John 1:18 ||Jesus adherents only

[DavidFirth]

No -it was to explain that Melchizedek -without mother, father, beginning of days or end of life -who abideth a priest CONTINUALLY -WAS MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD -in other words, was made Christ

"But this man, because he CONTINUETH FOREVER has an UNCHANGEABLE PRIESTHOOD"

"For such an high priest became us"

"This man" you speak of is Christ, not Melchizidek. He was buried long ago but there is no tomb that contains the body of Christ.

 

[pearl]

No -it was to explain that Melchizedek -without mother, father, beginning of days or end of life -who abideth a priest CONTINUALLY -WAS MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD -in other words, was made Christ

I think you are both right, but to the author of Hebrews there is more interest in Jesus as constituted high priest in the manner of Melchizedek. There is no mention in the OT concerning Melchizedek's ancestors, birth, or death.
What is not mentioned in the Torah does not exist according to rabbinic exegesis?

 

[Etritonakin]

"This man" you speak of is Christ, not Melchizidek. He was buried long ago but there is no tomb that contains the body of Christ.

"This man" CONTINUETH forever and has an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood.

"This man" was indeed Christ -and was indeed Melchizedek -who is clearly stated to abide a priest continually -and have no end of life.

 

[DavidFirth]

"This man" CONTINUETH forever and has an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood.

"This man" was indeed Christ -and was indeed Melchizedek -who is clearly stated to abide a priest continually -and have no end of life.

Melchizidek died and was buried. He may have been a Christophany but I rather doubt it.

 

[Etritonakin]

Melchizidek died and was buried. He may have been a Christophany but I rather doubt it.

Christ died and was buried -and rose again.
What scripture specifically states that specifically one with the specific name Melchizedek (not assuming he was someone else) died and was buried?

 

[DavidFirth]

Christ died and was buried -and rose again.
What scripture specifically states that specifically one with the specific name Melchizedek (not assuming he was someone else) died and was buried?

So you're assuming Melchizidek never died and was never buried? That's quite an assumption, friend. Who saw him after, say, he was 200 years old?

 

[Etritonakin]

This what happens when the divine name is removed from scripture.

Psalm 110:1-2 says KJV...."The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies."

The LORD in capitals here is YHWH (Yahweh/ Jehovah).....So who is "the Lord" that YHWH spoke to? He was to sit at YHWH's right hand, so it has to be a future reference to Jesus. After he successfully completed his mission on earth, Jesus sat at God's right hand, waiting for his God to place his enemies 'as a stool for his feet'. Then, rather than bringing peace to the earth right away, he was to 'rule in the midst of his enemies' for an undetermined time. Christ's rulership did not mean immediate peace, but a time for separation of the "wheat" from the "weeds".



That is very scrambled IMO. The Word, (Logos or spokesman) was indeed the pre-human Jesus and he did indeed become flesh, but he was not YHWH....nor was he "I AM". The reason being that the name of the most High God was never "I AM" in the first place.

Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah’s name. The name of Moses’ mother Jochebed is thought to mean “Jehovah Is Glory.” (Ex 6:20)

For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (ʼElo·himʹ) or the “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ) might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.

God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. He was saying that he could become whatever he needed to be in order to fulfill his purpose. Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14-15)

"Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH (Jehovah) the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

Jesus is never called Yahweh in the Bible and in fact he has many names. Yahweh has just one.



Again this is a gross mistranslation of what Jesus said. In context, Jesus was answering a question about his age, so he was letting his hostile Jewish audience know that he existed before Abraham was even born. If you look at the number of times Jesus said "I am" using the exact same phraseology, you can see that he was not claiming to be God in any of them.



Hebrews 7:15-17; 22-25...."And this becomes even clearer when another priest arises who is like Mel·chizʹe·dek, 16 who has become such, not by the legal requirement that depends on fleshly descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.17 For it is said in witness of him: “You are a priest forever in the manner of yMel·chizʹe·dek.”. . . Jesus has accordingly become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 Furthermore, many had to become priests in succession because death prevented them from continuing as such, 24 but because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has no successors. 25 So he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them."

Here Paul is confirming that Jesus is a "priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek"....that Mel·chizʹe·dek foreshadowed him. Like Moses also when it was foretold that God would raise up another prophet "like him" (Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Acts 3:22-23) It didn't make Moses into Jesus.

It is also showing us that the High Priest Jesus is the one who intercedes for us with God, so he cannot be God or else we would have to have an intercessor for the intercessor......do you see how ridiculous that is?

Actually, you completely lost me. I'm not sure what you are saying in relation to what I said.

I'm not saying Christ is or was "the Father".

Christ being "God" does not mean Christ was the Father -but that he was the Word who was both with God (the Father), and also was God (a separate person, but inseparable from the Father). That is to say... The Father is in authority, the Word who became flesh is obedient -but they together are collectively "God" -even though both are individually referred to as "God" in many places in scripture.

Christ could truthfully refer to himself as God -and deny he was God -depending how the imperfect human word was used. He is not the Father -and he calls the Father "God" -but men will call Christ "Almighty God" and "Everlasting Father" and "Prince of Peace" -even though he will never be "the Father" and will never be in ultimate authority. He will, however, be given ultimate authority over all -except the Father.

The tricky part for most is that there is indeed "one God" -but both the Father and the Word who became flesh are "one".

When "God" decided to confuse speech at Babel, "God" said "let us go down".

"God" consists (at least from "the beginning" as it concerns us) of two persons -able to address each other and converse -able to refer to the other -one in authority and one submitting to that authority -but absolutely inseparable, always in agreement and never in conflict.

Christ said that no one has ever seen "the Father" except him -yet "The Lord" spoke to Moses face to face in the tent of meeting while NOT in his "glorious body" (if this has not been altered... Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.....) -and Moses also saw his back parts while he revealed himself in his glorious body -but Moses could not see his face while in his glorious body.

That glorious body is the same Christ will return in -when "his feet shall stand" on the cleft mount of olives.

Basically, "the Word" has always acted and interacted for the Father.

He even created all things. BY HIM and for him were all things made.
When "God" said "let there be light" -it was the Word of God who also became flesh acting to create/renew. When the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep, that is how he acted.

Whatever the meaning of "I AM" in the old or New Testament, the same being said it. Christ is the same being that said "I AM THAT I AM" in the Old Testament.
-and he was also Melchizedek -as the exact same attributes are attributed to Melchizedek and Christ. They are both the same being at different times.

 

[Etritonakin]

So you're assuming Melchizidek never died and was never buried? That's quite an assumption, friend. Who saw him after, say, he was 200 years old?

I'm not assuming anything -but as The following applies specifically to the Melchizedek Abraham tithed to.......
"the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."
People will be seeing him forever -regardless of whether he actually had a human body or what may or may not have happened to it.

And, as later in the chapter the same thing is said of Christ, those who saw Christ saw Melchizedek.....

Heb 7:15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

In other words... If ANOTHER priest appears -also being a priest forever -who ALSO has an indestructible life like the first, it is the SAME PRIEST -because the priesthood is forever -as is the priest!

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm not assuming anything -but as The following applies specifically to the Melchizedek Abraham tithed to.......
"the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."
People will be seeing him forever -regardless of whether he actually had a human body or what may or may not have happened to it.

And, as later in the chapter the same thing is said of Christ, those who saw Christ saw Melchizedek.....

Heb 7:15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

In other words... If ANOTHER priest appears -also being a priest forever -who ALSO has an indestructible life like the first, it is the SAME PRIEST -because the priesthood is forever -as is the priest!

Friend, we argue meaninglessly. Do you believe John 3:16?

 

[Etritonakin]

Friend, we argue meaninglessly. Do you believe John 3:16?

Yes, I do.

Perhaps we argue meaninglessly here, but correct understanding helps to allow for correct decisions -and can keep one from being deceived or misled. The many points made in scripture are not meaningless -even points about what it really means to believe in Christ.

The rest is important. Every point is of some importance. Some take John 3:16 essentially alone -and think that mere belief is enough. The verse is absolutely true -but it is not complete in and of itself.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, I do.

Perhaps we argue meaninglessly here, but correct understanding helps to allow for correct decisions.

True. But if we both are brothers in the body of Christ, is it not okay to disagree about the little things like this? I grant that you could be right. But even if you are wrong, we're both still going to heaven either way. Let us rejoice in this and leave off this argument. Okay?

 

[Etritonakin]

True. But if we both are brothers in the body of Christ, is it not okay to disagree about the little things like this? I grant that you could be right. But even if you are wrong, we're both still going to heaven either way. Let us rejoice in this and leave off this argument. Okay?

I didn't perceive it to be an "argument", but if you'd like to drop the subject, that's fine.

Disagreement is understandable at present -but learning all one can now (with most focus on what God would truly have one do) is very important.
Many will believe they are of the body of Christ, but are not -or not yet.

I don't know you personally, so I am not speaking of you personally.

I do not believe our reward is heaven -but that the meek shall inherit the earth (and beyond) -and that those in the first resurrection will be kings and priests with Christ on Earth for the first thousand years following his return.

Many who simply believe they are "in Christ" will not be among those -will not have a "better resurrection". That is not to say they are doomed, but many who thought they were in Christ will not be resurrected when he returns -but with the "rest of the dead" after the thousand years -to the judgment (which is not all bad -and by which many will be saved -and some whose works were not good will also be saved "yet so as by fire")

When I seem to argue, it is out of a desire that people fare as well as possible.
The point of our discussion is not extremely important in that regard, but it is important.

The first resurrection is desirable, but those in the first resurrection will have been doing specific things -not simply believing alone.

 

[Deeje]

I'm not saying Christ is or was "the Father".

I have heard many say that Jesus is Yahweh. Do you believe that Jesus is Yahweh?

Christ being "God" does not mean Christ was the Father -but that he was the Word who was both with God (the Father), and also was God (a separate person, but inseparable from the Father). That is to say... The Father is in authority, the Word who became flesh is obedient -but they together are collectively "God" -even though both are individually referred to as "God" in many places in scripture.

Would you like to read what you just wrote and see how ridiculous that is...? How is one equal part of the godhhead obedient to himself? Why is the Father in authority if the son is equally God? Show me where both are "individually referred to as "God" in many places in scripture"?

Christ could truthfully refer to himself as God -and deny he was God -depending how the imperfect human word was used.

Again...read what you just wrote and see if it makes sense? Show me one single verse where Jesus ever said he was God. .....please....

He is not the Father -and he calls the Father "God" -but men will call Christ "Almighty God" and "Everlasting Father" and "Prince of Peace" -even though he will never be "the Father" and will never be in ultimate authority. He will, however, be given ultimate authority over all -except the Father.

Again you are not accurately quoting scripture. Isaiah 9:6 says....
"For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Lets take these prophetic titles one at a time.....

"Wonderful Counselor"....who delivered better counsel in his instructions to his disciples than Jesus did. Any wonder God said "This is my son the beloved....listen to him". (Matthew 17:5)

"Mighty God".....it does not say "Almighty God", so what is the difference here? Jesus as God's firstborn son, was a "mighty" divine spirit before coming to earth to pay a ransom for mankind. Jesus said that Jehovah called human judges "gods" because of their divinely appointed authority. (John 10:34-36) He told Moses that he would make him "God" to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) Jesus also has divinely appointed authority, (Matthew 28:18) but like those judges and Moses....he was not "God" as in being equal to the Father, but was authorized by him as his representative....his servant.

"Eternal Father" ....According to Strongs, the word "father" is "ab" which means...

1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor

So calling Jesus an "eternal father" can mean that he would be the 'founder of a household, group family or clan'. He will be that "father" for all eternity, having made the way for them to inherit eternal life. It doesn't mean that he is their heavenly Father in the same way that Jehovah is.

"Prince of Peace" We know that God has never been referred to as a Prince. And since a Prince is the son of a King, we see a distinct difference between Father and son in this prophesy. This is not and never was proof of a trinity, but a description of the various roles carried out by the Father's most trusted servant.

The tricky part for most is that there is indeed "one God" -but both the Father and the Word who became flesh are "one".

John 10:30 says..."I and the Father are one,”....but just a few chapters later in John 17:21-22, Jesus says...."so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

This is a unity of spirit and purpose enjoyed by the Father and son and also with the son and his spirit anointed disciples. You can see this clearly in that later verse.

There is no trinity here either.

When "God" decided to confuse speech at Babel, "God" said "let us go down".

Just like Genesis 1:26...."Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..."

The son was beside his Father during the whole creative process. Colossians 1:15-16...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him."

Do you notice that he is Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation"...meaning that he is a created being. He was "only begotten" as the first and only direct creation of his God and Father. By means of the son, the Father then created everything else. This is why there is an "us" when God is speaking . (Proverbs 8:30-31)

Jesus is the "Logos" or spokesman for his Father in all things....he always has been and always will be.

"God" consists (at least from "the beginning" as it concerns us) of two persons -able to address each other and converse -able to refer to the other -one in authority and one submitting to that authority -but absolutely inseparable, always in agreement and never in conflict.

Yes! As two completely separate beings. Only one of them is the Creator. The son is subservient to his superior God and Father as it is said in Acts 4:30...."while you stretch out your hand for healing and while signs and wonders occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

Since when is God the servant of anyone? How can one part of God be a "servant" to an equal part of himself?

Basically, "the Word" has always acted and interacted for the Father.

Yes, because that is what his title "Logos" means.......he is God's spokesman....his representative.

When "God" said "let there be light" -it was the Word of God who also became flesh acting to create/renew. When the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep, that is how he acted.

"In the beginning, God created...." God alone is the Creator, whereas Jesus is the fabricator. Jesus did not "create" anything....he "made" things out of what God created.

Whatever the meaning of "I AM" in the old or New Testament, the same being said it. Christ is the same being that said "I AM THAT I AM" in the Old Testament.

Jesus never said "I AM THAT I AM"...."Eh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ." means "I Will Be (or become) What I will Be". He was not saying he existed because the Israelites already knew that he existed....but they did not know what he was going to "become" to them. He revealed that slowly over time.

-and he was also Melchizedek -as the exact same attributes are attributed to Melchizedek and Christ. They are both the same being at different times.

He came "in the manner of" Melchizedek. Do you understand what that means? Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy meaning that he has no record of his birth or who his parents were. Jesus too came through an earthly mother, but had no earthly father. He was not truly related to either genetically because he had not inherited sin from either one of them.

Melchizedek was also a King / Priest. No one in Israel could be both because only the Levites could be priests and only Judah's descendants could be Kings. One was a pictorial representation of the other, but Melchizedek was a mere human and he died like any other mortal man.

 

[DavidFirth]

I didn't perceive it to be an "argument", but if you'd like to drop the subject, that's fine.

Disagreement is understandable at present -but learning all one can now (with most focus on what God would truly have one do) is very important.
Many will believe they are of the body of Christ, but are not -or not yet.

I don't know you personally, so I am not speaking of you personally.

I do not believe our reward is heaven -but that the meek shall inherit the earth (and beyond) -and that those in the first resurrection will be kings and priests with Christ on Earth for the first thousand years following his return.

Many who simply believe they are "in Christ" will not be among those -will not have a "better resurrection". That is not to say they are doomed, but many who thought they were in Christ will not be resurrected when he returns -but with the "rest of the dead" after the thousand years -to the judgment (which is not all bad -and by which many will be saved -and some whose works were not good will also be saved "yet so as by fire")

When I seem to argue, it is out of a desire that people fare as well as possible.
The point of our discussion is not extremely important in that regard, but it is important.

The first resurrection is desirable, but those in the first resurrection will have been doing specific things -not simply believing alone.

What things must a man do to be saved?

 

[Etritonakin]

I have heard many say that Jesus is Yahweh. Do you believe that Jesus is Yahweh?



Would you like to read what you just wrote and see how ridiculous that is...? How is one equal part of the godhhead obedient to himself? Why is the Father in authority if the son is equally God? Show me where both are "individually referred to as "God" in many places in scripture"?



Again...read what you just wrote and see if it makes sense? Show me one single verse where Jesus ever said he was God. .....please....



Again you are not accurately quoting scripture. Isaiah 9:6 says....
"For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Lets take these prophetic titles one at a time.....

"Wonderful Counselor"....who delivered better counsel in his instructions to his disciples than Jesus did. Any wonder God said "This is my son the beloved....listen to him". (Matthew 17:5)

"Mighty God".....it does not say "Almighty God", so what is the difference here? Jesus as God's firstborn son, was a "mighty" divine spirit before coming to earth to pay a ransom for mankind. Jesus said that Jehovah called human judges "gods" because of their divinely appointed authority. (John 10:34-36) He told Moses that he would make him "God" to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) Jesus also has divinely appointed authority, (Matthew 28:18) but like those judges and Moses....he was not "God" as in being equal to the Father, but was authorized by him as his representative....his servant.

"Eternal Father" ....According to Strongs, the word "father" is "ab" which means...

1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor

So calling Jesus an "eternal father" can mean that he would be the 'founder of a household, group family or clan'. He will be that "father" for all eternity, having made the way for them to inherit eternal life. It doesn't mean that he is their heavenly Father in the same way that Jehovah is.

"Prince of Peace" We know that God has never been referred to as a Prince. And since a Prince is the son of a King, we see a distinct difference between Father and son in this prophesy. This is not and never was proof of a trinity, but a description of the various roles carried out by the Father's most trusted servant.



John 10:30 says..."I and the Father are one,”....but just a few chapters later in John 17:21-22, Jesus says...."so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

This is a unity of spirit and purpose enjoyed by the Father and son and also with the son and his spirit anointed disciples. You can see this clearly in that later verse.

There is no trinity here either.



Just like Genesis 1:26...."Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..."

The son was beside his Father during the whole creative process. Colossians 1:15-16...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him."

Do you notice that he is Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation"...meaning that he is a created being. He was "only begotten" as the first and only direct creation of his God and Father. By means of the son, the Father then created everything else. This is why there is an "us" when God is speaking . (Proverbs 8:30-31)

Jesus is the "Logos" or spokesman for his Father in all things....he always has been and always will be.



Yes! As two completely separate beings. Only one of them is the Creator. The son is subservient to his superior God and Father as it is said in Acts 4:30...."while you stretch out your hand for healing and while signs and wonders occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

Since when is God the servant of anyone? How can one part of God be a "servant" to an equal part of himself?



Yes, because that is what his title "Logos" means.......he is God's spokesman....his representative.



"In the beginning, God created...." God alone is the Creator, whereas Jesus is the fabricator. Jesus did not "create" anything....he "made" things out of what God created.



Jesus never said "I AM THAT I AM"...."Eh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ." means "I Will Be (or become) What I will Be". He was not saying he existed because the Israelites already knew that he existed....but they did not know what he was going to "become" to them. He revealed that slowly over time.



He came "in the manner of" Melchizedek. Do you understand what that means? Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy meaning that he has no record of his birth or who his parents were. Jesus too came through an earthly mother, but had no earthly father. He was not truly related to either genetically because he had not inherited sin from either one of them.

Melchizedek was also a King / Priest. No one in Israel could be both because only the Levites could be priests and only Judah's descendants could be Kings. One was a pictorial representation of the other, but Melchizedek was a mere human and he died like any other mortal man.

I'm not saying what it seems you think I am saying. Anyway -we will not likely agree here.

You were correct about "almighty" and "mighty", etc. I don't have much spare time and posted in haste -but that has nothing to do with my overall point.

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

We are arguing about words -not actually the point. Best to wait until we are given a pure language.

Zeph 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

 

[Etritonakin]

What things must a man do to be saved?

Will answer later, but what do you think it means to be saved?

 

[Etritonakin]

What things must a man do to be saved?

First acknowledging this scriptural principle...

Isaiah 28:9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

.... And to be thorough..... There is being saved from a specific worldly situation, being saved from one's own sinful nature, being saved/kept out of "the fire" and being saved from death by being made immortal.

Though it is at least technically possible for all who have ever lived since Adam to eventually be made immortal after the judgment, etc., not all were saved out of specific worldly situations, not all were saved from their sinful nature during this time and some have not been saved out of the fire -and will have their part in the lake of fire -being "saved, yet so as by fire".

The best those now alive can hope for is to be "counted worthy to escape all these things which must surely come to pass" (which is to go to a place of safety during the greatest time of trouble the world has ever known), to not experience the lake of fire later, and to be made immortal at the first resurrection, which takes place when Christ returns.

Those will be saved from a specific worldly situation, saved from the fire and saved from death by being made immortal in the "better resurrection".

They will be saved from those things because God, by his grace, has decided it, but they will have been doing that which God commanded and which works toward saving them from their own sinful nature.
They will have been keeping THE commandments OF GOD and related statutes and judgments (including God's sabbaths and holy days).
They will have watched and prayed that they may be counted worthy.
They will have been called, have repented of sin generally (the transgression of the law), been baptized, received the spirit of God within them, and will have continued to overcome sin.
They will believe on Christ, keep the commandments, live by faith and will endure to the end.

Some will not be saved from experiencing that time of worldly trouble, but will be saved in the other ways -being saved out of the tribulation after being in it.some will be his servants during that time. Some will "wash their garments in the blood of the lamb" by repentance during that time. Though many will die, a great multitude will be raised to the first resurrection.

Some will only be saved from death to immortality after being raised to the second resurrection after the thousand years -not having been called to belief during this life, but having done good works, etc. -and some only after experiencing the fire because their works were not good.

I will try to post supporting scripture later.

Generally, though, if only one verse is considered as it regards being saved, one will not have a complete understanding of what is necessary.

Keeping the commandments of God, believing in Christ, enduring to the end, not receiving the mark of the beast, living by faith, doing good works, being baptized, etc., are all associated with being "saved" in scripture.

 

[Etritonakin]

Addressing the original question....

It must be acknowledged that our languages were built over time from an incomplete human perspective -so words must be somewhat elastic in order to convey the complete truth.
It is sometimes necessary to look beyond just the words themselves -while not discarding them altogether -until we are given a pure language by God which is from his complete perspective.

"God" can mean many different things.

In the bible, it is used to refer to the Father alone, to both the Father and the Word together, etc.

God states in scripture that WE are gods. There are also false gods.

John 1:18 is basically saying that no one has ever seen the Father.
Whenever men have seen "God" -in the old or New Testament -it has not literally been the Father they have seen. They have seen the Word in various roles -who became Christ, etc. -and that does include the events Moses and the ancient Israelites lived.

However, Christ said that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father -but that is figurative.

As it concerns us, the one true God consists of two beings -but one is in ultimate authority.
However, it is not as though one could listen to the Father and ignore the Word -as they are one -inseparable -always in agreement.
There is no point considering them as if they are separate in any other way than they can be addressed separately and address each other as individuals.
Regardless of what was or happened before the universe or angels were created, They are to us collectively the one true God -even though the Father is technically the Word's God.
Equality really isn't a factor -only authority -as they are one.
Christ said "I and my Father are one".
Christ is not "God" -if by "God" we mean the Father alone -but the Father is not alone -and neither is the Word.
Christ is God -but Christ is not the Father.
The Father and the Word who became flesh are God.
They can be called by individual names -and they both can collectively be called by one name.

If you believe and obey Christ, you believe and obey the Father. If you believe and obey the Father, you believe and obey Christ.

Though God -the Father -is in ultimate authority, by that authority he put Christ in authority over all things -and he will soon take that power and literally reign. Still, Christ said that we are to pray directly to the Father in Christ's name.