The term "Godhead."

[JLB]

For this is what the LORD (Yahwah) says: He who created the heavens, He is God (Elohiym); He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited: He says: "I am the LORD (Yahwah), and there is no other.

You Just quoted Jesus Christ who spoke through the mouth of the prophets and who laid the foundations of the earth.


Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11


again


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


The Spirit of the LORD , the Spirit of Christ spoke through the mouth of the prophets.

When you quote Isaiah you are quoting Christ Jesus the LORD.




JLB

 

[Josef]

The Catholics made Christ equal to God in scriptures to give the Pope power.

The is why they say the Pope is Christ incarnate,

Lord God The Pope





2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i
the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII
Cum inter,
Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris,
1685."It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross."
"Auckland Bishop Says Pope Presides From the Cross" AUCKLAND, New Zealand, SEPT. 20, 2004, Zenit.org
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally
thou art another God on earth.
" Labbe and Cossart's "
History of the Councils
." Vol. XIV, col. 109"We hold upon this earth
the place of God Almighty
" ...
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
In an Antwerp edition of the
Extravagantes
, the words,
"Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam"
(
Our Lord God the Pope
) can be found in column 153. In a Paris edition, they are found in column 140.
"
The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is
not a mere man, but as it were God
. and the vicar of God."
-Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

"
All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ
, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church,
all the same names are applied to the Pope
."
- On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17
Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is "the vicegerent upon earth,
not a mere man, but of a very God
;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is
"very God and very man."
Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum,
(on the transference of Bishops),
title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205
"God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff, who exercises the functions,
not of mere man, but of the true God
(...) dissolves, not by human but rather
by divine authority
." -Decretals of Gregory IX», Book 1, Chapter 7.3 "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown,
as king of heaven and of earth
and of the lower regions (infernorum)."
-Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)
"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not top much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many
gods.
"
-The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ,
he is Jesus Christ himself
, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National
July 1895

Hey All,
So what does this have to do with the topic of the Trinity?

If the Catholic Church was serious about the Pope being God, we would be discussing a quadrinity.

No Catholic I have ever met has told me the Pope is God.
Many consider him a succession of the apostles.
And that is what gives them (Popes) their authority.
As a protestant, I do not agree.
But I am not going have a fight to the death over it.

Has any Pope tried to add a book to the Bible?
As God they would have every right.
Even as apostles, would they not have the right?
But that warning in Revelation 22:19 applies to them as well.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Josef]

You Just quoted Jesus Christ who spoke through the mouth of the prophets and who laid the foundations of the earth.


Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11


again


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


The Spirit of the LORD , the Spirit of Christ spoke through the mouth of the prophets.

When you quote Isaiah you are quoting Christ Jesus the LORD.




JLB

Yup.
This is what I love.
Scripture is always right.
If a prophet was wrong on any prophecy, they were immediately stoned to death.
Can you imagine being a plumber and the penalty of a leak is death?
So being a prophet was a dangerous job.


Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[BB1956]

Jesef said,
"Hey All,Scripture was not altered.
I copied it word for word. Revelation 22 shows us Jesus applying these terms, such as, " . . . I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." to Himself." This verse below was added. Rev 22. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Quote from CherubRam Of course you can prove your accusation, yes? You know the warning for altering the contents of this book, correct?

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
How is that not what you are doing with your accusation?
The truth is undeniable.
Jesus is applying the attributes of God to Himself.

And John, who knew Jesus from the start of His public ministry, has no problem writing these words.[/QUOTE\]

Yes alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and omega is the last; one is the beginning and the other the end of the Greek alphabet. So the expressions “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” are parallel expressions and mean the same thing. They are applied to YHWH God. Isaiah 44:6 says, “Thus saith YHWH God, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, YHWH God of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.” Revelation 1:8 catches up this thought in Isaiah and adds to it the point that he is coming: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says YHWH God, ‘the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’”

So just because the verse preceding Revelation 22:13 speaks of that “Alpha and Omega” as coming does not necessarily mean it refers to Christ Jesus, whose second coming is frequently mentioned. Revelation 1:8 shows YHWH God as coming, and so Revelation 22:12 may do likewise. He comes representatively, through Christ Jesus. Revelation 4:8 speaks of YHWH God as coming, and Revelation 21 shows his presence with humankind. “Look! the tent of God is with humankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Re 21 Verses 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to YHWH God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons. They are Christ’s brothers, not sons, so the text is speaking of YHWH God, and it calls him “the Alpha and the Omega”. So when the Alpha and Omega is mentioned again in the very next chapter, why must the term suddenly shift to Christ Jesus instead of YHWH God? It does not.

Some argue that it refers to Christ Jesus at Revelation 22:13 because verse 16 shows Jesus speaking. But that does not mean the speaker of the preceding verses must also be Jesus. The use of the single quotation marks in the New World Translation shows a change in speakers between verses 15 and 16. We must remember that the revelation God gave to Jesus Christ was passed on to the apostle John by one of Christ’s angels, and that this angel sometimes spoke for YHWH God and sometimes for Christ Jesus; so we must watch for these changes and note them on the basis of content and context. It is true that when the angel speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 he states: “I am the First and the Last.” But a check of the context shows this “First and Last” was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by YHWH God. Others who follow in that first resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown by the footnote on “First” in Revelation 1:17 in the New World Translation, where “First” is shown to mean “Firstborn” by one ancient manuscript. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When “First and Last” is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of YHWH God no limitation is set on the meaning.

So we must be reasonable. When we see an expression that is applied to YHWH God several times in its unlimited sense, and then come across it again but not specifically indicated as applying to YHWH God, we cannot become flighty and switch the expression to Christ Jesus; and especially when we note that it is applied elsewhere, not in its unlimited sense, but only with definite limitation of meaning. Some try to capitalize on this expression to show it was used indiscriminately for either God or Christ, and in this way show God and Christ are the same. But logic and reason do not allow this, no more than do many other texts in the Bible.

 

[CherubRam]

Matthew 13:14
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

 

[Josef]

Jesef said,
"Hey All,Scripture was not altered.
I copied it word for word. Revelation 22 shows us Jesus applying these terms, such as, " . . . I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." to Himself." This verse below was added. Rev 22. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Quote from CherubRam Of course you can prove your accusation, yes? You know the warning for altering the contents of this book, correct?

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
How is that not what you are doing with your accusation?
The truth is undeniable.
Jesus is applying the attributes of God to Himself.

And John, who knew Jesus from the start of His public ministry, has no problem writing these words.[/QUOTE\]

Yes alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and omega is the last; one is the beginning and the other the end of the Greek alphabet. So the expressions “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” are parallel expressions and mean the same thing. They are applied to YHWH God. Isaiah 44:6 says, “Thus saith YHWH God, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, YHWH God of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.” Revelation 1:8 catches up this thought in Isaiah and adds to it the point that he is coming: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says YHWH God, ‘the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’”

So just because the verse preceding Revelation 22:13 speaks of that “Alpha and Omega” as coming does not necessarily mean it refers to Christ Jesus, whose second coming is frequently mentioned. Revelation 1:8 shows YHWH God as coming, and so Revelation 22:12 may do likewise. He comes representatively, through Christ Jesus. Revelation 4:8 speaks of YHWH God as coming, and Revelation 21 shows his presence with humankind. “Look! the tent of God is with humankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Re 21 Verses 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to YHWH God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons. They are Christ’s brothers, not sons, so the text is speaking of YHWH God, and it calls him “the Alpha and the Omega”. So when the Alpha and Omega is mentioned again in the very next chapter, why must the term suddenly shift to Christ Jesus instead of YHWH God? It does not.

Some argue that it refers to Christ Jesus at Revelation 22:13 because verse 16 shows Jesus speaking. But that does not mean the speaker of the preceding verses must also be Jesus. The use of the single quotation marks in the New World Translation shows a change in speakers between verses 15 and 16. We must remember that the revelation God gave to Jesus Christ was passed on to the apostle John by one of Christ’s angels, and that this angel sometimes spoke for YHWH God and sometimes for Christ Jesus; so we must watch for these changes and note them on the basis of content and context. It is true that when the angel speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 he states: “I am the First and the Last.” But a check of the context shows this “First and Last” was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by YHWH God. Others who follow in that first resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown by the footnote on “First” in Revelation 1:17 in the New World Translation, where “First” is shown to mean “Firstborn” by one ancient manuscript. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When “First and Last” is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of YHWH God no limitation is set on the meaning.

So we must be reasonable. When we see an expression that is applied to YHWH God several times in its unlimited sense, and then come across it again but not specifically indicated as applying to YHWH God, we cannot become flighty and switch the expression to Christ Jesus; and especially when we note that it is applied elsewhere, not in its unlimited sense, but only with definite limitation of meaning. Some try to capitalize on this expression to show it was used indiscriminately for either God or Christ, and in this way show God and Christ are the same. But logic and reason do not allow this, no more than do many other texts in the Bible.

Hey All,
God does not have to fit into human logic.
To the human mind one God that has three distinctly different personalities does not seem logical.
But that is what the Bible teaches.
So that is what I believe.
I can explain the Trinity fairly well using Scripture.
Do I completely understand the Trinity?
Of course not.
But I am not going to deny the truth I see in the Bible.


Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[LeviR]

Hey All,
God does not have to fit into human logic.
To the human mind one God that has three distinctly different personalities does not seem logical.
But that is what the Bible teaches.
So that is what I believe.
I can explain the Trinity fairly well using Scripture.
Do I completely understand the Trinity?
Of course not.
But I am not going to deny the truth I see in the Bible.


Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

A human with two or more distinctly different personalities would be considered to have split-personality disorder.

 

[Runningman]

A human with two or more distinctly different personalities would be considered to have split-personality disorder.

I believe that the nature of God and the nature of human are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist simultaneously unless there is a division between mind, body, and spirit. For example, we can want to not want to sin, but then find our body is actually tending toward certain things, perhaps instinctually, that aids its self-preservation. God said do not lie, therefore we do not want to lie, but we know that lying presents an advantage in some situations and telling the truth can actually lead to more problems and difficulties. When we walk in the light it's a concious, deliberate, choice about which road we will take.

Yet we can still partake of the divine nature. Peter said, "ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." So one the key to partaking of the divine nature is escaping corruption caused by lust or evil desires. Though Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are, he did not have any evil desires. This divine nature is attainable for us as well. Paul describes this very thing in his own way in Romans 7:13-25.

 

[Indentured Servant]

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, and theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

To translate three different Greek words as one word is deviously incorrect. This is not unlike having three different names for one street on a map (with the real name hidden), so that when a person used it, he wound up lost. Likewise of those who read Bibles with "Godhead" in it, thereby misleading a person that the trinity is "real".

Hence, the need for an accurate Bible, one that renders the Hebrew and Greek words and phrases with a high degree of precision, just as a map that can be counted on to provide exact information. Unfortunately, many Bibles follow the lead of the King James Bible, or is otherwise biased, because the trinity, along with a host of other religious teachings that are not true, that has such a strangle hold on so many.

My inquiry here is not a challenge, as I certainly agree with you on the fact that the word "Godhead" has no real meaning, other than a doctrinal buzzword...

How would you

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, and theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

To translate three different Greek words as one word is deviously incorrect. This is not unlike having three different names for one street on a map (with the real name hidden), so that when a person used it, he wound up lost. Likewise of those who read Bibles with "Godhead" in it, thereby misleading a person that the trinity is "real".

Hence, the need for an accurate Bible, one that renders the Hebrew and Greek words and phrases with a high degree of precision, just as a map that can be counted on to provide exact information. Unfortunately, many Bibles follow the lead of the King James Bible, or is otherwise biased, because the trinity, along with a host of other religious teachings that are not true, that has such a strangle hold on so many.

I certainly agree with you on the mistranslation, "Godhead," and the error of teaching a trinity.
How would you describe, or present the image of God, or explain the so-called "three personalities" of the trinity doctrine in order to present God scripturally?

 

[LeviR]

I believe that the nature of God and the nature of human are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist simultaneously unless there is a division between mind, body, and spirit. For example, we can want to not want to sin, but then find our body is actually tending toward certain things, perhaps instinctually, that aids its self-preservation. God said do not lie, therefore we do not want to lie, but we know that lying presents an advantage in some situations and telling the truth can actually lead to more problems and difficulties. When we walk in the light it's a concious, deliberate, choice about which road we will take.

Yet we can still partake of the divine nature. Peter said, "ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." So one the key to partaking of the divine nature is escaping corruption caused by lust or evil desires. Though Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are, he did not have any evil desires. This divine nature is attainable for us as well. Paul describes this very thing in his own way in Romans 7:13-25.

If the flesh of Jesus did not have its own desires, then Jesus could not be tempted in all ways as we are.

Rom 8:5 - For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9 - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell inyou. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:10 - And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The idea is that if you set your mind on walking after the desires of the flesh, you would be fleshly minded. And being fleshly minded is to not be subject to the law of God. It would be impossible because the flesh cares nothing for any laws. Fleshly minded is enmity against God.
Although in the flesh and tempted by its desires, Jesus was not fleshly minded.

 

[Free]

Yes alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and omega is the last; one is the beginning and the other the end of the Greek alphabet. So the expressions “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” are parallel expressions and mean the same thing. They are applied to YHWH God. Isaiah 44:6 says, “Thus saith YHWH God, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, YHWH God of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.” Revelation 1:8 catches up this thought in Isaiah and adds to it the point that he is coming: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says YHWH God, ‘the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’”

So just because the verse preceding Revelation 22:13 speaks of that “Alpha and Omega” as coming does not necessarily mean it refers to Christ Jesus, whose second coming is frequently mentioned. Revelation 1:8 shows YHWH God as coming, and so Revelation 22:12 may do likewise. He comes representatively, through Christ Jesus.

Or, maybe it's because Jesus is Yahweh in human flesh. You seemed to have left out Rev 1:7:

Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (ESV)

Revelation 4:8 speaks of YHWH God as coming, and Revelation 21 shows his presence with humankind. “Look! the tent of God is with humankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Re 21 Verses 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to YHWH God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons. They are Christ’s brothers, not sons, so the text is speaking of YHWH God, and it calls him “the Alpha and the Omega”. So when the Alpha and Omega is mentioned again in the very next chapter, why must the term suddenly shift to Christ Jesus instead of YHWH God? It does not.

But it does. Using similar reasoning, I could argue that only Jesus refers to himself as "the first and the last" in Rev 1:17 and 2:8, while God doesn't use that title of himself. So why would the title in Rev 22:13 suddenly be referring to God?

Some argue that it refers to Christ Jesus at Revelation 22:13 because verse 16 shows Jesus speaking. But that does not mean the speaker of the preceding verses must also be Jesus.

Except that Rev 22:13 is Jesus speaking. There is simply no reason not to believe that Jesus isn't speaking in verse 13.

The use of the single quotation marks in the New World Translation shows a change in speakers between verses 15 and 16. We must remember that the revelation God gave to Jesus Christ was passed on to the apostle John by one of Christ’s angels, and that this angel sometimes spoke for YHWH God and sometimes for Christ Jesus;

The NWT is not a legitimate translation and should not be used for serious theological study or to support one's beliefs. There is no one speaking in verse 15; that is John writing what was revealed to him. Verse 16 is clearly Jesus speaking, not an angel, just as in verses 12 and 13.

so we must watch for these changes and note them on the basis of content and context. It is true that when the angel speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 he states: “I am the First and the Last.”

That is Jesus speaking, not an angel, as the context clearly indicates.

But a check of the context shows this “First and Last” was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by YHWH God. Others who follow in that first resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown by the footnote on “First” in Revelation 1:17 in the New World Translation, where “First” is shown to mean “Firstborn” by one ancient manuscript. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When “First and Last” is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of YHWH God no limitation is set on the meaning.

"The first and the last" do not refer to Jesus's resurrection. There is no more reason to deny him the title "first and last" than there is to deny him "King of kings and Lord of lords:"

Five times "Lord of lords" appears in the Bible. Three times it is clearly used of God:

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psa 136:3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever;

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

And twice it is clearly used of Jesus:

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Given that these same titles are use of both God and Christ to mean the same thing, it is odd that to then say that other titles don't apply in the same way.

So we must be reasonable. When we see an expression that is applied to YHWH God several times in its unlimited sense, and then come across it again but not specifically indicated as applying to YHWH God, we cannot become flighty and switch the expression to Christ Jesus; and especially when we note that it is applied elsewhere, not in its unlimited sense, but only with definite limitation of meaning. Some try to capitalize on this expression to show it was used indiscriminately for either God or Christ, and in this way show God and Christ are the same.

It is the same expression with the same meaning. There is no reason, grammatically, contextually, or otherwise to believe differently and that it refers to God in one sense and to Christ in a different sense.

But logic and reason do not allow this, no more than do many other texts in the Bible.

Logic and reason most certainly allow it; they demand it as they do with other passages.

 

[Josef]

A human with two or more distinctly different personalities would be considered to have split-personality disorder.

Hey All,
God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are not human.
If you think about it, believers have split personalities as well.
We are the new creature trapped within the old sinful body.
We, as new creatures, don't want to sin.
But sometimes we do.
So in this way believers have split personalities also.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Runningman]

If the flesh of Jesus did not have its own desires, then Jesus could not be tempted in all ways as we are.

Rom 8:5 - For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9 - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell inyou. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:10 - And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The idea is that if you set your mind on walking after the desires of the flesh, you would be fleshly minded. And being fleshly minded is to not be subject to the law of God. It would be impossible because the flesh cares nothing for any laws. Fleshly minded is enmity against God.
Although in the flesh and tempted by its desires, Jesus was not fleshly minded.

yes, from the get go Jesus was setting himself about the work of his Father.

 

[LeviR]

yes, from the get go Jesus was setting himself about the work of his Father.

Yes, but we don’t rob him of his glory in overcoming the world. Where the first Adam failed, the second succeeded.

 

[BB1956]

Hey All,
God does not have to fit into human logic.
To the human mind one God that has three distinctly different personalities does not seem logical.
But that is what the Bible teaches.
So that is what I believe.
I can explain the Trinity fairly well using Scripture.
Do I completely understand the Trinity?
Of course not.
But I am not going to deny the truth I see in the Bible.


Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Runningman]

Yes, but we don’t rob him of his glory in overcoming the world. Where the first Adam failed, the second succeeded.

Exactly. And Jesus not being God does not diminish Jesus' glory.

 

[LeviR]

Exactly. And Jesus not being God does not diminish Jesus' glory.

It would be a piece of cake for God to overcome the world. But not for Jesus.

 

[LeviR]

It would be a piece of cake for God to overcome the world. But not for Jesus.

Who wants to rob Jesus of his glory?

 

[JLB]

As you can see there is no mention of a First and Last in the NIV, chapter 1:11.

“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:12-13 NIV

 

[BB1956]

What I clearly see in the scriptures is the distinct individuality and exact relationship of YHWH God and Jesus. The scriptures clearly teach that there is one God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ of whom are all things (or who created all things). So what I believe is that there is one God and Father, and also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ. But these are two beings not one being. YHWH God and Jesus Christ are one, only in the sense of being in harmony, or one(united) in a common purpose.