "snakey".
Riddle me this verse LA... if the Jesus only Docterine is lame...
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
False. In such a question format, any portion of falsity in the preceding statement (assumptions) renders the rest of the statement false and and resulting conclusions invalid. The flaw lies in the statement "... even though they are distinguished form each other." Were there such a distinction, that would make one exclude the other, then your question would be valid.
Revelation 1:5-7 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.
Many times things are listed together with "and" as a means of repetition or restatement from another angle. When you see verse 5, would you say that "Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness" is distinguished from "the first begotten of the dead" and also from "the prince of the kings of the earth?" And for your argument to be consistent, also you would need to say that "God" and "his Father" are distinguished from each other.
Your argument is contained in the assumption to which I have objected. The perception of merit depends upon omission of the relevant context which is still on its way in the next few verses.
Revelation 1:8, "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" is identified both as "the Lord" and "which is, and which was, and which is the come" and "the Almighty.
Revelation 1:11-17 identifies "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" as "he that liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore."
So if you omit the relevant context, it's quite possible to make the scripture seem like it says a lot of different things. Take verse 4 by itself and omit the context, and it might seem like a succession of three unique items. Take the passage as it is written, as part of a whole, and it's as clear as A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
I'm not assuming anything! I'm simply reading and understanding the text how it reads. If I said "Rosenritter may you have blessings from Pauland from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero", Anyone who read the small snippet above would identify 3 different person who blessing came from, no one would claim that James was simply another name for Paul or that the people who lived in Pauls house meant Paul. And if someone did claim they were seperate people in no way would that be assuming. I don't think you understand what assume means my friend.
There is no way, grammatically, that the "kai apo Iēsou" (and from Jesus) is a modifier with "the one that comes" in v4a due to the prepositions "kai apo" (and from) when referring to the seven Spirits and then to Jesus.
You're trying use my own argument against me, the only issue is the portion of text you're citing is grammatically different to the portion I cited, my portion clearly separates Jesus from the one who is coming, this is clear by the use of "kai apo" (and from), the epithets in the portion of scripture you cited lack these, which should be obvious. You won't find a single example in the NT or LXX where somebody who has title restatements in conjunction has usage of "kai apo", if you continue with this argument then I'd like for you to at least show me an example of your claim. Moving on, let's compare:
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, 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...and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and(καὶ) Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.
By the use of "kai apo" its clear that the persons blessing the seven congregations switches from one persons to the other. If your argument was correct, which it isn't, then the use of "kai apo" and also "kai" would completely be lacking in part or in full. Your reasoning is not consistent grammatically.
ANYONE reading Rev 1:4,5 can see "Jesus" is separate from the "one coming", its quite hard to read that "Jesus" is simply a restatement of titles being given to the "one coming", absolutely NO BIBLE reads thats way, if it was to be understood that way then that how many translation would render it, since most translations, even the KJV, try translate the meaning of texts over literal transliterations. So the fact that NO translations uses language to convey Jesus should be a clear indicator you're reading it wrong.
Many times things are listed together with "and" as a means of repetition or restatement from another angle. When you see verse 5, would you say that "Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness" is distinguished from "the first begotten of the dead" and also from "the prince of the kings of the earth?" And for your argument to be consistent, also you would need to say that "God" and "his Father" are distinguished from each other.
No, you're forgetting I'm the one reading the text how it actually reads, you're the one trying to add in modifiers where they don't belong. You claim "for your argument to be consistent, also you would need to say that "God" and "his Father" are distinguished from each other" due to Rev 1:6 stating "and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father".
If the verse said "and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and to his Father", then "God" and his "father" would/could be separate persons according to my reasoning since "to" would be the equivalent of the added preposition "from". But, because no original text has the term "it", its understood how anyone who can read English would understand it on face value.
FALSE. Again, flawed leading question. The KJV has not added in phrases and words into its translation, it has translated words and phrases in its translation.
Please allow me to assist. Did you mean to ask, "why do you see the words and phrases found in the majority manuscripts as valid if they might not be found in one or more manuscripts that are estimated to as more ancient?" If you show that you can construct a question fairly, it might indicate that you would could digest the answer fairly as well.
I will give you a preview of an answer. "Older" or "more ancient" is not the proof or evidence of authenticity. In fact, those manuscripts consistently called "most ancient" are some of the most corrupt, evidenced even by crossing outs and corrections plainly visible on their face.
I own many different books, including the Book of Mormon and a couple New World Translations. These books remain in excellent condition (book of Mormon I got new, the NWT stayed in same condition as they were taken from Goodwill stores) and are likely to survive my King James. Why is this? I don't recognize them as legitimate, so they stay safe on the shelf. Real translations recognized by Christians get used, the originals wear out, and these are the ones that are reproduced, not the ones recognized as corrupt. Therefore, other factors are involved in determining the legitimacy of a reading, other than the claim of "most ancient."
That is a poor argument. The way texts were handled and kept back then were very different today, for one, the Jews knew how to handle text and how to copy them, they were experts at the field. They wouldn't have been so naive to use a text so much until its utter un-readability so thus reverted to using other more corrupt text, they would've copied the best known version prior to its destruction. It is an COMPLETE assumption to say that based on YOUR handling of books that the oldest known texts are the support versions, it's complete an utter nonsense.
Melchizedek was one priesthood, Jesus was another. I'll confess to playing computer games in times past, back when it required that one know how to use telnet form a Unix terminal. Within the same game, one might use names like "Fog" or "Sinder" and one was a warrior, and the other was another warrior, that doesn't mean that one can't honestly say that "Rosenritter" (the name that you know me as today) wasn't both Fog and Sinder then. Yet Fog wasn't exactly Sinder, and vice versa. It depends on what it is you are seeking to emphasize as to whether you would say they "were" each other or speak of them separately.
If you believe Jesus was the same Melchizedek then it makes no sense to refer to him as another one. Your analogy makes no sense, since the names you gave are different names, your position is that Jesus WAS the Melchizedek of the OT, were talking about one name here. If you started playing that same game you spoke of today and called your character "Fog" again and other people who used to play the game saw you come online and knew it was the "Fog" who used to play way back, knowing this they wouldn't say "look its another "fog"" they would say either "its Fog" or "its the same Fog". You believe Jesus is the SAME Melchizedek, you believe Paul knew Jesus was the SAME Melchizedek, thus, it makes no sense for him to say he is "another" Melchizedek. Either Jesus WAS the Melchizedek of the OT, thus him being called the Melchizedek in the NT was in reference to him being the OT one, or, Jesus was another Melchizedek separate from the one in the OT. Your argument lacks logic and the destruction of the English language.
NWL said:
4. Were the angels represented "as Jehovah" according to the scripture I cited (Genesis 19:24), yay or nay? Please answer plainly without an escape clause ("may")
Nay. You were attempting to show this, but the closest you got was that the angels said that "we will destroy" the place.
Then why did the the two angels say they were the ones who were going to destroy the city, were they lying? Since there is only "one Jehovah" (Deut 6:4) then how is it possible that there are two Jehovah's unless the Jehovah mentioned of who rained down fire in Gen 19:24 is represented by the two Angels who said they were going to destroy the city.
(Genesis 19:13) "..For we are going to destroy this place, because the outcry against them has indeed grown great before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to destroy the city...”
NWL said:
5. In the statement found in Hebrews 1:1 of "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets...in these last days has spoken to us by his Son", if we are to "take scripture for what it says", adding nothing to it as you suggest we do, do Paul's words indicate that God spoke by means of Jesus "long ago" or in the "last days"?
It indicates that God speaks to us through Jesus in these last days.
If Jesus was Melchizedek would that not constitute him also being included in God speaking "Long ago" to the forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways as mentioned in Hebrews 1:1?
Acts 4 doesn't say that the passage applied to David, they said it was spoken by David. It always applied to Christ. Your argument at this point seems to be suspiciously created.
My argument isn't an argument, its fact. King David is the speaker in Pslams 2, he goes on and clearly states "Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;He said to "me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father. ", unless you want to argue that King David wasn't the speaker in Psalms 2, which Acts 4:25 confirms, hence the reason why I cited it, you need to accept the fact the Bible has King David himself saying that God said to him "You are my son; Today I have become your father", the initial application, with Hebrews 1:6 being the secondary prophetic application to Jesus. We can see this even more clearly when looking at Psalm 89:20,26 where Jehovah states "I have found David my servant; With my holy oil I have anointed him...He will call out to me: ‘You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation’".
As I've already shown 2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1Chron 22:10; 28:6 has the phrase that David said was applied to him also applied to King Solomon "You are my son; Today I have become your father". My argument isn't that everything that is said in those verses apply to Jesus, just that the term "You are my son; Today I have become your father" has more than one application other than Jesus. You either don't know or you have forgotten but King Davids house was that of Jesus, Davids house was never to be broken since Jesus, became heir and ruler of that house. Thus things spoken of in relationship to King David, and his line such as King Solomon could also be applied to Jesus.
I could ask who sits on Gods throne, I'm sure you'd answer Jesus, but the scripture states that Solomon also sat on Gods throne, "And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelite's were obedient to him.". How is it possible someone could be spoken of sitting on Gods throne other than God? As stated, since King Davids throne was the throne of Jesus people in Davids line could be spoken of in ways that later future actions of Jesus would bring.
I've lost where you're attempting to go with this.
I'll remind you. You made a statement that Hebrews doesn't prove the trinity is right or wrong, I made the claim that Hebrews not only proves the trinity false, but it can also show how Jesus is not almighty God too. I initially did this by showing Hebrews 1:8 comparing it to Psalms 45:6. Psalms 45:6 is in reference to a human King, regarding that King it states he is God. When the human king was called God is was not done so in the almighty sense but the secondary sense, you argued against this and that's how we got to where we are today.
I've heard the "proskuneo" argument a few times. I was poking a little fun at it, demonstrating how the same argument used the same way could just as easily be turned about to claim that "the Father" was not God.
How? The context of the bible overall clearly demonstrates that the Father is the one to whom all worship goes to (John 4:24), thus on this basis alone the argument can't be turned around on someone who claims as such. Whereas nowhere in scripture does it say to directly worship Jesus. So, we have scripture saying to directly worship the Father, but nowhere saying to directly worship the son, thus the "proskuneo argument" doesn't work when applied to the Father. I'd sure like to see how someone attempt this however.
Your argument doesn't make sense here. Why couldn't we worship God through worshiping Moses, or Peter, or his angels? Which, but the way, I will have to bring this up. You have identified yourself as representing the Official Jehovah's Witness doctrine. About four years ago, I was visited by a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses (three pairs in succession of each other, actually) and when I asked about Jesus, I was told that he was Michael the Archangel. You are telling me that the official doctrine is that Jesus is "a God." Was this team mistaken, or misleading in some way? Because we talked about this with the second group as well.
Why couldn't we worship God through worshipping Moses, or Peter, or his angels you aks. Plain and simply, because that's not what God instructed us how to worship, I cannot speak for God. What I can say is that Moses and Peter were imperfect sinful men, as all men are, thus I wouldn't expect us to worship him through persons who are not Holy as his is. God could've allowed worship to be done through a spirit, and that exactly what I believe God has done, he expects us to worship him through his spirit Son (1 Corinthians 15:45). To say my argument makes no sense is to deny the fact that Jesus said that we cannot go to the Father expect through him. If we want to worship the Father we must, as Jesus instructed, worship through Jesus.
Jesus didn't deny the Pharisees when they said that God only could forgive sins. That would have been the perfect opportunity for him to correct them if they had stated wrong. Rather, he proceeded to take action, which fueled by their statement, had greater meaning. I admit that John 20:23 looks strange to me, but one unusual verse does not overrule the tenor of the former, nor the common sense that is contained in scripture and justice that only God can forgive sins against God. As such I expect to understand John 20:23 better at a future time.
Just because Jesus didn't deny something doesn't mean its true. Currently you're using the words of the Jewish leaders, who Jesus described as "lying and deceiving, offspring of vipers" as evidence that Jesus was God since they said "only God could forgive sins". The reasoning is desperate and furthermore, no such teaching is found in the bible.
But note this: "..And look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a stretcher. On seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic: “Take courage, child! Your sins are forgiven.” 3 Now certain scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.” 4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: “Why are you thinking wicked things in your hearts? 5 For instance, which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 However, in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home...When the crowds saw this, they were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.." (Matthew 9:2-6)
As we can see above, v9 reveals that Jesus, as a man among men, received this authority from his God and Father. Likewise, as John 20:21-23 shows, the apostles received this authority too by means of Jesus as ordained by God through his Holy spirit.
And no the JW's weren't wrong, I believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel, I haven't yet stated in our conversations that I believe this. Does the fact that I haven't mentioned something mean that I don't believe it? Nope, so how is it that when the JW's who you spoke to didn't say that Jesus was a God (John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6,etc) that is them somehow disagreeing with me, simply because they didn't talk about that topic? All JW's believe in the same core doctrine, I can't tell you why they chose not to speak about a particular topic the same way I cant tell you why they didn't tell you what they had for breakfast.
You and your twin would be physical images of the other, you would not be the express images of each other. Identical twins differ in thoughts and character. You don't show that you "love the world" by just sending a twin brother of yours to take the heat. You show that you "love the world" by absorbing their transgression into yourself, and forgiving it yourself, that you might draw all men.
Yes, and Hebrews 1:3 is in regards to Jesus representation of Gods person, his "outwards appearance" as Phil 2:6 defines it. Jesus and the Father differed in thoughts, hence why Jesus asked for the cup/trial to be removed from him when speaking to the Father. If the Father had the same thoughts as Jesus then Jesus wouldn't have need ask (Luke 22:42). We know they differed in thought because the Father did NOT remove it. Jesus actions and saying were NOT his thoughts but the thoughts of the Father, so to say that Jesus and the Father have the same thoughts go against scripture since Jesus never acted on his own thoughts (John 12:49).
No, it doesn't go without saying (or else why would you say it?) Regardless, Rosenritter is the express image of someone that is trying to tell you something right now. Show him to you, you say? If you have seen Rosenritter, you have met him. Not the same person, you say? That is a matter of debate, or perhaps definition of your meaning of the word "person."
What!? Did you realise what you just said??? You just disagreed with me that being a representation/image/copy of something means you are not the thing that you are the represation/image/copy of?? And no, its the definition of the word "charaktēr" that we need to speak about.
If I have a copy of the one true declaration of independence, does not the fact I said "copy" imply that I do NOT have the actual one true declaration of independence but rather a copy of it.
If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?
If I have a signet ring and push the stamp of the signet ring into wax, is the representation of that signet ring stamp a representation of the signet ring stamp or is it the signet ring stamp itself?
If Jesus is the "image" of "God", is Jesus the "image" or is he the "God"?
False. In such a question format, any portion of falsity in the preceding statement (assumptions) renders the rest of the statement false and and resulting conclusions invalid. The flaw lies in the statement "... even though they are distinguished form each other." Were there such a distinction, that would make one exclude the other, then your question would be valid.
Revelation 1:5-7 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.
Many times things are listed together with "and" as a means of repetition or restatement from another angle. When you see verse 5, would you say that "Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness" is distinguished from "the first begotten of the dead" and also from "the prince of the kings of the earth?" And for your argument to be consistent, also you would need to say that "God" and "his Father" are distinguished from each other.
Your argument is contained in the assumption to which I have objected. The perception of merit depends upon omission of the relevant context which is still on its way in the next few verses.
Revelation 1:8, "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" is identified both as "the Lord" and "which is, and which was, and which is the come" and "the Almighty.
Revelation 1:11-17 identifies "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" as "he that liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore."
So if you omit the relevant context, it's quite possible to make the scripture seem like it says a lot of different things. Take verse 4 by itself and omit the context, and it might seem like a succession of three unique items. Take the passage as it is written, as part of a whole, and it's as clear as A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
A = B, B = C, therefore A = C. It's one of the most basic logical axioms. All of your argument below avoids this simple logic.
I'm not assuming anything! I'm simply reading and understanding the text how it reads. If I said "Rosenritter may you have blessings from Pauland from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero", Anyone who read the small snippet above would identify 3 different person who blessing came from, no one would claim that James was simply another name for Paul or that the people who lived in Pauls house meant Paul. And if someone did claim they were seperate people in no way would that be assuming. I don't think you understand what assume means my friend.
No... you might assume that (and you have your own reasons which may shadow your assumption) but normal people would assume that Paul lives in Paul's house. As written above, it's quite possible that Paul and James both live in Paul's house.
You're trying use my own argument against me, the only issue is the portion of text you're citing is grammatically different to the portion I cited, my portion clearly separates Jesus from the one who is coming, ...
Really? Jesus isn't the one who is coming? Jesus is clearly separated from the one who is coming? Maybe if you have a severe case of myopic vision and a memory that holds only 20 words at a time? Revelation is quite clear that Jesus is the One who is coming, Jesus is the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last.
Rev 3:11
(11) Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Rev 22:7
(7) Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Rev 22:12-16
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
ANYONE reading Rev 1:4,5 can see "Jesus" is separate from the "one coming", its quite hard to read that "Jesus" is simply a restatement of titles being given to the "one coming", absolutely NO BIBLE reads thats way, if it was to be understood that way then that how many translation would render it, since most translations, even the KJV, try translate the meaning of texts over literal transliterations. So the fact that NO translations uses language to convey Jesus should be a clear indicator you're reading it wrong.
Looks to me that Jesus is coming, the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, and that he will be our God.
Rev 21:6-7
(6) 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.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
You're spending a lot of time trying to argue that tiny things can unravel, when it's large and huge in front of our faces in black and white and sometimes red.
That is a poor argument. The way texts were handled and kept back then were very different today, for one, the Jews knew how to handle text and how to copy them, they were experts at the field. They wouldn't have been so naive to use a text so much until its utter un-readability so thus reverted to using other more corrupt text, they would've copied the best known version prior to its destruction. It is an COMPLETE assumption to say that based on YOUR handling of books that the oldest known texts are the support versions, it's complete an utter nonsense.
That's not a poor argument at all. Have you ever seen what a page of Sinaiticus looks like, for example?
If you believe Jesus was the same Melchizedek then it makes no sense to refer to him as another one. Your analogy makes no sense, since the names you gave are different names, your position is that Jesus WAS the Melchizedek of the OT, were talking about one name here. If you started playing that same game you spoke of today and called your character "Fog" again and other people who used to play the game saw you come online and knew it was the "Fog" who used to play way back, knowing this they wouldn't say "look its another "fog"" they would say either "its Fog" or "its the same Fog". You believe Jesus is the SAME Melchizedek, you believe Paul knew Jesus was the SAME Melchizedek, thus, it makes no sense for him to say he is "another" Melchizedek. Either Jesus WAS the Melchizedek of the OT, thus him being called the Melchizedek in the NT was in reference to him being the OT one, or, Jesus was another Melchizedek separate from the one in the OT. Your argument lacks logic and the destruction of the English language.
It makes perfect sense if it was different times, to different people, and for a different purpose. Again, you're arguing for minors and failing the majors.
Then why did the the two angels say they were the ones who were going to destroy the city, were they lying? Since there is only "one Jehovah" (Deut 6:4) then how is it possible that there are two Jehovah's unless the Jehovah mentioned of who rained down fire in Gen 19:24 is represented by the two Angels who said they were going to destroy the city.
(Genesis 19:13) "..For we are going to destroy this place, because the outcry against them has indeed grown great before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to destroy the city...”
They are his scouts, and it's a team mission. Normal people without axes to grind don't get confused by this. Even football fans will say "We are going to win the championship" when in reality they don't do anything other than relate to the team.
If Jesus was Melchizedek would that not constitute him also being included in God speaking "Long ago" to the forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways as mentioned in Hebrews 1:1?
If you are the type that equates the Son and the Father because you understand his being, then it would. If you are the type that insists that the language maintain strict separation, then it would not. How would you answer the analogy I gave earlier: is Fog Sinder? Or are they different?
No, it's an argument, and what you just did there is called unnecessary posturing. Fact would be mutually accepted, argument is contested between the parties.
King David is the speaker in Pslams 2, he goes on and clearly states "Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;He said to "me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father. ", unless you want to argue that King David wasn't the speaker in Psalms 2, which Acts 4:25 confirms, hence the reason why I cited it, you need to accept the fact the Bible has King David himself saying that God said to him "You are my son; Today I have become your father", the initial application, with Hebrews 1:6 being the secondary prophetic application to Jesus. We can see this even more clearly when looking at Psalm 89:20,26 where Jehovah states "I have found David my servant; With my holy oil I have anointed him...He will call out to me: ‘You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation’".
Except I don't see God talking about David, I see David recording a prophecy. Read the text, it doesn't actually apply to David.
I could ask who sits on Gods throne, I'm sure you'd answer Jesus, but the scripture states that Solomon also sat on Gods throne, "And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelite's were obedient to him.". How is it possible someone could be spoken of sitting on Gods throne other than God? As stated, since King Davids throne was the throne of Jesus people in Davids line could be spoken of in ways that later future actions of Jesus would bring.
Yet in context, of 1 Chronicles 29:23, it is the throne given by God to David, not actually God's throne. The throne in Revelation has no such lesser quality implied.
I'll remind you. You made a statement that Hebrews doesn't prove the trinity is right or wrong, I made the claim that Hebrews not only proves the trinity false, but it can also show how Jesus is not almighty God too. I initially did this by showing Hebrews 1:8 comparing it to Psalms 45:6. Psalms 45:6 is in reference to a human King, regarding that King it states he is God. When the human king was called God is was not done so in the almighty sense but the secondary sense, you argued against this and that's how we got to where we are today.
If you're used all this effort with that objective, you've failed Constructive Debate 101. First things before all things, is define your terms, and make sure both parties agree on definitions. I began by saying that there is no biblical definition for Trinity, so any attempt to prove or disprove is going to fail. You didn't provide your own definition for us to agree on, so if that was your objective, you've misspent some effort.
How? The context of the bible overall clearly demonstrates that the Father is the one to whom all worship goes to (John 4:24), thus on this basis alone the argument can't be turned around on someone who claims as such. Whereas nowhere in scripture does it say to directly worship Jesus. So, we have scripture saying to directly worship the Father, but nowhere saying to directly worship the son...
Heb 1:5-8
(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?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(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.
Rev 22:8-9
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
It's the same A = B, B = C, therefore, A = C logic.
If the angels are to worship Jesus,
and the angels should only worship God,
and if the angels are our fellow servants in the aspect of worship,
then we are commanded to worship Jesus.
Ah, but you might say, you are looking for this to be direct? Well then.
Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 20:28
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Mat 14:31-33
(31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
And no the JW's weren't wrong, I believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel, I haven't yet stated in our conversations that I believe this. Does the fact that I haven't mentioned something mean that I don't believe it? Nope, so how is it that when the JW's who you spoke to didn't say that Jesus was a God (John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6,etc) that is them somehow disagreeing with me, simply because they didn't talk about that topic? All JW's believe in the same core doctrine, I can't tell you why they chose not to speak about a particular topic the same way I cant tell you why they didn't tell you what they had for breakfast.
How sure are you of that? Is that implicitly stated in scripture? Or have you ever tried looking at the passages that contain "Michael" just to make sure that "Jesus is Michael the archangel" wasn't directly contradicted in black and white?
Because when you tell people that "We believe Jesus is God" and you're not telling them "I believe Jesus is the created archangel Michael" it doesn't seem that you're being very up front. Normal people (who haven't talked with Jehovah's Witnesses before) would never connect the two.
Yes, and Hebrews 1:3 is in regards to Jesus representation of Gods person, his "outwards appearance" as Phil 2:6 defines it. Jesus and the Father differed in thoughts, hence why Jesus asked for the cup/trial to be removed from him when speaking to the Father. If the Father had the same thoughts as Jesus then Jesus wouldn't have need ask (Luke 22:42). We know they differed in thought because the Father did NOT remove it. Jesus actions and saying were NOT his thoughts but the thoughts of the Father, so to say that Jesus and the Father have the same thoughts go against scripture since Jesus never acted on his own thoughts (John 12:49).
You won't find anyplace where it says that Jesus thought differently than the Father. What you will see is consistent if God was manifest in the flesh, and his perspective was consistent with being manifest in that flesh. John 12:49 does not say that Jesus had different thoughts, it plainly means that he does not act on a separate or different authority. Which is exactly what I would expect. Are you considering your arguments to make sure they have application from what you are arguing against?
What!? Did you realise what you just said??? You just disagreed with me that being a representation/image/copy of something means you are not the thing that you are the represation/image/copy of?? And no, its the definition of the word "charaktēr" that we need to speak about.
You mean that the image / copy of something is not the same? I don't get it.
You mean that the image / copy of something is not the same? I don't get it.
You mean that the image / copy of something is not the same? I don't get it.
If I have a copy of the one true declaration of independence, does not the fact I said "copy" imply that I do NOT have the actual one true declaration of independence but rather a copy of it.
Is the Declaration of Independence a piece of parchment, or the words contained therein?
If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?
I wouldn't have any way to tell actually. I could take your word for it one way or the other, but you've already proved yourself to be a murderer, so how can I know that you're not also a liar?
If I have a signet ring and push the stamp of the signet ring into wax, is the representation of that signet ring stamp a representation of the signet ring stamp or is it the signet ring stamp itself?
Jesus is the Spirit and baptized people even while he was in his mother's womb.
He was born and grew and lived as man.
Before he started his earthly ministry, the Holy Spirit came on him with power, not unlike it did to the apostles before they started their earthly ministry.
One must remember that there are three, and the three are one, which means the same.
Heb 1:5-8
(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?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(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.
Rev 22:8-9
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
It's the same A = B, B = C, therefore, A = C logic.
If the angels are to worship Jesus,
and the angels should only worship God,
and if the angels are our fellow servants in the aspect of worship,
then we are commanded to worship Jesus.
Ah, but you might say, you are looking for this to be direct? Well then.
Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 20:28
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Mat 14:31-33
(31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
And that's the thing, the term proskuneó in Hebrews 1:6 should have the meaning of obeisance over worship. Remember the Greek word proskuneó can mean either obeisance or worship, to determine which one is intended we have to look at context. We can see the term proskuneó should be understood as obeisance in Hebrews 1:6 because God is the one who ordains that the proskuneó be given to Jesus "he [God] says: “And let all of God’s angels do proskuneó to him.", why would God instruct anyone to worship anyone other than him, he wouldn't, but he would instruct angels or human to do obeisance, in our case to Jesus. Thus that is the correct understanding there as it fits into the context of the bible including Rev 22:8-9 that you cited.
When we parallel Hebrews 1:6 to Phil 2:8-11 it becomes clear that obeisance, which literally means to bend the knee to someone, is the intended meaning since Phil 2:9-10 refers to everything on heaven on earth, not worshipping Jesus, but rather bending the knee to him, which in itself, is not a sign of worship but obeisance. Hebrews 1:6 and Phil 2:9-11 tied hand in hand with each show that the term obeisance is more contextually accurate than worship in those verses.
No... you might assume that (and you have your own reasons which may shadow your assumption) but normal people would assume that Paul lives in Paul's house. As written above, it's quite possible that Paul and James both live in Paul's house.
So are you're seriously saying that in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe? And in what I said what language was used to suggest James might live in the house???
Here is what I wrote again : "Rosenritter may you have blessings fromPaul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero"
Really? Jesus isn't the one who is coming? Jesus is clearly separated from the one who is coming? Maybe if you have a severe case of myopic vision and a memory that holds only 20 words at a time? Revelation is quite clear that Jesus is the One who is coming, Jesus is the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last.
Rev 3:11
Rev 22:7
Rev 22:12-16
Looks to me that Jesus is coming, the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, and that he will be our God.
I do not deny that Jesus comes, just as the A&O, namely the Father, comes. But again, taking the opening of revelation for how it reads, God is straight away distinguished as separate from Jesus in Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him", soon after this in v8 the A&O is identified as God, “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God", in the very next verse John then distinguishes Jesus from God yet again "I John...was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus". This tied along with the fact that Jesus is spoken as separate from the "one who is coming" in v4,5 shows that Jesus is not the one speaking in v8. The context is completely against it when looking at the beginning of Revelation.
In regards to Rev 22 and the A&O as I've said previously at times the speakers changes from one speaker to another without warning, the fact that Jesus is introduced as a new speaker "I Jesus" in Rev 22:16 shows that the things that were said previous to v16 were not him, otherwise he wouldn't introduce himself as the knew speaker in v16. The A&O is the same one mentioned in Rev 1:8,thus is can't be Jesus.
The mistake you make is assuming that there can't be two persons who can "come". The scriptures speak of Jehovah as coming, and also of Jesus coming, and that the two comings are closely associated. This does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah. Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, comes to judge the world, not only with but by means of Jesus, thus they can both be referred to as coming.
Rev 21:6-7
(6) 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.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
We can see in this verse that the A&O says in regards to the one who overcome that he will be their God and they will be sons to him, but Jesus said regarding the people "who conquer" that he would call them "brothers" not sons, so the evidence suggest that the one speaking here is the Father and not Jesus(compare Matthew 25:40 Hebrews 2:10-12).
You're spending a lot of time trying to argue that tiny things can unravel, when it's large and huge in front of our faces in black and white and sometimes red.
What do you do with Rev 1:4,5 use of "kai apo" applied to Jesus and the Seven spirits, why isn't the preposition lacking as you should expect it if the names were really restatements to the "one coming"?
Did you manage to find an example in the NT or LXX where somebody who has title restatements in conjunction has usage of "kai apo" to modify the initial subject? I'm quite certain there isn't a single example of one since the claim is absurd to begin with.
It makes perfect sense if it was different times, to different people, and for a different purpose. Again, you're arguing for minors and failing the majors.
In your mind maybe, not when you read the verse for what it says. No person would reasonably think "oh it calls Jesus another high priest I guess that means he was the same high priest" your reasoning on the basic level fails. You haven't given a credible reply other than "Jesus was Melcehidek to different people".. so what! Furthermore to claim someone wrote in that manner for those reasons is pure speculation.
Show me anything in the text to suggest that the reason why Paul wrote "another" was for the reasons you entailed or do you agree that its pure speculation?
They are his scouts, and it's a team mission. Normal people without axes to grind don't get confused by this. Even football fans will say "We are going to win the championship" when in reality they don't do anything other than relate to the team.
This is coming from the person who said take scripture for what it says, now you're claiming that the reason why the two angels said "we are going to destroy this place " because "Jehovah sent us to destroy the city” was because they were "part of a team", do you actually hear yourself. Please explain to me how there are two Jehovah's then since there is only one Jehovah according to scripture (Deut 6:4).
If you are the type that equates the Son and the Father because you understand his being, then it would. If you are the type that insists that the language maintain strict separation, then it would not. How would you answer the analogy I gave earlier: is Fog Sinder? Or are they different?
This makes no sense. Equates the son and father as what? as One? Separation of what of the son and Father being one? You have;t fully explained things here. Your analogy related to yourself in a compter game where you had two different aliases, Hebrews 7 was in regards to Jesus and one apparent name his shared with himself in the OT, so I don't see how you analogy is relevant. Take one of your characters away and rephrase the analogy to fit the one found in Heb 7 and re-ask me the question.
No, it's an argument, and what you just did there is called unnecessary posturing. Fact would be mutually accepted, argument is contested between the parties.
A fact doesn't need to be mutually accepted, how many thousands of years was it before man relised the earth was a sphere and not flat, did the fact that majority of people accepted the flat earth theory mean the earth being a sphere wasn't factual? Nope. King David was the speaker in Psalms 2 and he did say "He [God] said to "me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father", this is fact! Moreover it has been accepted by people and scholars alike that David was attributed this to himself whilst also understanding it to relate to Christ.
Except I don't see God talking about David, I see David recording a prophecy. Read the text, it doesn't actually apply to David.
Everything said in the text can apply to David, and everything in the text can apply to Christ. The question you need to asnwer is what In Pslams 2 doesn't apply to David. Remember David is the one who is literally saying it, he applied some of the saying to himself v7, the burden of proof lies with the people who say its not in regards to David.
Yet in context, of 1 Chronicles 29:23, it is the throne given by God to David, not actually God's throne. The throne in Revelation has no such lesser quality implied.
I don't deny God gave the throne to David the same why he gives and allows Jesus to sit on his throne. My point was Davids throne would eventually be the throne of Jesus.
If you're used all this effort with that objective, you've failed Constructive Debate 101. First things before all things, is define your terms, and make sure both parties agree on definitions. I began by saying that there is no biblical definition for Trinity, so any attempt to prove or disprove is going to fail. You didn't provide your own definition for us to agree on, so if that was your objective, you've misspent some effort.
I did tell you my definition on who I though God was and also what type of God Jesus is, this wasn't done in a formally but I didn't expect that it need to be on an informal forum. Furthermore I thought I did understand your position but was mistaken.
If I have a copy of the one true declaration of independence, does not the fact I said "copy" imply that I do NOT have the actual one true declaration of independence but rather a copy of it.
If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?
If I have a signet ring and push the stamp of the signet ring into wax, is the representation of that signet ring stamp a representation of the signet ring stamp or is it the signet ring stamp itself?
If Jesus is the "image" of "God", is Jesus the "image" or is he the "God"?
John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek scholars know that this is not "a god" but "God." Even without Greek, it tells us, this is the God that created all things.
John 1:3 KJV
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Which God might that be? Certainly not any "god" because there is only one Creator.
Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Isaiah 40:28 KJV
(28) Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Consider that in translating from Aramaic to Greek to English creates errors. There are words in the originals that can not be fully translated properly into the Greek.
