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.

 

The "mystery" of the trinity

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
- jesus praying to God (multiple times)
matt 14:23
matt 26:36 (and several verses after, as he prays multiple times that night)
mark 1:35
mark 6:46
mark 14:32-39
luke 3:1
luke 5:16
luke 6:12
luke 9:18
luke 11:1
luke 22:44
john 17:15

- god talking to jesus on three different occasions
matt 3:17, mark 1:3 luke 3:22 (jesus' baptism)
matt 17:5, mark 9:7 luke 9:35 (transfiguration)
john 12:28 (while teaching at the synagogue)

- jesus saying that god is greater than him
john 13:16
john 14:12 and 28

- jesus being call the ¨firstborn¨of all creation
col 1:15

- God having no beginning (inconflict with the point above if they are the same person)
this one is just logic, however rev 1:8

- jesus talking about doing god´s will, not his own
john 4:34
john 5:30
john 6:38 and 40

- jesus saying that god sent him
matt 10:40
mark 9:37
luke 4:18
luke 10:16
john 4:34
john 5: 24,30,36,37
john 6; 38,39,40,44,57
john 7:16 (also says that the doctrine is not his)
john 7:28,29,33
john 8:16,18,26,29,42
john 9:4
john 11:42
john 12:44,45,49
john 13:20
john 14:24
john 15:21
john 16:5
john 17:18,21,23,25
john 20:21

- jesus saying that he didnt not send himself in the same verse
john 7:28

- jesus being called god´s son
this is well documented but there are some interesting cases
matt 4:3 (satan calls jesus son of god (satan would know if he was once an angel))

- the god of the OT (same as the god of the NT) being only ¨one¨
duet 6:4

- jesus being tempted (do you honestly believe God can be tempted?)
matthew chapter 4

- jesus´response to being tempted (to worship himself?)
matt 4:10

- satan tempting jesus (why would satan even try)
see above

- the death of jesus (can god die?)
1 thes 4:14
matt 27:50
mark 15:37
luke 23:46
john 19:30

- the resurrection of jesus (if god was dead, how did he resurrect himself?)
rom 14:9
1 cor 15:4

- jesus correcting the jews of thinking that he called himself god (why would he correct them if it was true?)
john 10:32-27

- jesus is depicted in revelation as a lamb before god.
rev 5:6-13

- bible says that no man has seen god ecept the son. (yet men have seen jesus)
john 1:18
1 john 4:12

- the hebrew temple depicts god in the most holy, while jesus is depicted as the high priest (separate entities)
heb 4:14-16

- jesus offering his blood as a sacrifice for mankinds sins (to god)
i cant at the moment find the scripture im looking for. i will later.

im really really sorry




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



one thing jesus is NEVER called is "almighty god". this is because he is not an almighty god. he cant do everything.

OH HOW WRONG YOU ARE!

I prefer to speak in gentle tones, and it is evident that you have given serious thought to the Bible, but on this central tenet of the Christian faith you are greatly mistaken.

The JWs and others who will not accept this plain teaching of the Bible write books, travel the world to preach their message and even change the contents of the Bible to avoid accepting it.

Claiming to believe and teach the Bible yet denying that Christ is Almighty God, the Creator, Sustainer and Judge of all is a serious error - in fact tacit blasphemy, in that it calls God the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture, a liar. Likewise with respect to Christ Himself. Christ unambiguously claimed to be the God of the Jews who had revealed Himself through Moses, for which reason the Jews sought to execute Him.


"While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light." Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them. Even though He had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in Him... they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said [NB 700 years BC]:

"He has blinded their eyes..." Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke about Him."

Gospel of John 12:36-37,39b-40a & 41

Referring back to the Book of Isaiah we read what Isaiah actually saw:


In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne...

Then I said: Woe is me, for I am ruined... because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.

Isaiah 6:1, 5a&5d

The Hebrew word used in verse 5, translated 'Lord', is Yahweh.

Therefore according to the Apostle John, Jesus is Yahweh.



Yahweh is the name of the Almighty, eternal God, revealed to Moses, meaning "I am".


"Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see my day; he saw it and rejoiced." The Jews replied, "You aren't 50 years old yet, and You've seen Abraham?"

Jesus said to them: "I assure you: before Abraham was, I am.

At that, they picked up stones to throw at him...

Gospel of John 8:56-59a

Therefore according to Jesus Himself, He is Yahweh.



The listeners intended to execute Him for blasphemy for claiming to be Almighty God.

I will leave the last word to Isaiah, (again what he foresaw 700 years BC):


...Galilee of the nations. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in darkness, a light has dawned...

For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be upon His shoulders. He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace... He will reign on the throne of David...

Isaiah 9:1c-2, 6-7b

Even though Isaiah (and many other true prophets) realised who Christ was centuries, even millennia before He was born, myriads today still walk in darkness, not able to work it out.

No matter how much is said and written, the true light cannot be extinguished:


The light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness has not overcome it.

Gospel of John 1:5



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If thats true that jesus is god then refute the post before yours. If Jesus was God he would'nt pray. and if Jesus was God he would'nt say he came down to do God's will not his own. And that God sent him



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   


one thing jesus is NEVER called is "almighty god". this is because he is not an almighty god. he cant do everything.

OH HOW WRONG YOU ARE!


and yet, you still fail to show a scripture that calls jesus "almighty god". its because there isnt a scripture that says so.


but on this central tenet of the Christian faith you are greatly mistaken.

actually, that was the point that really bothered me about the whole thing. if it is a central tenet, then why are the scriptures lacking? faith in the trinity is derived solely from interpretations of scriptures. not from what the scriptures say.

i explain the 3 major proof texts earlier.

1 is nonexistent.
1 is a mistranslation
and 1 is clarified by jesus himself


The JWs and others who will not accept this plain teaching of the Bible write books, travel the world to preach their message and even change the contents of the Bible to avoid accepting it.


but its not a plain teaching. it is said to be a mystery.

this mystery is the only way that ministers can say jesus and god are one, and then read a scripture where jesus says god is greater than him. its anything but plain.

btw, i would like you to note that the scriptures im quoting basically say the same thing in all translations. none of the arguments im providing are dependent on a particular translation. so i dont understand what you mean by "change the contents of the bible to avoid accepting it."



Gospel of John 12:36-37,39b-40a & 41

Referring back to the Book of Isaiah we read what Isaiah actually saw:


In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne...

Then I said: Woe is me, for I am ruined... because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.

Isaiah 6:1, 5a&5d

The Hebrew word used in verse 5, translated 'Lord', is Yahweh.

Therefore according to the Apostle John, Jesus is Yahweh.



no. read verse 8 and 9. isaiah 6 mentions nothing of jesus. this is about isaiah's commission.

john yes was refering to yahweh, but then read verse 44

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."

clearly this is talking about 2 separate people.


"Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see my day; he saw it and rejoiced." The Jews replied, "You aren't 50 years old yet, and You've seen Abraham?"

Jesus said to them: "I assure you: before Abraham was, I am.

Therefore according to Jesus Himself, He is Yahweh.



no, jesus was saying he existed before abraham. you putting words in jesus' mouth.

jesus' existance before abraham is also in harmony with scriptures calling jesus god's "masterbuilder" and the "firsborn of all creation"



I will leave the last word to Isaiah, (again what he foresaw 700 years BC):


...Galilee of the nations. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in darkness, a light has dawned...

For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be upon His shoulders. He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace... He will reign on the throne of David...

Isaiah 9:1c-2, 6-7b


again, read the scripture. a child born to us. son. mighty god, not almighty. eternal father, because he bought us out of sin. prince of peace because he still acknowledges god's authority over him.

the point that seems to be ignored alot is that besides the scripture never actually saying that jesus and god are the same literal being, the very concept conflicts with many scriptures. scriptures i posted in plenty numerous of times on this thread



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Hi,
I know that I should have replied to my earlier anonymous post earlier but I have been rather too busy with work
Still now I have even registered so that my posts won't be quite so rude as to remain anonymous. This unfortuanately will be an unhelpfully short post but I want to know what exact words should be used to state that Jesus is God? Why I was pointed back to John 1:1 and told about indefinite articles when I didn't mention that passage is beyond me, especially as it is irrelevent to the passage concerning Thomas.

Concerning men not being able to see God and yet people seeing Christ thus showing that he isn't God is a strangely disingenuous concept. Moses is said to have spoken to God face to face and Jesus himself says that if you have seen him you have seen the the Father (John 14:9). It is true that to see God in all his glory would consume sinful men but God can veil his glory, as in Christ or when God passes by Moses and he sees the back of him, so that men may see him. Even if I were to except that Jesus wasn't God I would still expect that he was much more glorious than appears from his time on earth as he was glorified and worshipped in heaven before his incarntation.

So my real point to finnish is what words should I look for beyond "My Lord and my God" to see that Christ is God incarnate?

Thanks



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus

So my real point to finnish is what words should I look for beyond "My Lord and my God" to see that Christ is God incarnate?


john 14:28 - Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

so thomas' words, which can be interpreted, or jesus' words which are plain as night and day....

2 separate people, simple as that. everything else is just trying to twist the scriptures.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


To answer your question, Jesus was speaking from his position as the incarnation of God. He took on the position of obedience to the Father and as a man God was greater. This is just considering his incarnation and does not show that he was in essence God. It was for this reason that he took the name of God upon himself as has been pointed out already. He did not say about Abraham that before him he was but that before Abraham was "I am", which is a direct reference to God's name. This was why the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy. Jesus also forgave sins which is the preserve of God alone as the Jews rightly said and is confirmed in numerous places in scripture.

Now back to my point, how should Thomas have spoken to Jesus if he wanted to identify him as God if not through the use of these words? He even uses the definite article which you claim must be used if we are talking about God. (If this particular argument about the use of the definite article is carried through though you may find that you will need to retranslate a fair chunck of the new testament though)

So I answered your question, feel free to answer mine



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus
To answer your question, Jesus was speaking from his position as the incarnation of God. He took on the position of obedience to the Father and as a man God was greater. This is just considering his incarnation and does not show that he was in essence God. It was for this reason that he took the name of God upon himself as has been pointed out already.


this makes no sense and is in no way logical. is he or is he not god? if he is, why is he in 2 places at the same time? why would god call himself father and son? why would tell people that it is not his will, but his father's will (who is also him)? it makes absolutely no sense!

why should i believe in a concept that not only isnt backed up by scripture, but is full of logical paradoxes? i thought god wasnt a god of confusion....


He did not say about Abraham that before him he was but that before Abraham was "I am", which is a direct reference to God's name.


how does jesus saying "I am" suddenly reference god's name Yahweh?

also ill provide an excerpt from the greek interlinear that shows that jesus was using the correct grammar. i am could mean by today's standard "i was" or "i have been" because the present indicative was used similiar to english's present perfect. an event that started in the past and continues to the present.


εγω personal pronoun - first person nominative singular
ego eg-o': I, me.

ειμι verb - present indicative - first person singular
eimi i-mee': a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) -- am, have been, it is I, was.



Jesus also forgave sins which is the preserve of God alone as the Jews rightly said and is confirmed in numerous places in scripture.


no, because jesus was commisioned with judging

john 5:[22] For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

note also that the scripture is clearly talking about 2 separate people. 1 that judges and one that doesnt.

acts 10:[42] And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

you dont ordain yourself

keep in mind, it can be said that god judges, because it is his standards that jesus uses when judging. but the actually act of judging is left for jesus

rom 2:[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

god judges through appointed jesus

saints are also commissioned to judge

1 cor 6:[2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?


Now back to my point, how should Thomas have spoken to Jesus if he wanted to identify him as God if not through the use of these words? He even uses the definite article which you claim must be used if we are talking about God.


transliteration of that scripture would be "lord of me, and the god of me" and you are correct the article is there.

but are you seriously suggesting that every time "the" is before god that it is talking about Yahweh?

2 cor 4:4 has the article, but its clearly talking about satan.

no, the article in john 1:1 is significant because the the article is missing in the same word after. people read 1:1 thinking that the 2 gods are the same person, but they arent, there is a clear contrast

example, we are at dinner. i ask you to pass "the" salt. what do i mean? the article "the" is being used because it is implied that we both know which salt im talking about.

1:1 has a contrast. the word was with "the" god. this implies that we are talking about a god we (the reader) know. then the word was god (no "the"). in english, we would insert "a" because it is in general. but greek doesnt have "a"

2 cor 4:4 is refering to a specific god. someone the reader can easily discern. so was thomas. "the god of mine".

as i said before, calling jesus a god is not inappropriate. jesus IS a god. thomas chose to follow jesus (as jesus told him he should). so saying jesus is "my god" even though he is not "almighty god" doesnt conflict with anything



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


reslight.net...



Nor did the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob refer to himself with the Greek words "Ego Eimi". One has to look for this expression in the Septuagint translation, not in words actually spoken in Exodus 3:14. Even in the Septuagint, however, Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 is translated as "ego eimi ho ohn" -- I am the being (Brenton's translation).

Jesus was using the ordinary expression, in John 8:58, to state his existance,"ego eimi".
The Logos would be something that existed in Abraham's time.
Jesus was not using the title of God.
Use the link above to see the whole argument, concerning this verse.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I apologise for not being clear but I am simply trying to state the already stated orthodox view. Jesus is both God and Man and as Man places himself beneath God the Father.

The link to his name is not to say that Jesus takes the name directly upon himself but the link is clear and is something that is brought directly to mind by the statement. If we wish to understand this as stating "I was" then why not translate it as such. To have this translation just brings to rememberance God's name.

I really don't want to get into a discussion of John 1:1 because you have probabley done it all before and it isn't that exciting. However as you brought it up again I will say that the verse is to be translated using Colwell's rule which means that you cannot assume that the lack of the definite article means that the translation should be without the definite article. The actual existence or otherwise of the definite article in translation can only be determined from the context of the verse. I expect that we would disagree on the context
Finally on this verse if we are to be consistent we must always translate a verse without the definite article as a so in v6 "there was a man sent from a god", v12 "power to become children of a god" and v18 "No one has ever seen a god" which for me all have some problems.

As to the verse in Corithians the term God is modified by a descriptor and therefore this is a specious example. Saying the god of this world is perfectly satisfactory and in no way muddies the use of the definite article to detemine God. Anyway the only reason I mentioned the def article in John 20:28 is because you claim that the lack means that it cannot be God but only a god. Here is a verse which states that Thomas believes that Jesus is God and indeed Christ blesses him for it.

Finally a few more verses which to me plainly show the diety of Christ but which I am sure you will disagree. Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1 and Heb 1:8.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Lol man to say that Jesus is God is not back up by the bible. no where in the bible does it say in words Jesus is God. Is says that Jesus is the SON OF GOD. You can be the son if you are the father nor can the son be the father if he is the son.

Jesus says this

Bread of life John 6 I think v 33

for I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of HIM WHOM HAS SENT ME. Jesus was sent by God to do God's will not his own. This scripture alone is undeniable. Jesus calls God his own God. Jesus more times in the bible gets called the son of God more than the other in the bible. Jesus prays and talks to God. others undeniable fact. Showing that Jesus is not God. Jesus in devine and has all power in heaven to do what God wants. Jesus is like a God, but that does'nt make him God.

When Jesus got baptized he was put under water what happens?? God's spirit(which jesus would not need if he is God) comes down on Jesus.(jesus on earth) And God (in heaven) says this ( THIS IS MY SON WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED) other undeniable fact.

read revelations chapter 4 thro five.

lets get the basic of the trinity so we can brake it down.

GOD THE SPIRIT, god jesus, god the holy ghost and those three are one.

God is not only a spirit he has a body. first I like to point out that the bible says that man was made in God's image.
not revelations chapter 4 and 5 show that God has a body and is seprate from Jesus.

he says that God SITS on a thrown holding in HIS RIGHT HAND the scroll of 7 seals.

THIS SHOWS THAT GOD HAS A BODY AND THAT HE IS NOT JUST A SPIRITY AND the trinity is a fake.

Jesus comes and takes that scroll out of God's hands. Showing that Jesus is seprate from God. ( some dont believe in the trinity but that they believe that Jesus is God. that when Jesus goes to heaven there is only God called Jesus, which is wrong this is called the oneness theory)

None where in the bible does it says that all three are one. If you want to call trinity as a mistery where is it in the bible for God said that the bible is his word.

When Jesus die on the cross he said FATHER FATHER why have you (god in heaven) forsaken me(Jesus on earth). he calls god is own father and notices that God was somehow forsaken Jesus.

all this undeniable go with God and his will.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus
Anyway the only reason I mentioned the def article in John 20:28 is because you claim that the lack means that it cannot be God but only a god.
im not sure its even worth debating because you are not even trying to listen to what im saying.

there is no "a" in ancient greek. we say, "oh i see a star", they say "i see star". which is fine, whatever, but in the greek interlinear one "god" has the article "the" and the next "god" doesnt. why do you think that is? the scripture is blatantly talking about 2 separate things.

watching you argue this point is like watching clinton debate the meaning of the word "is".

this isnt advanced linguistics, this is basic grammar.


Finally a few more verses which to me plainly show the diety of Christ but which I am sure you will disagree. Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1 and Heb 1:8.


you show me three but if you look up the thread abit i provide many where jesus says very plainly that he is not his father, he is not equal to his father. you pick three but ignore the rest.

and what i noticed about the three you listed is that the only thing supporting your case is the word god. just because someone is called god does mean they are the same as the almighty god. this seems to be a point you dont want to agree with.

jesus is called god, satan is called god, humans are sometimes called gods, even lifeless statues are sometimes called god. god is a title, pure and simple



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
im not sure its even worth debating because you are not even trying to listen to what im saying.

there is no "a" in ancient greek. we say, "oh i see a star", they say "i see star". which is fine, whatever, but in the greek interlinear one "god" has the article "the" and the next "god" doesnt. why do you think that is? the scripture is blatantly talking about 2 separate things.

watching you argue this point is like watching clinton debate the meaning of the word "is".

this isnt advanced linguistics, this is basic grammar.


I have not ignored, nor do I disagree with, your statements about the indefinite article in NT Greek but I have given you the translation rule which applies to John 1:1. This is simple NT Greek grammar, although I am not a NT Greek scholar so have to take the word of those who write the grammar books. This was to show you that it is not as simple as you make out. I also notice that you have ignored the translation of the other verses in John 1, which although also lacking the def article are still translated with one in all the versions I have read.
Finally on this, Thomas uses the def article and still you will not except that he is referring to God but now state that the word theos can mean any god at all. This means surely that we must use the context to judge the correct usage and because you have rejected the possiblity of Christ's diety you will never find the context to read it as saying such.



you show me three but if you look up the thread abit i provide many where jesus says very plainly that he is not his father, he is not equal to his father. you pick three but ignore the rest.

and what i noticed about the three you listed is that the only thing supporting your case is the word god. just because someone is called god does mean they are the same as the almighty god. this seems to be a point you dont want to agree with.

jesus is called god, satan is called god, humans are sometimes called gods, even lifeless statues are sometimes called god. god is a title, pure and simple


I think that you are right about the inability for us to continue this discussion. I explained about Christ in his humanity and submission but this isn't enough for you. I have given you a number of verse which you didn't seem to have taken into account in your previous posts which link God and Christ togethor which again you oppose and state that this just means that Christ is a god not God.

My main concern with this understanding is that I am commanded in the 10 commandments to have no other god besides God and to worship and give Glory to no other. Indeed God himself says in Isaiah 42:8 that he will not give his glory to another. If Christ is just another god then why do all the creatures in creation give glory to Christ and God the Father? This would be blasphemy and totally unacceptable.

I am making this my final post. I will let you have the final word and I thank you for the discussion.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Iggus]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


Why should we not give Christ glory, when God has already glorified him?
You seem to know some thing about Greek and should realize that it is rather flexible, as to how the word doxa can be used.
Rather foolish, in my opinion, to base your belief of God on something we have no understanding of.
I mean the heavenly things.
Jesus said we can not understand earthly things, so how can we understand heavenly things.
Do you think I am going to hell for not believing in the trinity?
The word of God came to us through the man, Jesus.
John trys to make it all philosophical because he was arguing with Greeks who pretended to be philosophically sophisticated.
If we are Christians we do not need to convinced by some sort of intellectual argument.
All we need to know is that Jesus is the Messiah.
The Greeks did not understand the implications of what that would mean to the Jews, so John had to take a different approach.
We are showing our lack of understanding to fall into the trap that the pagan usurpers of the Church went into and adopt a handy crutch to bypass their lack of true faith.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus
Finally on this, Thomas uses the def article and still you will not except that he is referring to God but now state that the word theos can mean any god at all. This means surely that we must use the context to judge the correct usage and because you have rejected the possiblity of Christ's diety you will never find the context to read it as saying such.
exactly, we must use the context.

-the bible describes many other persons as "gods" so by context we cannot conclude that god is an exclusive title. in fact one of the definitions "god" is "mighty one", that can be anything.

-jesus is called a god. john 1:1 is very straightforward on how it should be worded. so thomas was not in error for calling jesus his "god"

-jesus himself clarified certain issues, for example john 10 where he says he an the father are one. the jews wanted to stone him because he "made himself god". jesus himself several verses later quotes psalms which calls humans "gods", he was showing that the title of "god" was not exclusive to Yahweh. this provided the context from which you can conclude that he is "united in will" with his father the same way a husband and wife become "one" flesh in that they are united.

but you bring up an interesting point, you said


My main concern with this understanding is that I am commanded in the 10 commandments to have no other god besides God and to worship and give Glory to no other. Indeed God himself says in Isaiah 42:8 that he will not give his glory to another. If Christ is just another god then why do all the creatures in creation give glory to Christ and God the Father? This would be blasphemy and totally unacceptable.


there are 2 parts to your statement, the first is worship.

jesus NEVER told anyone to worship him. he always told people to follow him and his example. that should be a red flag for the trinity (or duality) because jesus would have every right to ask for worship if he was god.

in fact jesus even said that the teaching were not his own, but that of the fathers. so you have jesus who is an example of how to serve god because he served god. if they were one, there would be no need to serve god because he would be god.

hebrews 5:8 talks about jesus learning obedience from the things he suffered.

so we see that we follow christ, not worship him.

second point you mention glory

john 11:[4] When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

matt 16:[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

how can glory be measured? its not tangible. we have to understand how glory works first

you mentioned in isaiah that god would not give his glory to someone else. but thats not what we see in the scriptures about jesus. jesus is glorified by glorifying god. by showing the world how good god is, he builds up his own glory. but it will never be more than god's.

so jesus recieving glory doesnt conflict with god's glory.


I am making this my final post. I will let you have the final word and I thank you for the discussion.


it was never about final words. but i definatly dont want anyone to get angry



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join