It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

No, it doesn't. You're laughable.

Set up Synonyms, Set up Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

...
assemble
begin
build
...
construct
create
erect
establish

edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...(both of which were topics I discussed in the comment you were responding to; and you start talking about the concept of a "new name" in Revelation? Which has no relation to either topic.)

Just noticed that I got my comments mixed up, I was only talking about Rev.3:14 in the comment you were responding to but that was built upon earlier commentary about the relationship between Proverbs 8:22-30, Col.1:15 and John 1:1, and my commentary about Proverbs 8:22 later left another reminder that God's name "Jehovah" still doesn't mean "the LORD" and rendering it as "the LORD" or "the Lord" like is done at Proverbs 8:22 in so many bible translations is still dishonest and deceptive (and the commentary in between about the consistency between Col.1:15, John 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22-30 was responded to by another request for a reply regarding Revelation 2 and 19, allthough you said 3, I guess you meant 2). In the end there was no relation to the topic discussed at Rev.3:14 that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God" to the topic of the "new name" spoken about in Revelation 2:16,17.
edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
There are no changes to language ... that you've provided above.

Not that I want to drag this out any further but what you were responding to was a quotation from wikipedia that used the phrase "coined by" regarding the Latin word from which the English word "deity" is derived. "coined by" (Augustine) means that it was a new word in the Latin language. The Latin language as it was used before is now different than before, people now have a new word to use. The language has changed.

I hope you're not just looking for anything to disagree with or debate in my commentary while avoiding any acknowledgement that God's personal unique name is Jehovah (as you acknowledged partially by calling him Jehovah earlier in this thread, without the "unique" part of that statement) and not "the LORD", "the Lord", "God", "Almighty God", "God Almighty", "Elohim", "Adonai", "the Father" or whatever else people come up with to obscure that fact, none of which are personal identifying names. Making the translation of "the LORD", "the Lord" or "God" everytime God's personal unique name appears in the Hebrew Scriptures (known as the Tetragrammaton) dishonest and deceptive. Jesus is the name of His firstborn and only-begotten Son.

The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9. That his sonship did not begin with his human birth is seen from Jesus’ own statements, as when he said, “What things I have seen with my Father I speak” (Joh 8:38, 42; compare Joh 17:5, 24), as well as from other clear statements of his inspired apostles.—Ro 8:3; Ga 4:4; 1Jo 4:9-11, 14.

How he is the “only-begotten Son.” Jesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten son” in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).—Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15.

Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2

beget

verb
past participle: begotten

1.
(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
...
synonyms: ... generate, ..., create, give life to, bring into being, bring into the world, ...

2.
cause; bring about.
...
synonyms: cause, give rise to,..., bring about, create, produce, generate, ...

Source: google dictionary

Yes, Jesus was begotten, i.e. created, produced, given life to, brought into being. Just as the spiritual Father of Trinitarianism Tertullian and some of his predecessors like Tatian taught as well. Before the contradictions started (or even still then).
edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So, does your religion attribute divinity to more then one?




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Yep, even the ones described at 2 Peter 1:3, 4.
Divine: Insight, Volume 1

In the Christian Greek Scriptures, certain words derived from the·osʹ (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The related words theiʹos, thei·oʹtes, and the·oʹtes occur at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, and 2 Peter 1:3, 4.
...
At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s “invisible qualities,” particularly his “eternal power and Godship [Thei·oʹtes].” Other translations read “Godhead” or “deity” (KJ, NE, RS, JB), conveying to many the idea of personality, the state of being a person. However, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word thei·oʹtes means “divine nature, divinity.” (P. 788) So there is a basis for rendering thei·oʹtes as referring to the quality of being a god, not the person of God, and this is supported by the context. The apostle is discussing things that are discernible in the physical creation. For example, while the creation does not reveal the name of God, it does give evidence of his “eternal power”—needed to create and sustain the universe. The physical creation also displays his “Godship,” the fact that the Creator truly is God and is worthy of our worship.

Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ “all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·oʹtes] dwells bodily.” Here, again, some translations read “Godhead” or “deity,” which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” (P. 792) The Syriac Pesh#tta* and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.” Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality. [whereislogic: the # stands for an "i", ATS doesn't allow that word]

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having “divinity,” or “divine nature,” does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such “fullness” does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God.”—Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that “carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge,” and they are urged to “go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith.” (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul’s argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious “fullness,” in Christ.—Col 2:10-12.

Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of “the precious and very grand promises” extended to faithful anointed Christians, they “may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures, Christians are referred to as ‘sharing’ with Christ in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom. (1Co 15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in “divine nature” is a sharing with Christ in his glory.


At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

God: Insight, Volume 1

Ludwig Koehler (Köhler in German) and Walter Baumgartner who produced Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros were Trinitarian theologians (at least 1 of the 2) and Professors of theology, Ludwig Köhler was even "Rektor der Universität Zürich" says his German wikipedia page. That's how we call the one who is in charge of the school in my country. Next to theology he also studied "Semitic languages" as well as "ordentliche Professur für Altes Testament" (full professorship of the Old Testament). So it's not like Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who "attribute divinity to more than one". Baumgartner was also Professor of English and "Lektor der hebräischen Sprache" (that would be the Hebrew language, not sure what a Lektor is, ah, found it, that's a teacher that is teaching his own mother tongue, I have not confirmed that Baumgartner was a Trinitarian, for all I know he was an adherent of Judaism or Messianic Judaism, Köhler is definitely a Trinitarian though; listed as protestant and evangelical). Pardon the broad translations from German, but Rektor is listed on the German wikipedia as an ecclestiastic, academic or scholarly leadership position.

Just because I can't edit my previous commentary anymore, I'd like to leave a reminder that "brought forth" is another synonym for "begotten" (listed as "bring forth" on thesaurus.com for the word "beget").
edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

The truth is, no matter whether or not you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity, it is written that Jesus will be given all authority and power to judge, rule, and claim God's people as his own when he puts his new name on them.

Revelation 19

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb (Jesus) is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True (Jesus), and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God (Jesus).

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

Revelation 3

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

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



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

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

Perhaps you should have emphasized "my God" in that verse cause it doesn't seem to get through very well even though Jesus repeats it 4 times in one verse. Here's a straightforward question you haven't answered yet and it seems I have great difficulty getting a straight answer to this 'yes or no'-type of question (elaboration is OK, but for a straight answer one does need a yes or no): Does Jesus have a God? I can clearly see the bible teaching this but I have no idea how Trinitarians explain these phrases cause I have not been capable of getting a straight answer to that question, usually it's more Trinitarian arguments that don't actually answer the question which makes it unclear to me if Trinitarians are aware that the bible teaches that Jesus has a God or if they try to argue that he does not have a God but some other reason exists for the phrases "my God", "his God" and "the God....of our Lord Jesus Christ". Cause to me these phrases are crystal clear: Jesus has a God. My answer to that question would be yes. Anyway...you also said:

The truth is, no matter whether or not you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity, it is written that Jesus will be given all authority and power to judge, rule, and claim God's people as his own when he puts his new name on them.

And who do you recon gave him that authority? Since you said: "given". Might it be the One he refers to as "my God"? Again I think the bible is pretty clear on this, I quoted this verse before. Acts 2:36:

36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord+ and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”

Remember that "Lord" signifies a leadership position, a position of authority. The + symbol there behind "Lord" refers to the following bible references (verses):

Matthew 28:18
18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

John 3:35
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

I actually added one verse below that isn't a reference under that + symbol but relevant to this thread, cause Jesus did not raise up Jesus from the dead as those who argue that 'Jesus=God', referring to the same God mentioned below, end up implying; making the sentence below after applying Trinitarian logic and interpretation read "Jesus raised up Jesus"; which to me is not only a logical contradiction, but also impossible given what the bible teaches about the state of the dead, and Jesus most definitely died and was dead when he was raised by his God.

Acts 5:30,31
30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a stake.* [Or “tree.”]
31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.


Definition for the verb "exalt" from the google dictionary:

2. raise to a higher rank or position.


So before God exalted Jesus, Jesus had a lower rank or position. I see nothing to suggest that that doesn't include when he was a spirit being before coming to earth (I quoted from the event when Jesus was baptized and approved of by God before).
Christ: Insight, Volume 1

The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn.

The personal name of Jesus followed by the title Christ may call attention to the person himself and that he is the one who became the Anointed One of Jehovah*. This occurred when he reached about 30 years of age, was baptized in water, and was anointed with Jehovah’s spirit visibly observed in the form of a dove descending upon him. (Mt 3:13-17) This is the point Peter made at Pentecost: “God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus,” evidently recalling the expression he had heard from the lips of Jesus, who first used the term “Jesus Christ.” (Ac 2:36-38; Joh 17:3) This expression “Jesus Christ” is also used in the opening words of the Christian Greek Scriptures.—Mt 1:1.


*: remember that the name Jesus is a theophoric name, it combines part of God's name Jehovah with the Hebrew word for salvation. It means "Jehovah is Salvation" (through Jesus Christ, who was sent and named by Jehovah God specifically for that reason).
edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


I actually added one verse below that isn't a reference under that + symbol but relevant to this thread, cause Jesus did not raise up Jesus from the dead as those who argue that 'Jesus=God', referring to the same God mentioned below, end up implying; making the sentence below after applying Trinitarian logic and interpretation read "Jesus raised up Jesus"; which to me is not only a logical contradiction, but also impossible given what the bible teaches about the state of the dead, and Jesus most definitely died and was dead when he was raised by his God.


Since you'll never understand any explanation that is given, I'll just post the verses in the Bible that explains the "Jesus raised up Jesus" scenario...

John 10:17-18

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ.


Go back and read about how Jesus was conceived and why he was conceived that way. He was already appointed the Christ at his conception when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and an angel told Mary that he would be the Christ. How can someone who claims that they believe Jesus was the Son of God not already know and understand this??!!




edit on 12-11-2017 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined
John 10:17,18 (Weymouth New Testament, from wikipedia: "Weymouth succeeded in rendering the New Testament into a dignified modern English edition without ecclesiastical or doctrinal bias making it desirable to Christian readers of all denominations." "Dr. Richard Francis Weymouth (M.A., D.Litt.) (1822–1902) was an English schoolmaster, Baptist layman and Bible student...", i.e. Trinitarian, so I somewhat doubt the earlier statement from wikipedia but I guess that's more or less the opinion of other baptists or Trinitarians who know something about the subject):

17 For this reason my Father loves me, because I am laying down my life in order to receive it back again.
18 No one is taking it away from me, but I myself am laying it down. I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."


New World Translation (2013):

17 This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my life,* [Or “soul.”] so that I may receive it again. 18 No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”


I guess I will have to continue my search for a Trinitarian willing to answer the question "Does Jesus have a God?" with a clear yes or no (with or without elaboration). If there are any Trinitarians out there that are willing to clear that up for me how they feel about that question they might as well answer the question: Does Jesus have a heavenly Father that Paul refers to as such: "there is actually to us one God, the Father,..."? (1 Corinthians 8:6, regardless of the exact rendering for the first part of that phrase in whatever bible translation one is using)

I'm saying heavenly Father cause I'm obviously not asking about his human father, that's also why I added Paul's words. If you want to shorten that question (to avoid debate about Paul's words) it would be "Does Jesus have a Father?" (keeping that in mind and that that's the reason I'm capitalizing "Father").
edit on 12-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

...that he would be the Christ.

I just hope by bolding the right words of your own comment the penny will drop for at least some people. Cause responding to it with anything more seems like a waste of time.

would be future tense - Google Search



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I see how you changed the word authority to authorize in John 10:18, to make people think that he allowed it as opposed to doing it.

It doesn't take any kind of "POWER" or "authority" as Jesus stated in verse 18, to let God end your life and give it back to you again, so I believe you are wrong.


edit on 13-11-2017 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Your reply that God "would" make Jesus the Christ after his birth as opposed to believing what the Bible says about his birth being conceived of the Holy Spirit, tells us everything we need to know. Like I said earlier, the angel even told both Joseph and Mary that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was "holy", and that he would forgive people of their sins and reign over the house of Jacob forever and forever, before he was even born. Once again, you need to think about how only the PERFECT and "holy" Son of God was the ONLY one capable of performing this fete in order to wash people of their sins.

Let's look at a couple of verses.

Matthew 1:18-23

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.



Luke 1:27-35

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

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



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Your reply that God "would" make Jesus the Christ after his birth as opposed to believing what the Bible says about his birth being conceived of the Holy Spirit, tells us everything we need to know. Like I said earlier, the angel even told both Joseph and Mary that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was "holy", and that he would forgive people of their sins and reign over the house of Jacob forever and forever, before he was even born. Once again, you need to think about how only the PERFECT and "holy" Son of God was the ONLY one capable of performing this fete in order to wash people of their sins.

Let's look at a couple of verses.

Matthew 1:18-23

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.



Luke 1:27-35

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

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



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

To answer your question on whether or not Jesus has a God, my answer is YES and NO.

Jesus in the flesh was both human and divine. He was both the Son of God and the Son of Man. As such, he was limited to certain time, space, and ability in the flesh. While in the flesh, he was only able to receive messages and perform works through his Father.

Before Jesus came in the flesh, he was The Word, which was in the beginning with God and was God as explained in both John 1 and Revelation 19. In this sense, he was God, so he didn't have or need a God.


edit on 13-11-2017 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic


beget

verb
past participle: begotten

1.
(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
...
synonyms: ... generate, ..., create, give life to, bring into being, bring into the world, ...

2.
cause; bring about.
...
synonyms: cause, give rise to,..., bring about, create, produce, generate, ...

Source: google dictionary (and "bring forth" is listed as a synonym on thesaurus.com, for "begotten" that would then become "brought forth")

Yes, Jesus was begotten, i.e. created, produced, given life to, brought into being [edit:, brought forth]. Just as the spiritual Father of Trinitarianism Tertullian and some of his predecessors like Tatian taught as well. Before the contradictions started (or even still then).

These songs say everything that's left to say in this thread:
Song 148 - You Gave Your Only-Begotten Son
Song 149 - Grateful for the Ransom
Song 153 - How does it make you feel?

For the appreciator of God's message to mankind as found in the bible:
Kingdom songs Vocal
edit on 13-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




begotten
[bih-got-n]

verb

1. a past participle of beget.





beget
[bih-get]

verb (used with object), begot or (Archaic) begat; begotten or begot; begetting.

1.(especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2.to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.


www.dictionary.com...


edit on 13-11-2017 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic



So that means that Jesus in his prehuman existence was not the invisible God that he's already the image of now is he? That's what that statement of yours logically leads to without Trinitarian eisegesis, theosophy and contradictions claimed after such a statement or acknowledgement. Those who want to conflate Jehovah and Jesus always wanna skip past such simple and clear statements, like Jesus referring to Jehovah as "my God" and Paul using the phrase "Blessed be the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph.1:3).

Actually in a fair debate only one subject should be bantered about at a time simply because it clutters the subject matter with non direct substance. Don't get me wrong. I am as guilty at this as most everyone is also guilty of the same.

No I did not intend to mean that - "Jesus in his prehuman existence was not the invisible God that he's already the image of now is he?" - If that is your understanding then I apologize for unintended presentation.

What I do say is that, in my understanding, the first creation of celestial matter before the creation of terrestrial matter, The Most High El was total Spirit with out spirit image. We, of this terrestrial creation, have no idea what that actually is simply because not one of this terrestrial creation understands what celestial matter is. But to my understanding, The Most High El brought forth from Him a celestial image which we understand as His celestial physicality.

This celestial image [The Word] that the Spirit brought forth from within Him was known as the "Word of God" in the Apostle John's gospel. This is the very first act of the Most High as in the celestial realm that we understand today. John then teaches us that the physicality or "Word" was the Creator of the celestial creation and then created this terrestrial creation.

Now the question that is forthcoming is - Is the "Word of God" an entity from the "Spirit God" or is the "Word of God" the "Spirit God?"

If we had the autographs of the NT then we could say with certainty what the letter of John actually says but we do not have that autograph and therefore will always have the same dispute over and over again.

Now you may not understand this in the same way as the Nazarene's understand it but I don't fault you in your understanding. You must remember that the Nazarene's did not have your NT letters that you have today. We had the Apostles of Jesus' teachings till we [Nazarene's] were murdered and destroyed by the Roman organizations. Not one letter of your NT can be verified as to word for word totally without error. It is impossible because you have not one autograph in your entire NT. Actually to argue on word play is of no value unless you can produce the master MSS to verify that word or words.

There are other avenues of understanding this but even these are not without some doubts. Lets examine the most favored.

It is written that the Apostle John said that Jesus said -

John_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

This leads me to understand that Jesus as a terrestrial entity did regard The Most High as His Father God. But does that also mean that "The Word" was an entity.

Lets examine this with another scripture -

1Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, [meaning "The Most High"] then shall the Son [meaning "the man Jesus"] also himself be subject unto him [meaning Spirit God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Now in that understanding, some might say that it means that only Jesus was called the Son of God because that was the charge brought against Him in His trial in the Courts of Sanhedrin. In other words that was what He was known as in His terrestrial life. But that still does not give us the answer, without doubt, as to whether "The Word" was a celestial entity or was Spirit God. We then return to the first chapter of John to try and get the answer.

John tells us that -

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This then is the answer that the Nazarene's do believe be true. The celestial "Word" became flesh and became known as Jesus as an entity. That is understood by the Nazarene's that Jesus had a terrestrial body and retained His Spirit an we regard that as a terrestrial entity. But that is not all of this mystery. When Jesus' terrestrial body died He was then restored to "The Word Of God". Then the debate returns as to whether "The Word Of God" was an entity or is now an entity. Jesus is now dead so that portion of the debate is moot. The entire debate is whether "The Word Of God" is an entity or not. We have shown that Jesus returns all authority to His Father but makes no mention of returning all authority to "The Word Of God." Why is that?

The answer lays in Revelation 19:11 - 13
(11) "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
(12) His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

By this then is the most complete answer that I can understand. The celestial "Word Of God" is a celestial entity and yet is Spirit God. I believe that we do not understand the substance of celestial [Spirit] and in not understanding it we simply can not express it in literature. If the Word is a independent entity created by God then there is only one God. If the "Word" became another god then we have polytheism. We have no literature in the NT to suggest substance change that the "Word of God" became anything other than a mortal Jesus while in the terrestrial flesh.

What are your opinions on this matter?



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Don't expect an answer because he doesn't understand it. Too many contradictions floating around in his own mind and posts.




top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join