JudaicChristian
Member
Yahshua is Yahwah's salvation. The oldest documents of Matthew do not have the trinity formula. Also, the other proofs in the old testament are not correct translations.seekandlisten said:
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Christian Beliefs
- Thread starter seekandlisten
- Start date
shad said:
Hi Shad. The scripture that you have to remember in reference to Jesus being God is John chapter one.. Jesus is in fact God.. He is not just the Son but He is God.. Just as the H.S. is God and the Father is God. If Jesus was not God then we would still be in our sins and would have not chance of Salvation. The spotlless, sinless, perfect Lamb was the only way that we can get in.. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh.. The God-man... 100 percent man and 100 percent God...
francisdesales
Member
mdo757 said:
You are mistaken regarding Matthew...
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt 28:19
People are baptized in God's NAME, which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As to the OT, merely asserting "the translations are not correct" is not good enough.
seekandlisten
Member
ManofGod said:
John 1 speaks of how the Word became flesh. It does not say Jesus is equal to God the Father or that he is in fact the Word. What does the Word mean here? It speaks of Jesus being beside the Father in the NIV in the same passage. Depending on one's view of the bible as well as what version is accepted comes in to play here as I noticed through some versions of John 1 the promotion of the trinity is more prominent. I have to ask you, do you believe those who believe in Jesus as the dying for their sins stand before God for judgement?? Is it not the least of these, the servants of all, that will inherit God's Kindom? Does God not judge us on our inward thoughts and on what's in our heart?
Steve76
Member
seekandlisten said:
The NIV is dangerous - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
KJV - rules...If it wasn't for Tyndale we would be screwed. All versions since the KJV have just diluted,polluted and perverted scripture..
Of course Jesus is equal to God, He was God as one of us, giving us a chance and making us realise the truth. ;)
Godhead rules!
seekandlisten
Member
Steve76 said:
I'm sure if you read back through this thread you can see that I do not hold Jesus equal with God. I also don't believe scripture to be infallible so it doesn't really matter to me which version one uses. Seeing as the KJV wasn't assembled until 1611 and the trinity was put in place in 325 A.D., it's not surprising that this doctrine would show up in different versions of the bible. King James 1 endorsed the KJV due to supposed problems with the original translation into Enlish.(i think 2 translations in English were before the KJV)
JudaicChristian
Member
Do the forum rules allow me to post historical proof about Matthew 28?francisdesales said:
seekandlisten
Member
mdo757 said:
If this is just going to take this topic down the road of errancies and the infallibility of the bible then I would suggest maybe starting a new thread as that is a debate that is never solved. If it specifically has to do with why Jesus is not God or Jesus is God then might be of value to someone in this thread.
seekandlisten
Member
Steve76 said:
I read the NIV and KJV bibles. As for your last statement, I would almost say the Godhead was hijacked by the interpretation of it by man, the trinity.
Steve76
Member
Free said:
I understand what you are saying but the point of this thread is leading to scripture, and scripture has changed since the KJV. The Godhead is removed + 32 other important scriptures. Christian beliefs should come from correct doctrines not perverted ones. I don't want to change the subject here but given that the NIV is used in a lot of Churches...I'm concerned!
Well, it is a different topic that requires its own thread. If you want to dredge up an old thread to talk about different versions, then go ahead. Your fallacious position on the matter really has no relevance in this thread anyway. This topic is more or less about the Trinity and most modern versions do support it.Steve76 said:
seekandlisten
Member
steve,
I'd be happy to give you my thoughts in regards to scripture and different translations/versions as well as hear what you have to present but I have to agree with free and say another thread would be more appropriate as not to add more confusion to this one.
I'd be happy to give you my thoughts in regards to scripture and different translations/versions as well as hear what you have to present but I have to agree with free and say another thread would be more appropriate as not to add more confusion to this one.
seekandlisten
Member
mutzrein said:
I would like to get this thread back to a point that works more to understanding and learning then discord. I would like to address this poist mutzrein but I am far to tired right now so I will get to it as soon as I can. I look forward to discussing this more.
seekandlisten
Member
I think one’s interpretation and understanding of the bible comes in to play a big part in this discussion of whether or not Jesus was actually indeed equal to God. My first instinct is based on logic alone that goes with believing Jesus can’t actually be God. One cannot create Himself?? Also the logic if one thing is created it must have a creator. If you are going to base the belief off of plainly the bible says so well that is not how I understand it. If you believe the bible to be the literal spoken Word of God, why would He confuse us with the different references? God’s Word is perfect.
Now, in regards to the term itself, firstborn of the sons of God to me means one must be born rather than created. It also goes along with what ‘firstborn’ itself actually means. We see in the bible that firstborn is one’s birthright, I’m not going to get into a big definition here. I also think one could say that ‘firstborn’ would be more along the lines of the position of pre-eminence rather than time of birth. We see in the bible the rights and privileges, blessing, not always going to the one who was born first. Manassah was the first one born, but Jacob’s (Israel’s) blessing went to Ephraim instead giving him the position of firstborn. (Gen. 48:13-22) God even references Ephraim as the first-born in Jeremiah 31:9. You see the actual first one born being passed over with Jacob and Esau as well. The nation of Israel was named after Jacob. In Exodus 4:22 God calls Israel His first-born.
Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance. We can clearly see that the nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and is not the first nation to exist. However, God refers to Israel as the first-born among all nations. Logically this would make Jesus first-born of all creation.
For further reference, Isaiah 14:30, “first-born of the poor†means “the poorest of the poor.†Job 18:13, “first-born of death†means Job’s disease was the worst of all diseases. Psalms 89:27, David was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn, the highest of the kings. The “first-born of the dead†in Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 to me means Jesus is basically pre-eminent over death, the first-born of creation, us.
"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV
Origen even says, “And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ‘At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also He made the ages.â€
So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?
"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV
Can one be the mediator between themselvef and someone else? Galatians 3:19-20, I think this might also make reference to Moses and we know that Jesus was superior to Moses. John 3:14-15, Hebrews 3:1-2, Hebrews 3:3
Comments?
Now, in regards to the term itself, firstborn of the sons of God to me means one must be born rather than created. It also goes along with what ‘firstborn’ itself actually means. We see in the bible that firstborn is one’s birthright, I’m not going to get into a big definition here. I also think one could say that ‘firstborn’ would be more along the lines of the position of pre-eminence rather than time of birth. We see in the bible the rights and privileges, blessing, not always going to the one who was born first. Manassah was the first one born, but Jacob’s (Israel’s) blessing went to Ephraim instead giving him the position of firstborn. (Gen. 48:13-22) God even references Ephraim as the first-born in Jeremiah 31:9. You see the actual first one born being passed over with Jacob and Esau as well. The nation of Israel was named after Jacob. In Exodus 4:22 God calls Israel His first-born.
Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance. We can clearly see that the nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and is not the first nation to exist. However, God refers to Israel as the first-born among all nations. Logically this would make Jesus first-born of all creation.
For further reference, Isaiah 14:30, “first-born of the poor†means “the poorest of the poor.†Job 18:13, “first-born of death†means Job’s disease was the worst of all diseases. Psalms 89:27, David was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn, the highest of the kings. The “first-born of the dead†in Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 to me means Jesus is basically pre-eminent over death, the first-born of creation, us.
"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV
Origen even says, “And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ‘At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also He made the ages.â€
So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?
"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV
Can one be the mediator between themselvef and someone else? Galatians 3:19-20, I think this might also make reference to Moses and we know that Jesus was superior to Moses. John 3:14-15, Hebrews 3:1-2, Hebrews 3:3
Comments?