-
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!
Jesus is God?
- Thread starter Khale
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
there is a reason yahweh is used by abraham, its the time of abrahams creation. Yahwehist had became prevelant at that time after the fall.
lets look at abraham
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE
Historicity and origins
It is generally recognised by scholars that there is nothing in the Genesis stories that can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium: none of the kings mentioned is known,
Beyond this the Abraham story (and those of Isaac and Jacob/Israel) served a theological purpose following the destruction of Jerusalem
dont start, you cannot win a debate with creation on your side.
there is no debate about the validity of ToE and one thing is 100% certain. We did not originate as the bible decribes. that I have a mountain of evidence for. you still have no evidence.
No there is large amounts of evidence to support yahweh and elohim as different deities.
from the OT scripture to previous cultures in the levant.
because it cannot. hebrews didnt exist before 1250BCE. they did not write until 1000BCE
As far as we know abraham and noah are created charactors long after the hebrew culture existed to explain their cultural and theistic needs and wants, writtebn as allegory to teach their valuable lessons still taught to this day.
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
URMVP2Me,
What i find interesting is that Jesus is the Image of God, reflecting Gods glory 100% accurate. Did you know God is called the Beginning and the End of all things as well? Does that mean the Father has a beginning or an End? Then why force this belief upon Jesus who is reflecting this? Just as the Father is the Beginning of all things, so is Jesus. because they rule over creation. BTW - the Greek word Arche means that Father and Son are the Designers of Creation, not part of it...
In Love,
tom
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
if you read 1John 1:1-6 you will see that the Word of life is eternal not made. God, His Word, and His Spirit created all things
This verse doesnt exclude Jesus from being God just as it doesnt exclude the Father from being Lord... The point is that we have one system of belief that consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Some people will use the word Firstborn to mean firstcreated. This thinking is wrong. The word "Born" only exists as earthly birth happens. The Etenal Word of life became Marys Firstborn son as well as the Fathers (luke 2:7)(Heb 1:6) Jesus is called Firstborn because he is heir to all creation.
Now Turn to Heb 1:5-6 - When God said to Jesus, "Today I have become your Father" angels where already present and where told to worship Jesus. This means this event happend 2011 years ago that Jesus became "Firstborn". (not at creation as some would want you to believe)
The Father likewise gives credit to Jesus... HEBREWS 1:10-12
In Love,
Tom
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
Read Psalms 102:25-27, would you also agree that this is saying God has no beginning?
in Love,
Tom
Yes, Psalm 90v2;41v13; 106v48; Psalm 102vs25-27; Hebrews 1vs10-12 all refer to God's internal existence. [immortal] God had No beginning and will have no end.
Everlasting to everlasting. God can not die.
Whereas John [1v1] says Jesus was in the beginning. [start]
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
Jesus at Rev [3v14 B] also believes he was in the beginning.
God was before the beginning.
Jesus existed in the heavens before being Mary's firstborn on earth.
God could not have sent Jesus from heaven to earth if Jesus was not already in heaven.
Would you agree that David [1st Chron 2vs13-15] was Not a firstborn son ?
At Psalm [89vs20,27] and Ezekiel [34vs23,24] isn't it Jesus who is the one shepherd ?
So, God's servant David was not firstborn but prefigured Messiah.
Mary did not give 'heavenly birth' to the firstborn of every creature or all creation,
[doesn't all creation include both heavenly [angelic] and earthly?],
but she gave physical birth to the one who would be firstborn from the dead.
[Rev 1v5; 3v14; Col 1vs15,18]
Everlasting to everlasting. God can not die.
Whereas John [1v1] says Jesus was in the beginning. [start]
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
Jesus at Rev [3v14 B] also believes he was in the beginning.
God was before the beginning.
Jesus existed in the heavens before being Mary's firstborn on earth.
God could not have sent Jesus from heaven to earth if Jesus was not already in heaven.
Would you agree that David [1st Chron 2vs13-15] was Not a firstborn son ?
At Psalm [89vs20,27] and Ezekiel [34vs23,24] isn't it Jesus who is the one shepherd ?
So, God's servant David was not firstborn but prefigured Messiah.
Mary did not give 'heavenly birth' to the firstborn of every creature or all creation,
[doesn't all creation include both heavenly [angelic] and earthly?],
but she gave physical birth to the one who would be firstborn from the dead.
[Rev 1v5; 3v14; Col 1vs15,18]
Isaiah [46v10] mentions God declaring the end from the beginning.....
According to the Psalms God had No beginning.
God is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning No end.
The Father is Not the beginning of himself.
Ruling over creation does Not mean creating oneself.
One person gave an illustration of a Father owning a business.
The Father decided to take his only Son into the family business.
The Father hung out a sign: 'Father&Son'.
In God's case the family business was creation.
God's first creation in the heavens was his Son. [Rev3v14]
In business with his Son, then, through his Son, God created all in the heavens [angelic] and then expanded the family business to include all on earth [material/physical]. -Psalm 104v30
If equal footing, then how do you explain Revelation 3v14 B ?
How do you explain that decades after being resurrected to heaven that the Son still considers himself to be God's Son according to Rev. 2v18 ?
If the heavenly resurrected Jesus has equal footing then how do you explain that Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to Rev. 3v12 ?
If God and Jesus are on equal footing being God, then does Jesus need more than one throne to sit on ? -Rev 3v21
lol
And he keeps posting the same questions even though they are already answered many times...
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
Hebrews 1:10-12 is talking about Jesus and the Father applies quotes of YHWH directly to Jesus.
John 1:3 says nothing that was made, was made apart from Jesus. 1John1:1-5 we read the Word was eternaly with the Father. And just so you know, John 1:1 doesnt read in the beginning the word became to be because the word already was. In the beginning was already the word...
John 1:1 says the word already was before the beginning, what bible are you reading? Before anything started, the word was. NOT the word was not...
the Father is called the beginning and end of all things, so why force Jesus, who is reflecting Gods being by his being, to have a point of no existance when you dont use your own rules towards the Father in whom Jesus is expressing fully? Also, some bibles traslate Rev 3:14 more accurate as Ruler, because that is what the passages are expressing. old English understands the beginer as the originator of things, not that the one who begins has a beginning himself?
You are forcing things here. no women are called Firstborn either(unless no brothers), even if the women are the First to be born. The term "Firstborn" was a Jewish tradition of heirship for the first male child born to normaly hold, but in some cases can be traded or lost, defining its very meaning as to heirship not birth order.
Birth is only something that happens on Earth. you need to look at Hebrews 1:5-6 for it says Angels were already present when the Father says to Jesus Today you are my son, and the word Today also indicates an earthly event.
Im not in disagreement here. The whole wording is that Jesus is Supreme not that he is Created or whatever you are forcing here. Just as when God says he is First and Last, Beginning and End, Alpha and Omega. never would anyone think God has a beginning nor an End, so why force this upon Jesus who is exactly like the Father in every way?
In Love,
tom
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
i understand that, but what you fail to see is that the Father calls himself the beginning and end of all things. john 1:3 makes it clear that nothing was created apart from Jesus, meaning Jesus also cannot be created. When you read verses in the Old test about Jehovah you also agree he is not created, so why force these things upon Jesus? Read 1John1:1-6 to see the Word is Eternal before he emptied himself.
The Bible doesnt ever say that. One must use words like beginning and firstborn in a manner they are not intended for. There are ways in the Greek to say Jesus was created if he was, never do we see this. Again, read 1john1:1-6 to see the word was eternal.
In Love,
Tom
Shermana
Heretic
Not really. All it implies is that all things were made THROUGH Jesus after he was created. The key word is THROUGH. Again, it really helps if you have an understanding of Philo's Logos Theology whom his intended audience were well acquainted with. As for John 1:1, what do you suppose "In beginning" means? (En arche, no article). How can Jesus be WITH (the) G-d if he IS (the) G-d? No amount of Trinity "personhood" arguments can rectify this.
He is called the "Firstborn among Creation". Even if you interpret this to mean "Pre-eminent among Creation", it still implies that he is among Creation. If you say that Firstborn HAS to mean "Pre-eminent" then you are ignoring all the times that FIrstborn is used in the literal sense. And even then, if you use the example of David, David was an Adopted son, so therefore if "Firstborn" is used as such, it still means he had to have been created in order to be made Pre-eminent.
As for Rev 3:14 "Arche" as "Ruler" is a sub-definition, its initial definition is "beginning". The Aramaic uses "Source" which should give a hint. Very few translations use "ruler" and they probably did to avoid this traditional pitfall.
If you disagree, feel free to show another example where Arche means ruler (As opposed to "Archon"), here I will help your search: You have Luke 12:11, where it says "Magistrate" (not exactly the "Supreme Ruler" sense) and not much else. So to say it MUST mean "ruler" when it overwhelmingly is used as "Beginning", doesn't hold weight. You have Luke 20:20 as well where its used simply as "Rule" as in "Power" but not "ruler". And with Romans 8:38 the word appears to be referring to regional powers in general as opposed to specific rulers, which could make a difference in translation Luke 12:11. Same with 1 Cor 15:24. "Rule" but not "ruler".
http://concordances.org/greek/746.htm
Last edited:
Yes, it really implies "after he was created"
And where exactly did you get among from?
Complete Word Study Dictionary:
ἀρχή ... "the beginning of the creation" means the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation, referring to Jesus Christ not as a created being, but the One who created all things (Joh 1:3).
Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains
ἀρχή, ῆς f: one who or that which constitutes an initial cause—‘first cause, origin.’ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the origin of what God has created’ Re 3:14. It is also possible to understand ἀρχή in Re 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’.
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains
ἀρχή (archē
...3. first cause, the origin (Rev 3:14), for another interp, see next; 4. ruler, governor, usually in the normal human sphere (Lk 12:11, 20:20; Col 1:16; Tit 3:1; Rev 3:14), for another interp of Revelation’s verse, see prior
This is true in one sense, because Jesus called himself "I AM", i,e, YHWH (Jn. 8:58). Furthermore, John made it clear in Jn. 12:41, that Jesus Christ was the One whom Isaiah saw seated on the thone of glory (Isaiah 6:1-13). And the One seated upon the throne was called YHWH (LORD) and Adonai (Lord). Also, Jesus said to Philip, "Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9b) (NIV). However, John made it very clear in 1 Jn. 2:23, "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (NIV)
Scripture does not capitalize I AM. It is I am.
'seen me [Jesus] has seen the Father.... Is Not in reference to a literal seeing but meaning more like Jesus was a 'chip off the old block' because as John wrote at 1st John [4v18] that No man has seen God at any time.
John already recorded in his gospel [John 1v18] that No man has seen God at any time. Moses at Exodus [33v20] agrees.
"Ego eimi" in the absolute sense refers to God.
Shermana
Heretic
So what made Theodotion and Aquila decide to render the name as "I shall be" in their Septuagints if "I am" (as if anytime anyone says "I am" they mean to say their name is "I am") is the name?
Ask them...