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
-
Shimshon
Member
Well, I don't believe he ever said "I am God, or I am the Father". I believe God revealed this to those who God intended to.
Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Jesus said he is the son God.
if he wasn't a god why then did he not rebuke Thomas for calling him that? my lord and my God is what Thomas said to the Jesus. if jesus isn't but a man or angel. how does an angel receive worship?
Shimshon
Member
Simple, they are one. They exist as one. Jesus is LORD (yhwh) to the glory of God the father.
I will also show you where both God and Messiah receive the same name and worship using this verse from philippians.
Isaiah 45:23In the name of myself I have sworn, from my mouth has rightly gone out, a word that will not return - that to me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear 24 about me that only in ADONAI (Yeshua) are justice and strength."
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God raised him to the highest place and gave him the name above every name; 10 that in honor of the name given Yeshua, every knee will bow - in heaven, on earth and under the earth 11 and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is ADONAI (YHVH) - to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God raised him to the highest place and gave him the name above every name; 10 that in honor of the name given Yeshua, every knee will bow - in heaven, on earth and under the earth 11 and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is ADONAI (YHVH) - to the glory of God the Father.
Shimshon
Member
Jesus is LORD to the glory of God the father. I do not beleive he was just a man or an angel.
the shekinah? that's never refered to as god. a glory is never worshipped but the reaction to it is to worship the eminator of glory.
No, not begging the question; just a question. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. We agree that God wants us to know him for who he truly is.
The problem here is the language used:
Gen 1:26-27, 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)
God is clearly speaking in the plural "us" and "our" but then verse 27 switches to singular "his own" and "he". Verse 27 is the fulfillment of verse 26, obviously. So "his own" and "he" refer back to "us" and "our." This does not make sense if God is speaking to those who are not also God. If the Messiah is God then that makes sense but only within the doctrine of the Trinity.
Do you believe others of the hosts of heaven are created in the image of God, and if so, what Scripture do you base that on?
So you don't think much of the OT is Scripture then, that much of it is uninspired and by God?
You believe which original witnesses? How can something written be inspired and yet not Scripture? This is getting a bit confusing.
Canonization wasn't an arbitrary process. There were certain criteria which were used to determine which books belonged in the canon and are the reason why such nonsense as the Gnostic texts were excluded.
I must ask again: Which witnesses do you believe?
Gregg
Member
I would admit that 'Person' creates difficulty. Christians probably use that term for several reasons; one that the Scriptures personify Him in so many ways: having hands, standing, sitting on His throne, that His footsteps were heard in the Garden of Eden.
The main reason Christians use 'Person' is because of Jesus Christ, whom we believe is Immanuel, the Son of God in the flesh of a Man. "He became flesh and tabernacled among us" (Jn 1:14).
Gregg
Member
Jesus Christ is a person, a flesh and blood Man, the Son of God who came in the flesh having been sent by the Father; both He and the Son distinguish between One another without insinuating division. Although I think 'Person' is a necessary word when distinguishing between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I do not draw a distinction in their nature, essence, or Eternal Being. YHWH is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was born on this earth as part human but was fully God.He had to be born as a human so we could relate to him as the humans that we are.
Gregg
Member
Yes, fully God and fully a flesh and blood man; and not only that we may relate to Him, but also that we may know the Father.
Gregg
Member
Mike, I would like for you to provide several definitions of words that you used above [I have underlined them]:
Lord -
begotten -
only-begotten -
essence -
substance -
Not trying to debate but would like clarification. Looking at the part I put in bold type above, do you think it should read Jesus Christ was a flesh and blood man? Do you think He is still flesh and blood or something else? His body was resurrected and He did appear to His disciples in physical form but I'm wondering if He is still maintaining that physical form or if He only did that for brief periods during the 40 days after his resurrection.
Greetings, WIP! 
When Jesus ate with the disciples after he was resurrected, he did so to reassure them. They thought he was a 'spirit' and were quite disturbed by that. He showed them that he was still flesh.
Have you anything here to eat?
We, of course, do not yet know what we shall be but we shall be like HIM. It seems to me that that truth also confirms what we don't know while in our present state. I believe that we will be like Jesus, the man who came in Flesh even if we don't fully know what that means (yet).
This may answer your question, or at least give us a hint.
He ate with them in the passage found in the book of Luke (above) to reassure them he was flesh and not a spirit and said, "a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Some will eat with their Master. I can't imagine what that will be like. Can you? Sharing Passover with the Savior? The thought overwhelms, doesn't it?
I love you, brother.
~Michael
When Jesus ate with the disciples after he was resurrected, he did so to reassure them. They thought he was a 'spirit' and were quite disturbed by that. He showed them that he was still flesh.
Have you anything here to eat?
We, of course, do not yet know what we shall be but we shall be like HIM. It seems to me that that truth also confirms what we don't know while in our present state. I believe that we will be like Jesus, the man who came in Flesh even if we don't fully know what that means (yet).
This may answer your question, or at least give us a hint.
Luke 22:16 said:
He ate with them in the passage found in the book of Luke (above) to reassure them he was flesh and not a spirit and said, "a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Some will eat with their Master. I can't imagine what that will be like. Can you? Sharing Passover with the Savior? The thought overwhelms, doesn't it?
I love you, brother.
~Michael
Last edited:
Greetings, Shimshon.
By way of introduction, I'm a friend of Jason (although we don't agree on everything 100% -- who could?).
I chose to speak to you because you said something about not believing that our Savior was "just" a man. I would agree with that to a point. There is no "just" about it. Jesus came in flesh. He is a man. As you know, His Father God is Spirit who fills all heaven and all earth. The doctrine we discuss (the doctrine of Christ) holds a vital understanding.
But before I go too far, let me also acknowledge what you and Jason have experience regarding speech over the internet. So often there is confusion. Maybe there is no reason for me to write to you about this except to seek your clarification. You do assert that Jesus (is) man, born of woman and that he came in flesh, right? You will also agree that after the resurrection he showed his disciples that he was flesh and not a spirit, right?
Pardon me if I misunderstood you but this doctrine is so important that John, the Apostle, used it to categorically delineate deceivers from believers.
Shimshon
Member
QUOTE="Free, post: 1022827, member: 19"]No, not begging the question; just a question. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. We agree that God wants us to know him for who he truly is.[/quote] Yes, I do believe it's obvious that God desires to reveal himself intimately to us. Yet, does he/can he reveal all of his true self? Meaning, can man intimately know who God is truly and understand it all? Are the depths of God knowable to mere man? The book of Job says no. But I do believe God has extended his hand because of the hugeness of his heart, which he desires to share with us intimately.
What the hebrew actually reads is;
And created God the man in your image, in the image of God created male and female created them.
What is highlighted in red are not translated into english. et refers to the demonstrative sense of 'entity', or more properly 'self'. But it's generally used to point out more difinitely the object of a verb or preposition, as in even or namely. B'tzal'mo means in 'your' image, the 'o' denotes this, as opposed to B'tzelim which also implies image but refers to being 'the' image and not 'your' image. The 'o' is a gramatical suffix that refers the image as 'God's' image, While tzelem refers to 'the' image of God. The 'b' means 'in'. So we get 'in 'your' image (b'tzal'mo) and 'in the image (b'tzelem). The root is the same 'image'. The 'oto' is the same as the 'et' and is refering to Elohim, and the 'otam' is again the same meaning as 'et' only this is refering to the male and female in the sentence.
In all these highlighted cases they refer to 'the entity' being refered to in the sentence. And is how you get 'his' when attempted to be understood in english. The hebrew shows plainly that Elohim/God created the man in God's image, in the image of Elohim God created both male and female.
And when I break that back down to verify it it reads as such;
And created God the man in Elohim's image, in the image of God created male and female, both.
The 'language used', his or he is always inserted into the english because the red highlighted words are signs of the definite direct object, and are not translated in English but generally will precede and indicate the accusative.
In short, the hebrew does not prove the trinity because of 'the language used'. It does prove a point by the use of 'elohim', which implies more than one. But it surely does not imply 'only' three.
Yes, this is how I see Christianity has misunderstood these things from it's inception. If we start with the actual hebrew you will hopefully notice something.
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
v'Yiv'ra[and created] elohiym [God] et-haadam[the man] b'tzal'mo[in your image] b'tzelem[in the image of] elohiym[God] bara[created] oto zakhar[male] un'qevah[and female] bara[created] otam
v'Yiv'ra[and created] elohiym [God] et-haadam[the man] b'tzal'mo[in your image] b'tzelem[in the image of] elohiym[God] bara[created] oto zakhar[male] un'qevah[and female] bara[created] otam
What the hebrew actually reads is;
And created God the man in your image, in the image of God created male and female created them.
What is highlighted in red are not translated into english. et refers to the demonstrative sense of 'entity', or more properly 'self'. But it's generally used to point out more difinitely the object of a verb or preposition, as in even or namely. B'tzal'mo means in 'your' image, the 'o' denotes this, as opposed to B'tzelim which also implies image but refers to being 'the' image and not 'your' image. The 'o' is a gramatical suffix that refers the image as 'God's' image, While tzelem refers to 'the' image of God. The 'b' means 'in'. So we get 'in 'your' image (b'tzal'mo) and 'in the image (b'tzelem). The root is the same 'image'. The 'oto' is the same as the 'et' and is refering to Elohim, and the 'otam' is again the same meaning as 'et' only this is refering to the male and female in the sentence.
In all these highlighted cases they refer to 'the entity' being refered to in the sentence. And is how you get 'his' when attempted to be understood in english. The hebrew shows plainly that Elohim/God created the man in God's image, in the image of Elohim God created both male and female.
And when I break that back down to verify it it reads as such;
And created God the man in Elohim's image, in the image of God created male and female, both.
The 'language used', his or he is always inserted into the english because the red highlighted words are signs of the definite direct object, and are not translated in English but generally will precede and indicate the accusative.
In short, the hebrew does not prove the trinity because of 'the language used'. It does prove a point by the use of 'elohim', which implies more than one. But it surely does not imply 'only' three.
I know you're not going to like this answer, but, since scripture does not state that the 'host of heaven' are not created in God's image we really don't know. One would have to understand and define what it means to be 'in the image' of God. And considering we are having this discussion amid disagreements about 'the image of God' according to 'scripture' I'd say we have not yet agreed upon the definition, between ourselves.
In this remark I sense your getting frustrated with me. Sorry. The bible is a book, it contains a witness. The Spirit is alive and living and dwelling within God's followers, in Messiah. One is alive and living and able to reach in between the bone and the marrow. The other is a witness or record of the Spirit. In my understanding, scripture is a tool, good for many things, as Paul said. But it's not what was sent from heaven to led me into all truth. Funny, because in Judaism they have a saying 'lo b'shamayim', meaning Torah is not in heaven so as to be actively given by God, but it's written by those who God gave authority to understand it, namely the Rabbanate. The funny thing is Christianity does the same thing by saying only a certain 'people' (church fathers) have rightly understood the Spirit so the rest of us should believe and follow 'their' doctrines. In Judaism it's called halacha.
Sorry, when I speak of the witnesses I mean the apostles.
You do realize that the book of John and Revelation were at times removed from the canon? Please refer to my last response in regards to the canonization.
Last edited:
Shimshon
Member
Thank you for your concerns. Yes, I do believe God came in the form of a man called Yeshua who you know as Jesus. I'm not gnostic to believe Messiah is only a spirit.
Shimshon
Member
When trying to understand and relate to an invisible entity one must employ the use of anthropomorphic descriptions. It's inevitable.
B
Brother Mike
Guest
What? Some Old Roman Guys made those words. I know Substances and Essence is from the same material, but in Greek and the translated into Latin. The document was written in Greek
I was really not wanting this thread to get that complicated. Why can't things just be simple for once? This goes far beyond what others here will be able to follow and accept. It happens every time you bring up some Trinity doctrine.
Phi 2:11 kjva And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I am not sure what Greek Text your using, but all mine have Kurios, which means To have complete control over the Masters things. I can't find any text using Despotes here.
Jud 1:4 kjva For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jude says there is ONLY ONE LORD GOD. There is no other God like Him or is Him. The Holy Spirit uses Despotes for the Only Lord God. We both know that came fromt he Hebrew in different forms as
Yehovah, Adoni, and Elohah.
Jesus not one time every recived these titles. Jude makes it very Clear there is Only one Yehovah, Adoni, and there is a Lord (Kurios) Jesus Christ.
That is two differnt people here. FAther and Son.
Good heads up on Despotes, I was not even going to go there as it's not accecptable to those who make their Reliegion around Monotheism, and not Scriptures.
However, for just discussing a Cathloic Doctrine, it's a bit advanced.