I
Imagican
Guest
Everyone speaks of Jesus as if there is ONLY ONE. Really? If someone talks of or teaches of a Jesus that is CONTRADICTORY to The Word, is this the SAME Jesus that IS the Son of God?
MEC
MEC
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Imagican said:
Hi Imagican,
People interpret what 'Jesus is like' and 'who He is' from the word. That there are differences does not surprise me, but what contradictions did you have in mind? In mainstream Christianity orthodoxy confesses that Jesus is truly man and truly God. This is not to say that the Son of God is the Father nor the Spirit, and that there is but one God. By the formula truly God and truly man I understand that the Chuch intends 'truly the Son of God and truly man.'
I
Imagican
Guest
Let's say that a church were to teach that Jesus WASN'T God. Would THAT Jesus be the TRUE Jesus, or would this Jesus be an 'immitation' of sorts? Some sort of 'other' Jesus?'
For you SEE that Satan has MANY disguises. Some of those, perhaps, even being that of Christ Himself. Of course, for Satan to accomplish this it would be a 'given' that his disguise be imperfect. As you have offered; the Word SHOULD be able to reveal the TRUE Christ from ANY substitute. BUT, what if what has been TAUGHT of the Word is done in a way that 'inserts' this imperfection as a TRAIT of the the True Jesus. And what if those that teach it insist that one MUST accept their teachings or be LOST? Placing those that are unlearned and being taught in a possition where they feel they MUST accept what they are taught or be an 'outcast' of sorts? Or through simple ignorance they accept what they are taught without even questioning it's validity?
MEC
For you SEE that Satan has MANY disguises. Some of those, perhaps, even being that of Christ Himself. Of course, for Satan to accomplish this it would be a 'given' that his disguise be imperfect. As you have offered; the Word SHOULD be able to reveal the TRUE Christ from ANY substitute. BUT, what if what has been TAUGHT of the Word is done in a way that 'inserts' this imperfection as a TRAIT of the the True Jesus. And what if those that teach it insist that one MUST accept their teachings or be LOST? Placing those that are unlearned and being taught in a possition where they feel they MUST accept what they are taught or be an 'outcast' of sorts? Or through simple ignorance they accept what they are taught without even questioning it's validity?
MEC
Imagican said:
Hi Imagican,
The words 'orthodoxy belief' against 'unorthodox belief' cover the contingency that you are worried about. The decription I offered you of Jesus being truly God and truly man is something that I can accept. I am not worried in the least that mainstream Christianity teaches it for so it should. The problem shifts when we start talking about 'what is orthodox?'
The problem is compounded by 'men who are able to say the right things' about Jesus (in my opinion) who are nevertheless devoid of faith. Then there are those who can be discerned to be of the household of faith who disgree with one another.
I don't think orthodoxy inserts 'imperfections' into Jesus - it is the opponents of orthodoxy who do the inserting - in their opinion making Him more human. The end result is that 'good is substituted for perfect'.
This is my start argument - Jesus saves x and y persons who happen to be Mexicians. For a while it is possible that x or y or both are outside a church so to speak. But I would say that God intends both x and y to be part of a 'flock', not to be alone sheep in the wilderness. So church is God's intention. There is no way around that regardless of how convincing our own conversion experience may have been or how dead a church may or may not be. The scripture that speaks about this more clearly than any other is:
1 Corinthians 12
12For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20But now there are many members, but one body.
21And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
So with this in mind, that God saves us in Christ into the body of Christ ( the Church). We can therefore understand why many churches say that 'outside the church' there is no salvation. They are saying outside of Christ there is no salvation AND if you are in Christ how is it possible NOT to be in a Church? There is also a strong historical context that is DIFFERENT today concerning Church 'membership'.
U
unred typo
Guest
I understand your concerns. There are many imitations of Jesus being proclaimed. There may even be perversions portrayed in so called biblical teaching that we are taught. As to whether the Bible itself has been tainted in translation or additions to the text, I could not say with certainty. The important thing that cannot be denied in reading the Bible is that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and it is this message of love, for friend and foe alike, written in blood, that we have been taught to follow. The fact that the disciples gave their lives to proclaim the love of God and believed their gospel enough to die for it, says volumes that can’t be misunderstood.
We are not going to be judged by our correctness in understanding the order and makeup of the godhead. We are going to be judged by our works. If you are following another Jesus who doesn’t teach you to love one another, forgive as you have been forgiven, turn the other cheek, repent of doing evil and be thankful and humble, you may be in trouble. If your god teaches you to kill the infidel, pray for prosperity, be a good steward of your money by gathering up as much as possible for your pleasures, or other unloving, selfish, greedy ambitions, you may have fame and wealth on earth and nothing toward your heavenly reward. You will face judgment for sins committed in the following of this false Jesus or god. If the TRAIT of your Jesus isn’t love for God and fellow man, even your enemies, you have a false Jesus.
It isn’t the hearers of the words of Christ that are justified, but the doers of his words.
G
GraceBwithU
Guest
ONE
The name Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek I·e·sous´, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye·shu´a‛ or Yehoh·shu´a‛ and means “Jehovah Is Salvationâ€Â. Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E. mentions some 12 persons, other than those in the Bible record, bearing that name. It also appears in the Apocryphal writings of the last centuries of the B.C.E. period or before Jesus arrived upon the earthly scene. It therefore appears that it was not an uncommon name during that period. The apostle Paul spoke of a "Jesus who is called Justus" at Colossians 4:11. However, the Jesus that most are familiar with is Jesus the Christ (Greek Khri·stos´ is equivalent to the Hebrew Ma·shi´ach, “Messiah; Anointed One.†) or Jesus Christ.
To help one to grasp that Jesus is not God, at Psalms 2:2, 3, David wrote prophetically: "The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying, "Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us."(American Standard Version) Thus, the God of the Bible, Jehovah, has "anointed" his son, Jesus and installed him as "king" of God's kingdom, for verses 5-7 says: "At that time he will speak to them in his anger and in his hot displeasure he will disturb them, [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain. Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father."
The apostles, after their arrest and release by the religious leaders, said in prayer to God: "“Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, and who through holy spirit said by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant, ‘Why did nations become tumultuous and peoples meditate upon empty things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one.’...And now, Jehovah, give attention to their threats, and grant your slaves to keep speaking your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand for healing and while signs and portents occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.â€Â(Acts 4:24-26,29-30) These apostles rightfully call Jesus, God's "holy servant".
The apostle Matthew wrote of Jesus, after having cured many, that "there might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet (at Isaiah 42:1-4), who said: “Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations. He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the broad ways. No bruised reed will he crush, and no smoldering flaxen wick will he extinguish, until he sends out justice with success. Indeed, in his name nations will hope.â€Â(Matt 12:17-21) Hence, Jesus is not God but is called God's "servant" and is his "only-begotten Son".(John 3:16; John 1:14,18)
Many also fail to grasp the meaning of "only-begotten". Yet the dictionary says: Begotten - "to be the cause of something, to be the father of a child".(Microsoft Encarta Dictionary), "to procreate or generate offspring".(Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language) Thus Jesus, as God's "only-begotten Son", has a Father, God, being ' generated as his offspring'.
To help one to grasp that Jesus is not God, at Psalms 2:2, 3, David wrote prophetically: "The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying, "Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us."(American Standard Version) Thus, the God of the Bible, Jehovah, has "anointed" his son, Jesus and installed him as "king" of God's kingdom, for verses 5-7 says: "At that time he will speak to them in his anger and in his hot displeasure he will disturb them, [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain. Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father."
The apostles, after their arrest and release by the religious leaders, said in prayer to God: "“Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, and who through holy spirit said by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant, ‘Why did nations become tumultuous and peoples meditate upon empty things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one.’...And now, Jehovah, give attention to their threats, and grant your slaves to keep speaking your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand for healing and while signs and portents occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.â€Â(Acts 4:24-26,29-30) These apostles rightfully call Jesus, God's "holy servant".
The apostle Matthew wrote of Jesus, after having cured many, that "there might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet (at Isaiah 42:1-4), who said: “Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations. He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the broad ways. No bruised reed will he crush, and no smoldering flaxen wick will he extinguish, until he sends out justice with success. Indeed, in his name nations will hope.â€Â(Matt 12:17-21) Hence, Jesus is not God but is called God's "servant" and is his "only-begotten Son".(John 3:16; John 1:14,18)
Many also fail to grasp the meaning of "only-begotten". Yet the dictionary says: Begotten - "to be the cause of something, to be the father of a child".(Microsoft Encarta Dictionary), "to procreate or generate offspring".(Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language) Thus Jesus, as God's "only-begotten Son", has a Father, God, being ' generated as his offspring'.
I
Imagican
Guest
Stranger,
Much of what you offer IS purely truth.
You vere from the topic though. Not a bad thing for you offerings deal with MUCH wisdom, (of which there seems to be so little of now days).
Let me start by offering this: you hit upon it but then altered what you had actually indicated you understood. The Church is NOT a 'particular' denomination or 'gathering' of people. The Church IS The Body of Christ, (those that believe in Him and worship THROUGH Him). Our present interpretation of The Church has become an understanding of 'churches', which have little if ANYTHING to do with The Church. And, EACH and EVERYTIME that any who are TRUE Christians, (I despise that word at times), offer their hearts in prayer and submission THEY ARE THE CHURCH.
So far as 'gathering'.........I can ASSURE you that Christ would MUCH rather one devote themselves to The Truth and follow HIM that gather in a group of 'false worshipers'. And ANYONE that follows The Truth would last only moments among a group of such. It's NOT the ritual that matters so much as the PURPOSE.
Now, let us suppose that there were a 'church' that DID NOT believe that Christ was God. Would Christ wish that we gather with 'those' in 'their church'? Do you see where I'm heading with this? What if there were a church that simply USED the name Jesus yet DID NOT EVEN KNOW HIM. Do you supppose that Christ would wish that we gather with these?
Much of what you offer IS purely truth.
You vere from the topic though. Not a bad thing for you offerings deal with MUCH wisdom, (of which there seems to be so little of now days).
Let me start by offering this: you hit upon it but then altered what you had actually indicated you understood. The Church is NOT a 'particular' denomination or 'gathering' of people. The Church IS The Body of Christ, (those that believe in Him and worship THROUGH Him). Our present interpretation of The Church has become an understanding of 'churches', which have little if ANYTHING to do with The Church. And, EACH and EVERYTIME that any who are TRUE Christians, (I despise that word at times), offer their hearts in prayer and submission THEY ARE THE CHURCH.
So far as 'gathering'.........I can ASSURE you that Christ would MUCH rather one devote themselves to The Truth and follow HIM that gather in a group of 'false worshipers'. And ANYONE that follows The Truth would last only moments among a group of such. It's NOT the ritual that matters so much as the PURPOSE.
Now, let us suppose that there were a 'church' that DID NOT believe that Christ was God. Would Christ wish that we gather with 'those' in 'their church'? Do you see where I'm heading with this? What if there were a church that simply USED the name Jesus yet DID NOT EVEN KNOW HIM. Do you supppose that Christ would wish that we gather with these?
I
Imagican
Guest
Unred,
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about, (sort of).
You seem to be honestly aware that there ARE 'false Christs' being taught and followed. Some would deny this and simply insist that ANYONE that uses the 'name' Christ was following the Son of God. How WRONG some of these 'truly' are. For there WILL come a time that MANY will say to Christ, "Look at ALL the WONDEROUS things that we have done IN YOUR NAME". And His reply to these: 'I don't even KNOW you'. So these MUST be 'pretending' to worship Christ by somehow having been misled into worshiping 'another' Christ.
What 'trait' could possibly be altered to change the 'true' Christ into 'someone else'? It MUST be something REALLY important. Something SO major that those that believe in it would INSIST that it MUST be believed in to 'be saved'. Otherwise there would only be a 'few' that would follow it. Yet we are told that there will be MANY that follow a 'false Christ'.
Enjoyed the comments and appreciate the participation in a topic that 'I' believe to be of monumental importance.
MEC
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about, (sort of).
You seem to be honestly aware that there ARE 'false Christs' being taught and followed. Some would deny this and simply insist that ANYONE that uses the 'name' Christ was following the Son of God. How WRONG some of these 'truly' are. For there WILL come a time that MANY will say to Christ, "Look at ALL the WONDEROUS things that we have done IN YOUR NAME". And His reply to these: 'I don't even KNOW you'. So these MUST be 'pretending' to worship Christ by somehow having been misled into worshiping 'another' Christ.
What 'trait' could possibly be altered to change the 'true' Christ into 'someone else'? It MUST be something REALLY important. Something SO major that those that believe in it would INSIST that it MUST be believed in to 'be saved'. Otherwise there would only be a 'few' that would follow it. Yet we are told that there will be MANY that follow a 'false Christ'.
Enjoyed the comments and appreciate the participation in a topic that 'I' believe to be of monumental importance.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
nadab,
Wow, I didn't know that they allowed such comments to be made anymore. Jesus NOT God? Hmmmm. I guess you HAVE been actually READING the topic opening and comments.......
I do NOT want to debate this issue however. I simply attempt to point out that there ARE false Christs' and there MUST be 'something different' about a false Christ from the TRUE Son of God. I will leave it up to the individual to discern WHAT this 'difference' may or may not be. Just simply being able to TEACH that it is SO would be a MAJOR accomplishment at this point.
But THANKS for your comments and DO NOT BE DISMAYED for there is MUCH truth to your 'understanding'.
MEC
Wow, I didn't know that they allowed such comments to be made anymore. Jesus NOT God? Hmmmm. I guess you HAVE been actually READING the topic opening and comments.......
I do NOT want to debate this issue however. I simply attempt to point out that there ARE false Christs' and there MUST be 'something different' about a false Christ from the TRUE Son of God. I will leave it up to the individual to discern WHAT this 'difference' may or may not be. Just simply being able to TEACH that it is SO would be a MAJOR accomplishment at this point.
But THANKS for your comments and DO NOT BE DISMAYED for there is MUCH truth to your 'understanding'.
MEC
U
unred typo
Guest
If the TRAIT of your Jesus isn’t love for God and fellow man, even your enemies, you have a false Jesus.
Thanks for posting it. It IS a topic of monumental importance. :smt023
If someone teaches a Jesus that is contradictory to what Holy Scripture states about him, then obviously he is not the same Jesus as in Scripture. It is clear that you are not even interested in the answer, so what is it that you are really after?Imagican said:
Hi Imagican,
The "comments" that I make are based on the Bible, just as Jesus, who said: "It is written".(Matt 4:4,7,10) The apostle Paul wrote that our love should "abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment."(Phil 1:9) Just as one needs a map or a set of instructions that is accurate, how much more so our understanding of the Bible. Hence, if one is sincere and serious about one's study of the Bible, then preconceived ideas must be discarded when truths of the Bible, such as Jesus being God's Son and not God or that the soul is not immortal, is discovered. One must let the Bible provide the "truth" and not the churches or religious leaders.
And there are major differences between "false Christs" and the "True son of God". For instance, at Matthew 24:4,5, Jesus, in answering his apostles question concerning his "presence" ("coming", King James Bible at Matthew 24:3) and the "conclusion of the system of things" ("end of the world", King James Bible), told them: "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many." He further said: "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it."(Matt 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)
After Jesus’ death, the Jews followed many false Messiahs, as Jesus had foretold. (Mt 24:5) “From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple [in 70 C.E.] a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers.†(The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 251) In 132 C.E., Bar Kokhba (Bar Koziba), one of the most prominent of the pseudomessiahs, was hailed as Messiah-king, establishing an independent Jewish state. In crushing the revolt that he led, Roman soldiers killed thousands of Jews and was conquered by the Romans in 135 C.E. Though initially called "Bar Kokhba" meaning "Son of a Star", after the failed revolt, he was referred to as "Simon bar Kozeba" meaning "Son of the lie".(Wikipedia) While such false Messiahs illustrate that many Jews were primarily interested in a political Messiah, they also show that they properly expected a personal Messiah, not just a Messianic era or Messianic nation. Among such later false claimants to messiahship were Moses of Crete, who in the fifth century, asserted to the Jews of Crete that he would divide the sea between Crete and Palestine, telling them that they only had to cast themselves into the sea and it would part before them. A great many drowned. However, Moses of Crete was nowhere to be found. That messiah was gone. The Jewish Encyclopedia lists 28 false Messiahs between the years 132 C.E. and 1744 C.E.â€â€Vol. X, pp. 252-255.(Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, pg 388)
"False Christs" would also become noticable during Jesus "presence" or the "conclusion of the system of things", the time period from his enthronement as king forward, and of which we are living in. For example, Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple cult in 1955, "was particularly fascinated with his ability to manipulate people" and claimed to be the "incarnation of Jesus", but then caused the mass suicide of over 900 members of his cult in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. He had authored a booklet called "The Letter Killeth" that pointed out what he felt were "contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities in the Bible".(Wikipedia) Such wicked persons who falsely lay claim to the title and office of the Lord Jesus Christ are included in the an·ti´khri·stos (Greek for “antichristâ€Â) mentioned five times by the apostle John.(1John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2John 7)
The real Jesus is subservient to his Father, for he clearly distinguished himself from God. For example, when speaking to the Jews, he said: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."(John 7:16,17) And the apostle Paul wrote of Jesus as having a Father, saying: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ....(and) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"(Eph 1:3,17; King James Bible)
The "comments" that I make are based on the Bible, just as Jesus, who said: "It is written".(Matt 4:4,7,10) The apostle Paul wrote that our love should "abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment."(Phil 1:9) Just as one needs a map or a set of instructions that is accurate, how much more so our understanding of the Bible. Hence, if one is sincere and serious about one's study of the Bible, then preconceived ideas must be discarded when truths of the Bible, such as Jesus being God's Son and not God or that the soul is not immortal, is discovered. One must let the Bible provide the "truth" and not the churches or religious leaders.
And there are major differences between "false Christs" and the "True son of God". For instance, at Matthew 24:4,5, Jesus, in answering his apostles question concerning his "presence" ("coming", King James Bible at Matthew 24:3) and the "conclusion of the system of things" ("end of the world", King James Bible), told them: "Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many." He further said: "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it."(Matt 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)
After Jesus’ death, the Jews followed many false Messiahs, as Jesus had foretold. (Mt 24:5) “From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple [in 70 C.E.] a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers.†(The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 251) In 132 C.E., Bar Kokhba (Bar Koziba), one of the most prominent of the pseudomessiahs, was hailed as Messiah-king, establishing an independent Jewish state. In crushing the revolt that he led, Roman soldiers killed thousands of Jews and was conquered by the Romans in 135 C.E. Though initially called "Bar Kokhba" meaning "Son of a Star", after the failed revolt, he was referred to as "Simon bar Kozeba" meaning "Son of the lie".(Wikipedia) While such false Messiahs illustrate that many Jews were primarily interested in a political Messiah, they also show that they properly expected a personal Messiah, not just a Messianic era or Messianic nation. Among such later false claimants to messiahship were Moses of Crete, who in the fifth century, asserted to the Jews of Crete that he would divide the sea between Crete and Palestine, telling them that they only had to cast themselves into the sea and it would part before them. A great many drowned. However, Moses of Crete was nowhere to be found. That messiah was gone. The Jewish Encyclopedia lists 28 false Messiahs between the years 132 C.E. and 1744 C.E.â€â€Vol. X, pp. 252-255.(Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, pg 388)
"False Christs" would also become noticable during Jesus "presence" or the "conclusion of the system of things", the time period from his enthronement as king forward, and of which we are living in. For example, Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple cult in 1955, "was particularly fascinated with his ability to manipulate people" and claimed to be the "incarnation of Jesus", but then caused the mass suicide of over 900 members of his cult in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. He had authored a booklet called "The Letter Killeth" that pointed out what he felt were "contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities in the Bible".(Wikipedia) Such wicked persons who falsely lay claim to the title and office of the Lord Jesus Christ are included in the an·ti´khri·stos (Greek for “antichristâ€Â) mentioned five times by the apostle John.(1John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2John 7)
The real Jesus is subservient to his Father, for he clearly distinguished himself from God. For example, when speaking to the Jews, he said: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."(John 7:16,17) And the apostle Paul wrote of Jesus as having a Father, saying: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ....(and) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"(Eph 1:3,17; King James Bible)
I wouldn't take such an argument to mean that one would believe in a different Jesus. As far as I can tell Jesus remained silent on such issues and those who argue one way or the other are adding to Christ but not necessarily in bad way. If Jesus is silent on an issue then our arguments need to come from somewhere else.wavy said:
However, when it comes to the nature of Christ, then one certainly can believe in a different Jesus. The difference of whether Jesus is God or not, which I know Imagican is getting at, is of the utmost importance. The Mormons believe one thing about who Jesus is, JW's another, and both contradict historical, orthodox Christianity. Yet all claim to follow Christ. I believe that salvation itself hinges on whether or not Jesus is God incarnate -- logic would seem to make it such as well as Scripture.
nadab
The real Jesus is "God the Son"- the Son of God. There is a clear biblical testament to this fact. St. John writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God" "Ho Theos eyn Ho Logos" The God was the Word.
Jesus, God the Son, through the Incarnation voluntarily takes upon himself a subservient role. He is not subservient by nature, but for the sake of drawing all things to the Father from which both the Holy Spirit and the Son eternally proceed, he, as St. Paul wrote in Philippians, "did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped but humbled himself and made himself unto a servant".
The Son of God, God himself, becomes the Christ in order to direct all to God in His fullness. This is why every Christian participates in the Trinitarian life. We participate in God's own inner life! The Father moves us towards the Son,indeed, He sends the Son! The Son reveals to us the image of the Father, the Holy Spirit seals in us this faith in the Trinitarian God.
Christ is "the Word of God". The Word of God can not be anything but God himself, for the "Word" is the direct expression of the essence of the Father. Just as our words express our will, our intention and the innermost parts of our being, so does Jesus express these things of God. Our words, in some sense, become an extension of us. Yet God is unqiue in that he does not recieve his language or words from a society, he is not taught how to express himself or how to speak. God's Word is unique to Him in that God's Word is formed fully and totally by Him alone. Nothing outside of Him forms how this Word is expressed, as in the human case where we are taught to speak. God's Word is His Own Essence, undefiled and perfectly made clear.
The real Jesus is "God the Son"- the Son of God. There is a clear biblical testament to this fact. St. John writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God" "Ho Theos eyn Ho Logos" The God was the Word.
Jesus, God the Son, through the Incarnation voluntarily takes upon himself a subservient role. He is not subservient by nature, but for the sake of drawing all things to the Father from which both the Holy Spirit and the Son eternally proceed, he, as St. Paul wrote in Philippians, "did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped but humbled himself and made himself unto a servant".
The Son of God, God himself, becomes the Christ in order to direct all to God in His fullness. This is why every Christian participates in the Trinitarian life. We participate in God's own inner life! The Father moves us towards the Son,indeed, He sends the Son! The Son reveals to us the image of the Father, the Holy Spirit seals in us this faith in the Trinitarian God.
Christ is "the Word of God". The Word of God can not be anything but God himself, for the "Word" is the direct expression of the essence of the Father. Just as our words express our will, our intention and the innermost parts of our being, so does Jesus express these things of God. Our words, in some sense, become an extension of us. Yet God is unqiue in that he does not recieve his language or words from a society, he is not taught how to express himself or how to speak. God's Word is unique to Him in that God's Word is formed fully and totally by Him alone. Nothing outside of Him forms how this Word is expressed, as in the human case where we are taught to speak. God's Word is His Own Essence, undefiled and perfectly made clear.
Devekut said:
It does not say 'the God was the word'. Theos is without the article.
Not necessarily. The Johannine gospel records Jesus as saying:
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. (John 8.42)
This statement only makes sense pre-incarnation. You do not 'send' an equal. One cannot deny that the Jesus of the gospels was genuinely subservient to the Father. If he faked it, it means nothing and robs Jesus of the humility wherewith he is praised.
The thing with Greek is that it does not actually matter. An article could or could not be used and sometimes it was neccessary. There's plenty of biblical cases in which we could legitmately translate "the God", but we simply say "God" being true to the spirit of monotheism. "This one was in the beginning with God" PROS TOV THEON, could read "with the God". This is evident right in the beginning of John which reads EN ARCHE, literally "IN BEGINNING". It would be the same to write it "EN TEI ARCHE" literally "in the beginning". The word "in" is indicated by the distinctive case-ending and does not neccessitate an article.
Since we have the article "ho" making Logos in the nominative case, and because Theos is written in the nominative, the article is not needed for both but could be used for both. "AND GOD WAS THE WORD". If both are nominative, both are the subject and could each be translated using the article "the".
Either way we have an explicit identification of the Word with God.
The Father and Son are different persons of the same essence. It is the Son, who proceeds eternally from the Father, who was therefore destined to draw all to the Father through Incarnation. This does not mean inequality in a somewhat similar way that both a man and woman having different roles in marriage does not imply inequality. The father is not inequal to the mother for not bearing children, nor is the mother inferior to the father for not producing semen.
The Word of God, if existing before creation, can not be anything other than God himself. The Word is the communcation or expression of God's essence. If God had a "Word" before creation all that Word could be composed of would be God Himself, taking it to be true that God does not recieve his "language" or means of expression from something other than Him, as is true in the human case.
This points to the mystery of the Trinitarian God, who can not possibly be concieved outside of an eternal "loop" of beginingless inverted self-activity. His Self-expression, His Image, His Son; the Word, endlessly proceeds from Him, the Father and ground of Being. The uncreated Son, perfectly expressing His Father as His Word, is the object of the Father's love and the Father the object of the Son. The Father, in order to communciate Himself to creation sends His uncreated Image who is perfect in His likeness and therefore, equal in essence.
Imagican said:
It depends on what foundational depiction you lay down first. If you refer to Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, then I'd say that you're speaking of the same Jesus that Christians believe. If you then assign to this Jesus some inaccurate attribute, then you're simply bearing false witness; you're still referring to the same Jesus. If you said this Jesus was the Messiah but was not the Son of God, then's when the questions come.
Devekut said:
Hi Devekut,
Nowhere in the Bible does it say "God the Son", but "Son of God", for even Satan, who knew Jesus personally, called him "a son of God", not God nor "God the Son".(Matt 4:3,6) The demons that possessed the man in the country of the Gadarenes said to Jesus: "What have we to do with you, Son of God ?"(Matt 8:29) Or at other times, "unclean spirits" would "prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: “You are the Son of God.†(Mark 3:11) In these instances, former "brothers" of Jesus in heaven did not call him God. Why ? Because these knew full well that Jesus is God's "only-begotten Son".(John 3:16) Why alone was Jesus called "only-begotten" since God has millions of other spirit sons ?(Dan 7:10; Job 38:7) "Only-begotten" comes from the Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´, meaning "the only one". In what sense was Jesus "the only one " or "only-begotten Son of God" ?(John 3:18) That he was the only son created directly by God himself, for Jesus is called the “firstborn of all creation†(Col 1:15) and the “beginning of the creation by God.â€Â(Rev 3:14)
At John 1:1, 2, the Greek reads: ""En arkhe en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai theos en ho Logos. Houtos en en arkhe pros ton Theon." This literally means "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word. This one was in beginning toward the God."(interlinear reading, "The New Testament in the Original Greek" by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881) There is no definite article "the" (ton) before the second instance of "god", but rather "and" (kai). In The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), by Benjamin Wilson, the interlinear reading says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word". Thus, this interlinear reading also says that the "Word" was "a god".
The book of John was written in Koine or common Greek which had a definite article, such as "the"(ton, ho), but no indefinite article,(corresponding to “a†or “anâ€Â). In the second occurrence of "god" (kai theos en ho Logos), there is no definite article. So, why did John use "the" before the first occurrence of God (Theon), but not before the second occurrence of it, and yet again in the third occurrence ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes, there is. One is a specfic black suit, the other is not. Likewise with the apostle John using the Greek definite article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ? Also, why is Jesus called the "Word of God" instead of the ' Word God' ?
By use of "the"(Greek ton), John is speaking of a specific person - God, whereas in using "god" without a definite article, he was identifying the "Word" as being godlike, or having a godly quality, thus describing the nature of the Word. Therefore, Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,†published in Journal of Biblical Literature, said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate (without definiteness ) preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.â€Â
Thus, five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god†in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind†or “godlike kind.†For example, "In the beginning the Word [Greek, Lo´gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,†The Complete Bible-An American Translation (1939), A New Translation of the Bible (1935); or “of divine being,†Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.â€Â(John 1:1,2)
The apostle John, in using the Greek article "ton" (the) before the first occurrence of God at John 1:1, 2 but not in the second occurrence, and yet in the third, was thereby pointing toward the Word, Jesus Christ, as having the quality of godlike ones, but not the person of God. If Jesus were God, then why did John twice say that the "Word" was with God ? This would have been unnecessary, for how can you be with someone and at the same time be that person ? Even Pontius Pilate identified Jesus as a specific person, by saying: "Look! The man!" (John 19:5, Greek, I·dou´ ho an´thro·pos ) He did not say ' Look! A man '.
If Jesus had been God, could the apostle John have said that ""no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god (monogenes theos - "only-begotten god", not "God only-begotten" ) who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him" ?(John 1:18; 1 John 4:12) Thousands of people saw Jesus during the course of his ministry, so how could John say this, not once, but twice, if Jesus were God and not be lying ? Too, how could Jesus or the Word be in the "bosom of the Father"(John 1:18, King James Bible) and at the same time be God ?
Those that accept the Trinity doctrine use John 1:1 as their basic foundation. Another example, the King James Bible, at 1 Timothy 3:16, reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Why does the King James Bible, along with some other Bibles, continue to read that "God was manifest in the flesh", since it is now known that this Scripture had been tampered with ? Through the efforts of Konstantin Von Tischendorf (1815-1874), who upon textual comparison with the Sinaitic Manuscript of the fourth century and John James Wetstein(1693-1754), in comparing this Scripture with the Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century, found that the Greek word for "He" had been changed to the abbreviation for "God". Thus, many Bibles today read: "He who" instead of "God".(American Standard Version, Williams New Testament, The New English Bible) Thus, it was revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
This was also true of 1 John 5:7, in which the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one†was added. In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of Trinitarianism evidently included these words as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage was put right into the text of a Latin Bible manuscript. Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or thre late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.â€Â-A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.