Not necessary. The Trinity is explained in other places in the Bible
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If Jesus was God, explain this verse...
- Thread starter Aamer
- Start date
Not necessary. The Trinity is explained in other places in the Bible
If the Trinity is truthful doctrine, then sure it was necessary!!
His audience was Jews, and they worshipped Yahweh!
If Jesus was (part of) the God he promoted, Peter would have stressed that. They needed to know who they would have been giving their worship to, if God was different than Who they worshipped; don't you think?
But Peter did not, rather, he called Jesus, God's "Servant."
Not 'the Father's servant', or 'the Holy Ghost's Servant'; simply God's Servant. (John 20:17)
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Were? I don't see it anywhere. But why is everyone calling Jesus a man? Why is the bible calling God the God and father of Jesus if co-equal? Why is Jesus subject to our Creator? Why did Jesus have to be born if he was a God? Why did God give everything to his son if he was the same as his father. How can a son be the father and the father be the son?
Nowhere in scripture does it talk about a triune God. 1+1+1=3, not 1.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
The book of Job is an allegory with the intent to point to the role of Israel qua Immanuel between God and Mankind. The concept of literality here gives places to the metaphorical. Hence, even Satan, a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man could be shown as an element with the power to persuade HaShem into changing His mind like a man.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
This is according to the gospel of Paul. Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew.
I respectfully disagree. The account says the "sons of the true God (Angels, real spirit beings) took their station" before God, the same as Satan when he "took his station". And Satan "entered right among them" when doing so. (It would indeed be confusing, if the account switched between real and metaphorical beings in mid-sentence.)
And the event occurred, not to 'persuade' God to 'change His mind', but rather to issue a challenge regarding Job's integrity under severe trial. (In Job 2, that challenge was extended to include all 'men', an issue still in effect today.)
Furthermore, it was Satan who "struck Job", not God. Again the actions of an individual, a (spirit) person.
In Exodus 7, where Moses threw down his staff and it became a snake, Jannes and Jambres also threw down their staffs, and they became snakes! Only an invisible Intelligent force could have been behind that, working against God's purpose.
The same force, which now includes other fallen Angels, are at work even now, in the world today (as they were in Daniel's).
Daniel 10:13
Take care.
It was necessary to explain it bu when or wher is not important.
All of the Bible is written for everyone, not just the Jews.
Not if it was stressed on other parts of the Bib le, such as Jn 1:1 & Gen 1:26.
Not in my Bible---NASB
The first word for deity in the Bible, Elohim, is a singular noun with a plural ending. That seems a little foolish for the creator of all languages to make.
Who do you think the "us' and "our" in Gen 1:26 refers to?
It may contain an allegory, but all allegories are based on a literal, historical event.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Elohim is plural for Eloah. In most cases, it's talking about the angels. We know this from other verses about angels were in Hebrew it is Elohim. In certain cases, man can be Elohim too, like the Lev Priests and the Judges were called Elohim. And in some other cases, the translators got it wrong and put in angels were it should have been man.
But to answer your question.... who is the "us" or "our" in Genesis. That one is easy. It is the angels with their Creator. The angels helped GOD in creation as well as creating man. They are the "fingers" of God and the bible quotes. But we know it is not Jesus, because he was not born yet.
Angels have no creative ability and an omnipotent God does not need help in what He creates. Think about this: God SAID. God spoke the universe and all that we have into being.
Heb 1:2 - in these last days(God) has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
I can't be dogmatic, but IMO angels were created after the heavens and the earth.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Angels have no creative ability? Wow. God works through angels too. Elohim - God manifest in a multitude. Plural for Eloah. Elohim in scripture in most cases are referred to the angels. Look at Jesus, he had to creative ability too. But he did when God was working "though" him. He could do anything. Even Jesus said that I cannot do anything without my father.
Awesome verse isnt it!! IT's telling us that God spoke to his son when Jesus was alive on earth. God also Jesus heir of all things. And, the verse is telling us that God also made the world. But..... I think your thinking it really says that Jesus made the world. It doesnt...
Angels were not created after the heavens and earth were made. They were here before. Our English bibles say God said.... The org language is the Elohim said... Who's the Elohim.
Psalms 8 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." In Hebrew it is a little lower than the Elohim.....
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
I can't agree with you. Jesus' parable about the Richman and Lazarus in Luke 16 is an allegory which could never be based on a literal, historical event. Jesus was a Jewish man and, hell-fire could never be a historical event for a Jew.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
Literally speaking, neither God nor Satan "struck Job" into all the catastrophic condition he was hit with. The text is an allegory. It means that literally, nothing happened to Job; furthermore, the personage Job never even existed in reality, according to the great Theologian Moses Maimonides. The allegory is a Jewish novel meant to inform about the role of Israel qua Immanuel between HaShem and Mankind. The point of the allegory is found in the last chapter 42:7-10.
First of all parables are not allegories. The story of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us that Sheol, not hell, is divided into 2 section---torments and paradise(Abraham's bosom). Jesus promised the believing thief that he would be with Him in paradise. Peter tells us that Jesus preached to the prisoners in prison, Sheol(I Pet 3:19). When Jesus died, the paradise side was emptied. The graves were opened and those in paradise, rose and walked around town. When Jesus ascended into heaven, he took those who came out of the grave with him.
Sinners who die still go to "torments' in Sheol
Jewish men then and now and Gentile men now, do not know everything that Jesus knows. Jesus mentions hell more than He mentions love.
God created angels to minister to those who will inherit salvation(Heb 1:14). Working through angels does not give
Not true. The GREAT number of times it refers to God.
During His incarnation Jesus did not have creative power. He emptied Himself of all of His creative powers(Phil 2:7). He had to be made exactly like His brethren(Heb 2:17) and we have no creative ability. That is why He said He could do nothing on His own initiative.
Genesis 1:26 is telling us that Jesus is one of the Us and Our. Althought I beleie that i a reference to Christ, not to Jesus, His incarnation title.
That Elohim is God. Since angels are ministering spirits to those who will inherit salvation, there was no need to have them until there were some for them to minister to.
That refers to His incarnation.
[
Genesis 1:26, 'stresses' it? God says, "Let us"..... That's stressing it? Come on. If anything, it shows distinction. God was talking to somebody else, not Himself.
You've never said to a friend, "Let us go somewhere"?
Regarding John 1:1 (and vs. 2).....
Revised Standard reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Douay, JB, NAB use similar wording.)
However, The Bible—An American Translation (1935), by J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed reads: “the Word was divine”; Moffat, “the Logos was divine”; The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808), published in London, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.”
Now, look at the context. Which translation of John 1:1-2 agrees with it? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1:14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, vss.1 &2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Hebrews 1:3.
Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)
Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant.
Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”
Noted scholar & highly respected Roman Catholic priest John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. (Bold type is mine.)
Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalms 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·himʹ; Greek, the·oiʹ, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Yahweh and were to speak his law.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Incarnation? When did we put that word into the bible. I dont see that one anywhere..... So why use it?......
Most trinies read this one wrong anyhow. So.. what are these verses saying...
It does NOT say, that he emptied himself of all his creative powers.
"Who, being in the form of God" And yes, that is correct, but that doesnt make him God. We need to be in the form of God too. We also carry or bear God's name. We represent our Creator. We want to manifest his charactor.
"thought it not robbery to be equal to God" That's what the Jews though!! And now look at the next verse. "But made himself of no reputation," Paul is saying that Jesus wasnt God and never concidered himself equal. Jesus always gave his father glory in everything. Look at verse 11. "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Im sorry, but I"m not seeing anything about trinities, co-equals, Jesus is God in these verses here. Everything calls Jesus a man.
Absolutely not!! Jesus wasnt born yet. Your making him pre-exist because that is what your taught. Plus, again, you bring words into the bible that arent there. Why?...
You mean God or GOD. BIG difference in Hebrew my friend......
What? lol Are you serious? It mentions angels, not Jesus. Jesus wasnt born yet.
What do you think "incarnation" means?
Why don't you tel me?
What did He empty Himself of?
That alone does not say Jesus is God. Jn 1:1 and other verses do.
If you never accept that the "us" and 'our" in Gen 1:26 refers Christ and the Holy Spirit, you never will. I am not trying to convince you of the trinity. That is beyond my pay grade. I am only telling you what I believe and why I believe it. What you believe is between you and God. That Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man at the same time is a spiritual truth that we can't prove or even understand 100%. It can only be accepted by faith. Rejecting the Trinity will not keep you out of heaven. Keep studying and praying for guidance and maybe one day God the Holy Spirit will guide you into that truth. Then when I meet you in heaven, I will smile broadly, but I don't think I will be allowed to say:I told you so."
Jesus wasn't, but Christ, like God and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Check the description of Melchizedk, who was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus---Heb 7:3. Incidently he served the first Lord's supper---
That is what I was taught, but I am a Berean Christian from Missouri. The Berean Christians searched the Scriptures daily to see if theses things were true. I don't believe everything I have been taught. There are many doctrines wher the exact word is used, but are reinforced in other words. If you understand chili con carne, you might understand the incarnation. Jn 1:14 might help.
Not really; they are both Elohim. The big difference is between God and god and between LORD AND Lord.