Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
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/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
The Father calls Jesus God with an eternal throne. So in some context Jesus is God. I have given you that context. The Father stated no God was formed before Him nor will there be one after Him. Therefore, Jesus cannot be another God. He and the Father are one. Col 1:19 therefore must be the Father's Deity gifted by His will not formed.that does not harmonize with Jesus' word.
It is disingenuous to disregard Jesus' word and bring up something not so clear word of the Scripture.
Your God.The Father calls Jesus God with an eternal throne. So in some context Jesus is God. I have given you that context. The Father stated no God was formed before Him nor will there be one after Him. Therefore, Jesus cannot be another God. He and the Father are one. Col 1:19 therefore must be the Father's Deity gifted by His will not formed.
Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son from the Father. Such a being would be the Son and would be God.
The Spirit was sent in Jesus's name.Well then, we are also one with the Father. That would mean God is a multitude.
What is your evidence that "it should read" how you say it should? Look what the Father says of the Son starting in verse 10:Your God.
Psalm 45.
6 Your throne, (O God / God of the living ones,) will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore (God / God of the living ones,) your (God / God of the living ones,) has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
Not correct
Hebrews 1:8.
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8.
It should read.
your (God / God of the living ones,) has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
I suspect someone is putting words in Paul’s mouth.
Your God.
Psalm 45.
6 Your throne, (O God / God of the living ones,) will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore (God / God of the living ones,) your (God / God of the living ones,) has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
Not correct
Hebrews 1:8.
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8.
It should read.
your (God / God of the living ones,) has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
I suspect someone is putting words in Paul’s mouth.
You are not looking at things correctly. Yahshua says the Father is the creator.What is your evidence that "it should read" how you say it should? Look what the Father says of the Son starting in verse 10:
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)
Again, that is what the Father is saying of the Son (v. 8), but that is a quote from Psalm 102 which is a Psalm about Yahweh:
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)
Who is (Elohiym / God of the living ones?)
I suspect rather you are the one led astray not the Apostle Paul nor the writer of Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:8 - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com
Hey, don't blame me. The apostle John wrote it. I didn't. And I'd say as a personal disciple of Jesus that gives him 100% credibility.You also have zero credibility.
We acknowledge it and we're honest about it. I assume you're referring to the Johnannine Comma interpolation in 1 John 5.7-8. "Forgery" is taking it too far and makes a moral judgment that can't be sustained. But yes, the verses themselves seem to be an interpolation that is not original to the New Testament, and that is why most modern Bible translations omit it.And what do you guys do when you use a study bible that shows a Trinity proof text is a forgery?
How am I not looking at things correctly when Heb 1:10-12 clearly states that the Father says that Psalms 102:25-27 applies to the Son, as creator? That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3.You are not looking at things correctly. Yahshua says the Father is the creator.
Remember, that goes back to John 1:1-14 and Phil 2:6-8. There is the ontological Trinity, how the Trinity exists in and of itself, and the economic Trinity, how the persons of the Trinity relate to each other and to humans in the plan of salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation. John 1:1-3 and Phil 2:6 show us the ontological Trinity, how God exists in and of himself, which is in agreement with Heb 1:10-12.If Yahwah is Yahshua's God, and Yahshua is a servant of Yahwah; then how is it that he is part of a Trinity?
I think so too. It's a good, well reasoned response.Wow!
Westcott and Hort omitted it.We acknowledge it and we're honest about it. I assume you're referring to the Johnannine Comma interpolation in 1 John 5.7-8. "Forgery" is taking it too far and makes a moral judgment that can't be sustained. But yes, the verses themselves seem to be an interpolation that is not original to the New Testament, and that is why most modern Bible translations omit it.
See, we can have a fair and honest discussion and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of views. But it goes both ways. While there are good grounds for excluding the Johnannine Comma, there is no basis for excluding John 1:1 . A fair and honest discussion would acknowledge that.
Jesus sure did claim to be God:These are all lies because you have been dismissing Jesus' own word.
Jesus never claimed to be God, period.
If you have been reading the Bible, you can never come up with "Jesus is God" dogma.
You know it is not there if you have been reading the Bible yourselves.
You guys are blindly following your corrupt leaders.
Sorry, don't buy the whole corrupted Alexandrian conspiracy theory reaction to Westcott and HortWestcott and Hort omitted it.
Modern day translations derive from their Revisionist Greek text.
They used Alexandrian texts from Alexandria (Egypt) when that location was notorious for corrupt Greek texts.
With you on this one thoughJesus sure did claim to be God:
Well, it is historical fact.Sorry, don't buy the whole corrupted Alexandrian conspiracy theory reaction to Westcott and Hort
Those scriptures do not state what you think.How am I not looking at things correctly when Heb 1:10-12 clearly states that the Father says that Psalms 102:25-27 applies to the Son, as creator? That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3.
Remember, that goes back to John 1:1-14 and Phil 2:6-8. There is the ontological Trinity, how the Trinity exists in and of itself, and the economic Trinity, how the persons of the Trinity relate to each other and to humans in the plan of salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation. John 1:1-3 and Phil 2:6 show us the ontological Trinity, how God exists in and of himself, which is in agreement with Heb 1:10-12.
John 1:14 and Phil 2:7-8 show us that the Son, as the second person of the Trinity, chose to take on human flesh and die so that humans can be reconciled to God. In the economic Trinity, then, the Son chose to subordinate himself to the Father, as God incarnate so he could be the spotless Lamb for the propitiation of our sins. However, that in no way means he is not God nor not equal to the Father.
I think so too. It's a good, well reasoned response.