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.

 

What is the Mystery of the Trinity…?

page: 16
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Why do you think they call it “the way”, the way to what…I believe that phrase is used because its talking about the way of the tree of life mentioned in Genesis 3:24. What does it mean to believe in Jesus…? (Rhetorical question) Various verses state that those who truly believe will keep Gods commandments.


Jesus is "the way" to the Father and eternal life. That's why he said...

John 14:6

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


In fact,Jesus said that anyone who tried to get to the Father some other way, was a thief. Jesus is the door to salvation.

John 10:1-6

10 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.




posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


But Paul and the church nullifies Jesus teachings, and turns him into a ritual blood sacrifice. People are made to believe they are saved and can have eternal life without keeping the commandments. They teach (the Church) Just believe in the Name of Jesus and you will be saved etc…


No, Paul does not nullify Jesus' teachings. Paul didn't teach anything different than Jesus did or John for that matter.

Paul didn't turn Jesus into a ritual blood sacrifice. Jesus said he came to lay down his life as a sacrifice for us.

John 10

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

This is why I keep telling you that Jesus is God and why we've been instructed to make Him our Lord and personal Savior. Salvation only comes through the Son. Judgement only comes through the Son. The way, the truth, and the life only come through the Son.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


But Jesus use of the term blood was a metaphor for Spirit. In John 6 verses 53 to 56 Jesus use of the word blood is clearly a metaphor and is not talking about people standing around literally drinking his blood or accepting him as a literal blood sacrifice.


While communion (the bread and wine that represents the flesh and blood of Jesus) is not literal, but a tradition, it's performed so that we'll remember what Jesus did for us, just like the tradition and ritual of baptism. And as we've already pointed out, baptism is supposed to be performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed them to do.

While I did not specifically point this out earlier, understanding the death of Jesus Christ is a VERY IMPORTANT topic in understanding the plan of salvation. While it's important that we live like him, it's more important to know Him and everything He did for us.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

We don't, it's called faith
I don't understand what you are asking, believe or not, no one is twisting your arm
If its to hard to believe that's fine

There are lots of things we can't explain or has no logic, doesn't mean it isn't a reality
You want an answer to this, you won't get one
You won't get an answer to the double slit either



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


How do we know the Trinity exists…and how do we know that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relationship has been defined and described correctly…


Through hundreds of scripture combined with the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal it...

Here's a list of some of those scriptures again.

www.scionofzion.com...

Here is a glimpse of how the Holy Spirit works...

John 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Luke 10:22-23

22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

23 And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

Matthew 11:25

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Matthew 16:17

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.








edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined


Matthew 11:25

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.


The wise and the prudent have learned about things that are not true and deal with 'things'.
The babes have not as yet learned language so can see and hear what really IS.

Language, words - make believe. If one has no idea of past or future then what does one have to worry about.

Give no thought of the morrow.

Babes live in a sensational world, where as the wise and prudent live in a story about what is not happening. Thoughts and words speak of what is 'going to happen to me' and 'what did happen to me'. So much drama is happening but it is not really happening!!

Look and listen...................what is really happening? What is wrong with right now.................unless thought pops up and tells you about something that will happen or did happen or might happen?
edit on 10-8-2018 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined



Originally posted by Deetermined
No, Paul does not nullify Jesus' teachings. Paul didn't teach anything different than Jesus did or John for that matter.

Paul didn't turn Jesus into a ritual blood sacrifice. Jesus said he came to lay down his life as a sacrifice for us.



The manner in which Jesus lays down his life, is left open to interpretation though. Laying down your life, can equally mean teaching people Gods truth, knowing that you are going to be killed for doing so. Jesus made a sacrifice of himself in order to deliver a message that saves people. That’s how he laid down his life for people…IMO

Paul and the Church clearly misunderstood Jesus metaphorical use of the word blood, which is partly the reason why they turned Jesus into a blood sacrifice but Jesus never claimed that. Jesus said he came to testify to the truth and said that was the very reason he was born! (John 18:37)



Originally posted by Deetermined
While communion (the bread and wine that represents the flesh and blood of Jesus) is not literal, but a tradition, it's performed so that we'll remember what Jesus did for us, just like the tradition and ritual of baptism. And as we've already pointed out, baptism is supposed to be performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed them to do.


When Jesus said “unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh you have no life in you etc”, he clearly didn’t mean for us to do those things literally and they are not a metaphor for a sacrifice on the cross either.

The bread represents the word of God, the spoken truth, also known as the bread of life, because Gods spoken truth leads to life…That’s why Jesus says you will have no life in you, unless you partake of it. And the Blood represents the Holy Spirit, which is received when you partake of the bread of life. Gods spoken truth comes through the message of Jesus, which he laid down his life to bring us.


You see the blood sacrifice of Jesus has been made higher than the knowledge of God. When it’s the knowledge of God through the heart, which God values above sacrifices.



Hosea 6:6
6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.



And…



Proverb 21:2-3
2 All a man’s ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
3 To do what is right and just
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.





Originally posted by Deetermined
This is why I keep telling you that Jesus is God and why we've been instructed to make Him our Lord and personal Savior. Salvation only comes through the Son. Judgement only comes through the Son. The way, the truth, and the life only come through the Son.


But I’ve already shown you that the prophecy in Isaiah 7, can’t possibly be referring to Jesus, in these two posts below.

1st Post

2nd Post



- JC



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman



Originally posted by Raggedyman
We don't, it's called faith
I don't understand what you are asking, believe or not, no one is twisting your arm
If its to hard to believe that's fine


But this isn’t about my belief…it’s about yours and other peoples who believe in it.

I’m asking people what the mystery of the Trinity is…And if they don't know then why are they accepting it as true...The question is for those who already believe and accept it.




Originally posted by Raggedyman
There are lots of things we can't explain or has no logic, doesn't mean it isn't a reality
You want an answer to this, you won't get one
You won't get an answer to the double slit either


It doesn’t mean it is a reality either.

You’re essentially saying it’s a mystery, therefore it's true...

In regards to most everyday things, when something is a mystery and we don’t fully understand it...nobody goes around telling people to believe it means X…


- JC



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

The answers to your questions regarding Isaiah 7 - 9 were posted earlier, but I'll post the link again...

www.biblearchaeology.org...



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


The bread represents the word of God, the spoken truth, also known as the bread of life, because Gods spoken truth leads to life…That’s why Jesus says you will have no life in you, unless you partake of it. And the Blood represents the Holy Spirit, which is received when you partake of the bread of life. Gods spoken truth comes through the message of Jesus, which he laid down his life to bring us.


Speaking of God's spoken truth, here it is at the last supper...

Matthew 26:26-28

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Joecroft

The answers to your questions regarding Isaiah 7 - 9 were posted earlier, but I'll post the link again...

www.biblearchaeology.org...





Where in that link does it refute my other two posts...?

Can you outline it clearly...


- JC



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Many translations in the Bible use words with a theological translation bias attached to them…like the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7 etc…


The predominant translation of Matthew 26:28, is that it his blood which is “poured” out. The word “Poured” an important distinction…



NIV
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



And again the same applies to the verse Luke 22:20, it’s his blood/Spirit which is “poured” out.



NIV
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.




The difference is quite important, and here’s why…

In the last supper scene, Jesus is holding a cup of wine, and stating that “this is my blood” etc…




Matthew 26:27-29
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”



Blood is a metaphor for Spirit. The Spirit brings us Wisdom, which is also why wine is symbolic of Wisdom too.

The word poured is more accurate, because it’s referring the to Spirit being poured out…

And if you think about it, when you repent for forgiveness, it’s the spirit which comes in and washes you clean on the inside.


- JC



edit on 10-8-2018 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

You can try to make up all the explanations you want for what symbolizes what, but those verses speak for themselves.

When the disciples drank the wine, Jesus told them that it symbolized his blood that was for the forgiveness of sins and the new testament (meaning a new covenant) that he promised them. Not sure why you're focusing on the words, "poured out", unless you're just trying to distract from the obvious meaning of those verses I posted. Stay focused. Whether the blood was poured out, dripped out, or was totally drained out doesn't matter. It was done for the forgiveness of sins and the promise of a new covenant, and Jesus had to die a human death to make it happen, that's the point of the story, but you keep missing it.


edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined



Originally posted by Deetermined
You can try to make up all the explanations you want for what symbolizes what, but those verses speak for themselves.

When the disciples drank the wine, Jesus told them that it symbolized his blood that was for the forgiveness of sins and the new testament (meaning a new covenant) that he promised them. Not sure why you're focusing on the words, "poured out", unless you're just trying to distract from the obvious meaning of those verses I posted. Stay focused. Whether the blood was poured out, dripped out, or was totally drained out doesn't matter. It was done for the forgiveness of sins and the promise of a new covenant, and Jesus had to die a human death to make it happen, that's the point of the story, but you keep missing it.



Jesus didn’t say it symbolized his blood…In John 6 verses 53 to 56 he was saying that blood was a metaphor and not literal. I believe he meant it was a metaphor for the Spirit, for reasons I’ve already stated.

Anyway, there’s a big difference between the two words…Just like there's a big difference between "virgin" and "young woman" in Isaiah 7.

I’m focusing on the word “poured” because the Spirit is said to be “poured” out. Where as the word “shed” has a bias towards a literal blood sacrifice. Plus the word "poured" is actually used in more translations of those verses that I mentioned.


- JC



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Jesus didn’t say it symbolized his blood…In John 6 verses 53 to 56 he was saying that blood was a metaphor and not literal. I believe he meant it was a metaphor for the Spirit, for reasons I’ve already stated.


That is incorrect. Jesus most certainly said that the wine at the last supper symbolized his blood and here's why...


Blood of Jesus - Why is this required?
In the Old Testament (after Adam’s original sin), God accepted the death of an animal as a substitute for the sinner. The animal’s shed blood was proof that that one life had to be given for another. Life is precious and God places great value on each one of His created beings. This agreement demonstrated that, while blood symbolized death, it also showed that a life was spared. However, this was a temporary covenant. This blood needed to be repeated daily and yearly.

God would later send His only Son providing a new covenant, or New Testament through Jesus Christ. Jesus would die in the place of all sinners. His sacrifice fulfilled completely what the Old Testament covenant meant to. His blood would remove the sins of the world for all who put their faith in Him. This sacrifice would never have to be repeated; it is an eternal covenant.

John the Baptist called Jesus the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). The Lamb of course, referenced the unblemished animal sacrifice of old. There are many references to sacrificial offerings in the Old Testament. One that may be most familiar is the sprinkling of blood on the Hebrew doorposts when they were held in bondage by the Pharaoh of Egypt. This act provided God’s protection as His curse of the death angel passed through the streets. This curse was just one that God sent down on Pharaoh, moving him to release these Hebrew slaves.


www.allaboutjesuschrist.org...


Anyway, there’s a big difference between the two words…Just like there's a big difference between "virgin" and "young woman" in Isaiah 7.


You are incorrect there too and here's why...


The Hebrew word for “virgin” in verse 14 is “almah”. This word is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures of a married woman, but is used of a young woman of marriageable age (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:26; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Prov. 30:18). Within the Israelite culture, one who is a virgin at the time of marriage is understood. There is another Hebrew word, “betula” that specifically means a virgin.

Interestingly, in the third century BC, seventy Jewish scholars got together in Alexandria, Egypt, and translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. The translation, called the Septuagint (LXX), was for those Jewish people living in the Diaspora, or outside the Land of Israel, who spoke only Greek. When they came to the word “almah”, they translated it with the Greek word “parthenos” which is at the root of the word “parthenogenesis” that means “development of an egg without fertilization”. These translators understood the word to mean virgin in the technical sense of the word.


www.biblearchaeology.org...



edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined



Originally posted by Deetermined
That is incorrect. Jesus most certainly said that the wine at the last supper symbolized his blood and here's why...



I disagree.


If you go back to the story of Cian and Abel. God said that Cain's sacrifices were not worthy. But surely Cain's sacrifices were just the same as Abel's.

The reason they were not worthy was explained by God himself, who said that Cain's heart wasn’t in it. In other words he was giving his offerings to God but he really didn’t love God at all. Which means it was never about the actual sacrifices themselves but was instead about the condition of a person’s heart giving the offering. The offerings were just a way for other men to see visually who loved God, but of course God sees a persons heart.

This is why God says numerous times in the OT, that the knowledge of God and doing what is right, is way more important than any sacrifices. And the knowledge of God comes through the Spirit…

There’s clearly a dichotomy of opinion around sacrifices in the OT. God is clearly against them in these verses below…



Hosea 6:6
6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.




Psalm 40:6
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.




Isaiah 1:11-12
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?




Proverb 21:2-3
2 All a man’s ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
3 To do what is right and just
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.



As you can see, God is more interested in the condition of your heart than sacrifices.

- JC



edit on 10-8-2018 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

The problem is, is that most young women who are unmarried would most likely have been virgins, which is probably why that aspect is contained within the root word. But that doesn’t mean however that the word “virgin” is the more accurate translation.

But just going with logic, it makes more sense, that the verse would say “the young woman will give birth etc” rather than, “the virgin will give birth”…

Anyway, you wouldn’t accept the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6 that I posted 4 pages back. So why are you suddenly accepting Septuagint translation here of Isaiah 7. Let me guess, because it supports your argument here, but when it comes to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6 you reject it.

Talk about double standards…


- JC



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


If you go back to the story of Cian and Abel. God said that Cain's sacrifices were not worthy. But surely Cain's sacrifices were just the same as Abel's.

The reason they were not worthy was explained by God himself, who said that Cain's heart wasn’t in it. In other words he was giving his offerings to God but he really didn’t love God at all. Which means it was never about the actual sacrifices themselves but was instead about the condition of a person’s heart giving the offering. The offerings were just a way for other men to see visually who loved God, but of course God sees a persons heart.


You're correct about the condition of Cain's heart, and like you, I do believe that God desires mercy over sacrifices, but then we have to ask ourselves, why did the LORD instruct them to perform them in the first place? This is a very interesting subject to research more, but in the meanwhile, here's something to consider...

Leviticus 17:11

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

If I come across some eye opening explanations for this, I'll be sure to share.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Apparent existence has no mother.
Christ is this light that is appearing presently - it is non conceptual..........it needs no word or idea for it to arise....it arises without condition, unconditionally.
edit on 11-8-2018 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

Here's something you should know...

And here is something I think you already know about Proverbs 8:22 but chose not to mention anything about as you discuss the rendering "produced" vs "possessed" for the Hebrew word qa·nahʹ:

In the past, commentators and translators who held to the Trinity doctrine argued that qa·nahʹ should here be rendered “possessed.” Qa·nahʹ can convey the sense of either “acquire (possess)” or “produce.” (Gen. 4:1; Deut. 32:6; Ps. 139:13; Neh. 5:16) But scholars acknowledge that the context here points to the rendering “produced” or “created,” since Pr 8 verses 24 and 25 speak of Wisdom as being “brought forth as with labor pains.” This rendering is borne out by the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshi#tta Version and the Targums. So now even translations by trinitarians, such as the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, use the rendering “produced” or “created.”

Why didn't you mention anything about the translations that have "created"? Might it have something to do with it carrying the same meaning as "produced", "brought forth" (KJB verse 24)? The Google dictionary mentions the synonyms for "begotten" ("beget" actually): "bring about, create, produce".

Does the description of “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8:22-31 actually apply to Jesus, the Son of God?

Persons who accept only the Hebrew Scriptures or who do not believe in Jesus Christ often explain Proverbs 8:22-31 as applying to Wisdom personified only in some figurative way. That application of the verses, however, does not agree with what is known about God. Furthermore, accepting the sound view that the entire Bible, including Proverbs, is inspired, a person can see that the description of “Wisdom” here in Proverbs matches what is said elsewhere in the Bible about the Son of God. We read:

“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. . . . Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains . . . When he prepared the heavens I was there; . . . then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, . . . and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.”​—Prov. 8:22-31.

Jewish commentators, objecting to any application of this passage to Jesus as the Messiah, have usually held that this is merely a literary personification of wisdom. Thus, W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs​—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to Wisdom “personified only in a figurative way.” This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the “Wisdom” that is here depicted was “created” or “produced” (Hebrew, qa·nahʹ)* as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. The Scriptures show that Jehovah God himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17) Since he is eternal and he has always been wise, then his wisdom has always existed; it never was created or produced; it was not “brought forth as with labor pains.” (Job 9:2, 4; 12:9, 13; 28:20, 23; Rom. 11:33-36) Wisdom does not exist apart from a personality capable of possessing and reflecting it. Consequently, this “Wisdom” must be a personification picturing someone who was created “as the beginning of [God’s] way.”

The Christian Greek Scriptures aid a person to understand to whom this passage evidently refers. They repeatedly testify to the fact that the Messiah had a prehuman existence as the Son of God in heaven with Jehovah. (John 17:5; 6:62) In that prehuman existence he worked with Jehovah in creating all other things. John 1:3 says about this one: “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”​—Compare Colossians 1:15, 16.

It is understandable that the Son of God could be depicted as created “Wisdom.” Through him Jehovah’s wise purpose, including the role of the Messiah whom the Jews were long awaiting, was made manifest. The apostle Paul said about Jesus: “Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.” (Col. 2:3) While King Solomon was renowned for his God-given wisdom, Jesus was “something more than Solomon.” (1 Ki. 4:30-34; Matt. 12:42) Those who accepted Jesus Christ and had faith in him realized that he was “the power of God and the wisdom of God.”​—1 Cor. 1:24, 30.

Accordingly, what we know about our eternally wise God and the information in the Christian Greek Scriptures about Jesus combine to make clear the appropriateness of applying Proverbs 8:22-31 to the Son of God who became the Messiah. That passage remarkably fits the origin and activities of that one whose fondness for mankind even led to his dying as a ransom sacrifice.​—1 Tim. 2:5, 6; John 3:16.

[*: see footnote at the start of this comment]

Source: Questions From Readers

Anyway, my original full point was:

26. Why can Jesus be called “Eternal Father”?

26 The title “Eternal Father” refers to the Messianic King’s power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life on earth. (John 11:25, 26) The legacy of our first parent, Adam, was death. Jesus, the last Adam, “became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; Romans 5:12, 18) Just as Jesus, the Eternal Father, will live forever, so obedient mankind will enjoy the benefits of his fatherhood eternally.​—Romans 6:9.


It does not mean (or say) that Jesus has existed eternally, i.e. having no beginning (used for the argument that Jesus is the eternal God who is referred to as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" at Eph.1:3 for example). Which interpretation of "Eternal Father" would then contradict with Proverbs 8:22-30 which starts with "Jehovah produced me" [Jesus], Col.1:15, where Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation", and Rev.3:14, where Jesus is referred to as "the beginning of the creation by God". Showing that interpretation to be false/incorrect.

'Nice' distraction, deflection and cherry-picking something to pick on though from that point. Why not respond to the point I was making rather than launch another subtle blow below the belt on the NWT (and me for quoting from it) and leaving out inconvenient facts that it's likely you know I'm aware of* while doing that?

*: given our past conversations and me probably having used this video before (mentioning some caveats that I don't feel like repeating again, concerning the topic of a "co-Creator" and "the atomic g...", which can be ignored for those interested in this topic and the evidence from the Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek and the Aramaic regarding Proverbs 8:22-30; but from which I can tell this person is not associated with Jehovah's Witnesses):

edit on 11-8-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join