• 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!

Scriptural proof that Jesus is in full Godhood

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If by lens you are referring to denominational doctrine I am not a member of any denomination, so I have no hierarchy telling me how I must interpret the Scriptures. Can you honestly say that you don't have such a lens?
If you interpret scripture with Christendom's spin, then you have a lens that is different to mine. You see a completely different picture to me. We cannot be Christians in isolation for the simple reason that none of the first Christians just relied on themselves to determine the meaning of scripture. Christians were a body of believers who all held to the same beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10) They were encouraged to meet together and not to neglect it. (Hebrews 10:24-25) They did not attend a Christian meeting and disagree with much of what was being taught. Their unity of belief as a global brotherhood with one set of beliefs and one united message for all in every language singles out true Christians from the disunited and fragmented counterfeits sown by the devil centuries ago. The apostasy foretold by Christ and his apostles was not a recent event. Apostates were snapping at the heels of the apostles as far back as the end of the first century.

I have no issue with everyday Christians like yourself and see them all as my brothers and sisters. It's just those who set themselves up as Mediators between us and God that I have a problem with and am wary of, as our Lord Jesus warned us to be (1 Timothy 2:5; Luke 20:46)
I am bemused by the fact that you see our GB as 'mediators'. They are nothing of the kind. They are slaves serving the master by 'feeding' his household their 'food at the proper time' just as Jesus instructed them. They are our shepherds, not our masters.

I think these are questions you should put to the Lord Jesus directly and look for Him to teach you as He promised He would.

The questions were for you. I don't have questions I can't answer.
no.gif


Tell me what you think they mean.....
"What does it mean when it says, "he is a new creation"? In what way were these human beings a "new creation"? What does it mean to be "in Christ" or "in union with Christ"? How is Christ in union with his Father?"

I'm sorry but I can't help but see your Governing Body Lens:
All I can tell you is that you misunderstand.
Who is the "faithful and wise slave" of Matthew 24:45? This is who we believe our governing body is. We are not told to "feed" ourselves. We are also told that there are only two tables at which to feed. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21) We choose which one.

Also please don't forget that the Apostle Paul warned:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29-30
That was seen when the apostasy took place centuries ago. Christendom and her teachings are the result of that apostasy. The weeds were not sown recently. It was only at the "harvest time" that the difference would become glaringly obvious.(Matthew 13:36-43) Look how many have drawn disciples away after themselves in all the thousands of sects of Christendom. Why single us out?
prariedog1.gif


While the Governing Body of the JWs might promote that they are correcting the perverse things of the past, all I can see is them trying to draw disciples away from Jesus and after themselves. Coz according to them, one can not be a TRUE CHRISTIAN if they do not accept the authority of the Governing Body correct?

The governing body have no authority.....it is Christ who appointed them who has the authority, and it is his direction that we accept through them. If you look at the history of God's worshippers down through the ages, you will see that there have always been men appointed to take the lead. We are told to submit to them. (Hebrews 13:17) To whom do you submit JB? Who is 'keeping watch over your soul'?

I would agree and no human or Governing Body of Humans (except Jesus Christ Himself) is exempt from this contamination, that is why we are warned in several places to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I mean this sincerely Deeje, please don't let your Governing Body Lens keep you from seeing the warnings Our Lord Jesus gave us about those who would seek to rule over us.
You have this all wrong JB. They do not seek to rule over us. They seek to direct us in our worship according to the scriptures. If they were to start teaching us things that were not in the Bible, we would reject them. We are told to be like those in ancient Be·roeʹa. (Acts 17:11) Do you really think we are that gullible?
143fs503525.gif


Jesus said:

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Matthew 20:25-27

And this is exactly how the GB present themselves to the brotherhood....as humble servants. They serve Christ and they serve us...we do not serve them. Do you understand this?
297.gif
 

JesusBeliever

Active Member
Hi Deeje, I'm wondering if we should start another thread coz it seems we might be taking over this thread with our posts getting longer and longer. As long as the other members don't mind I'm happy to continue.
What about Strongs Concordance online? You can choose your favorite Bible translation.
https://www.tgm.org/bible.htm
Keeping an open mind is a good thing.
13.gif
You may or may not be pleased to know that I googled NASB + Strongs for esword after my last post and decided to buy it for $20. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't said something so thank you! :)
There is nothing to indicate that this word means anything different to what is generally understood by "firstborn".
May I ask, do you place His birth as occurring before creation or at the time He was born to Mary?? And is this where you get the idea of Jesus being a created being from?
If Jesus is God, then how can he be his own "firstborn"?
In that Jesus was God being born into His Creation through Mary. But before that He existed as God, separate to His Creation:

Isaiah 43:10-11 NASB :)""You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God FORMED, And there will be none after Me. "I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me."

I also like the NWT version which says:

Isaiah 43:10-11 NWT“You are my witnesses,”+ declares Jehovah,“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,+So that you may know and have faith in me*And understand that I am the same One.+Before me no God was FORMED,And after me there has been none.+11 I—I am Jehovah,+ and besides me there is no savior.”+

Please note that the word translated FORMED is from the Hebrew word YATSAR (H3335) which is the same word used in Genesis 2:7-8:

"Then the LORD God FORMED man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7

In this way, He was the "first born" and "only child" as you mentioned, and beginning of God's creation as Revelation 3:14 says.
(Sorry just trying to reduce the size of our posts.)
Can you tell me what God's purpose was in putting material creatures on a material earth when it is clear from the scriptures that he already had a large family of spirit sons in heaven? According to Isaiah 55:11, everything that God purposes will come to be. It cannot fail.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't believe in Our Lord's 1000 year reign on earth coz I do. In this, I agree with the JWs view.
Adding some context to those verses is what precedes it. 1 Corinthians 15:20-26:
"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ...
Yes I see you're point, it's speaking in relation to the Resurrection of the dead.
Christ, though not the first to be resurrected, was the first human raised from the dead to life in the spirit. He went to heaven to present the value of his sacrifice to God on our behalf. (Hebrews 9:24) But as Paul confirms, no other human was to be raised to heavenly life until his return. Those who "belong to Christ" are his "elect" or "chosen ones". (Revelation 20:6) These alone have the "heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1) which means that all the anointed disciples of Christ were to "sleep" until he came back for them.
Yep we are in agreement here.
The verses you quoted apply only to them. The apostle Paul spoke as one of the anointed who were to be "raised first". They are assigned to be immortal "kings and priests" to reign in heaven with Jesus. But they will have earthly subjects. (Revelation 21:1-5)
And even here! :thumbsup: The only difference I see with my understanding is I thought they would reign as immortals on earth amongst mortals:

""You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."" Revelation 5:10
Jesus had to be a 100% mortal. He also had free will just like Adam. If this was not the case then why would the devil even try to tempt him away from perfect obedience to his Father?
I understand your reasoning but I don't see evidence in Scripture that this had to be the case. The only verse I can think of is that He had to be born of a woman which He was. I can't recall any evidence that he had to be 100% mortal and in fact I can think of a verse that suggests to the contrary:

""For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have AUTHORITY to lay it down, and I have AUTHORITY to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."" John 10:17-18

However it does support the view that He had free will like Adam. I agree with the rest of your comments! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
The titles mean the same thing, in this instance; in other words, it means 'God'. That is why the different titles are used, for both Jesus and the father.
But the problem is that "lord" has multiple meanings. You are making it sound like they are calling Garfield and Mufasa the exact same person.
I will say that if you actually think it was 'just a serpent', like a normal animal, then why is it talking to Eve, so forth. It might be a tad strange in that interpretation.
Ancient stories have talking animals all over the place. Native Americans thought we were just basically all one big happy family: humans, animals, trees, rocks, etc. We used to be able to communicate all the same, but now we don't.
edit: Or do you think Balaam's donkey is also Satan since he could talk as well?

You encounter the ''problem'', if you read Scripture in the manner that Jesus is not God.
I don't encounter a problem if I know what homonyms are, plus I don't have to take the NT's word for it when they talk about OT happenings and get it wrong. The NT loves to encourage ignorance, practically admitting that without the uneducated, no one would listen to them (red flag if ever there was one). Since illiteracy was high, and people only knew of scriptures if the person giving the sermon read it for them, I can understand that people like the authors are writing about nonsense knowing full well their audience is too dumb to flip back the pages and confirm what they said.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I don't encounter a problem if I know what homonyms are, plus I don't have to take the NT's word for it when they talk about OT happenings and get it wrong.

I assume, since there is no real argument here, your implied argument, is that, the authors of the Bible, were 'wrong'/?/. In other words, they mistakenly wrote the Title, used for Jesus, when they meant, His father? Or, were they being dishonest/lying, in order to present Jesus as a Deity?
 
Last edited:

JesusBeliever

Active Member
Hello again Deeje,
If you interpret scripture with Christendom's spin, then you have a lens that is different to mine.
What do you mean by Christendom Spin? We read from the same book so there's a good chance I'm gonna have views in common with Christendom. That doesn't make it spin or a lens, well not in the context that you first used that word.
You see a completely different picture to me. We cannot be Christians in isolation for the simple reason that none of the first Christians just relied on themselves to determine the meaning of scripture.
Are you sure about that? Coz I see evidence to the contrary:

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

Christians were a body of believers who all held to the same beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
You should have kept reading coz the very next verse says:

"For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." 1 Corinthians 1:11-15

They were encouraged to meet together and not to neglect it. (Hebrews 10:24-25)
I agree.
They did not attend a Christian meeting and disagree with much of what was being taught. Their unity of belief as a global brotherhood with one set of beliefs and one united message for all in every language singles out true Christians from the disunited and fragmented counterfeits sown by the devil centuries ago.
Please see above coz your lens seems to be clouding your view of the New Testament. Even the Apostles chosen by the Lord Himself had their issues:

"But when Cephas (aka Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

The apostasy foretold by Christ and his apostles was not a recent event.
I'm sorry Deeje, but this sounds awfully convenient. The Mormons can and do say the same thing, as do the Seventh Day Adventists. Same tactics different denominations.

I am bemused by the fact that you see our GB as 'mediators'. They are nothing of the kind. They are slaves serving the master by 'feeding' his household their 'food at the proper time' just as Jesus instructed them. They are our shepherds, not our masters.
And herein lies the problem. The Hirelings were fired a long long long time ago:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and ONE SHEPHERD." John 10:16

"But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." John 10:12-14

And for good measure read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 34 because it was fulfilled by OUR one and only Lord and Shepherd, Jesus Christ!

Tell me what you think they mean.....
"What does it mean when it says, "he is a new creation"? In what way were these human beings a "new creation"? What does it mean to be "in Christ" or "in union with Christ"? How is Christ in union with his Father?"
These are the verses that come to mind:

"Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands— remember that you were at that time separate from CHRIST, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the TWO into ONE NEW MAN, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:11-22

All I can tell you is that you misunderstand.
Who is the "faithful and wise slave" of Matthew 24:45? This is who we believe our governing body is.
I'm sorry Deeje but that doesn't make it true. Recall what Our Lord said while praying for His Apostles:

""Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for THOSE ALSO who believe in ME through THEIR WORD; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:17-21

We are not told to "feed" ourselves.
If you only knew how many denominations of Christendom and Jewry teach this I think you'd be shocked. I'm sorry but I can smell leaven.
We are also told that there are only two tables at which to feed. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21) We choose which one.
Are you aware of circular reasoning coz you use it a lot?


That was seen when the apostasy took place centuries ago. Christendom and her teachings are the result of that apostasy. The weeds were not sown recently. It was only at the "harvest time" that the difference would become glaringly obvious.(Matthew 13:36-43) Look how many have drawn disciples away after themselves in all the thousands of sects of Christendom. Why single us out?
prariedog1.gif
I'm sorry if it feels like I'm singling (is that a word?) the JWs out. I might get heat for saying this but I see the same tactic used in the Governing Bodies of Jewry, Catholicism, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and that is that is the lie that the average Christian or Jew can not read and understand the Scriptures. They must rely on "an anointed or appointed" Rabbi, Priest or Elder to interpret it for them. The same interpreters who translate it to say, "You have to listen to us because we are chosen, anointed and appointed and if you don't you are of the devil!" Sorry but I ain't wearing it and I ain't intimidated by it!


The governing body have no authority.....it is Christ who appointed them who has the authority, and it is his direction that we accept through them. If you look at the history of God's worshippers down through the ages, you will see that there have always been men appointed to take the lead. We are told to submit to them. (Hebrews 13:17) To whom do you submit JB? Who is 'keeping watch over your soul'?
If you knew how many people and governing bodies I have submitted to in my life time, seeking healing and someone to keep watch over my soul you would probably be shocked. And I have found that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has been the only faithful Overseer of my soul. If you'd like to know more just read my signature.

If they were to start teaching us things that were not in the Bible, we would reject them. We are told to be like those in ancient Be·roeʹa. (Acts 17:11) Do you really think we are that gullible?
143fs503525.gif
Can you see how you contradict yourself here. One minute you're saying we shouldn't feed ourselves and then you're saying we are told to be Bereans. I know very well what a Berean is coz my life has literally depended on me being one. I know by experience that I can depend on the Scriptures with my life. I think you are being gullible by trusting a Governing Body that has motive for changing the Scriptures to support their doctrine their Governing.

And this is exactly how the GB present themselves to the brotherhood....as humble servants. They serve Christ and they serve us...we do not serve them. Do you understand this?
297.gif
Anyone can present when they have motive for doing so. But just you try to share a revelation from Scripture that's contrary to their doctrine and see how humble the GB are then. They'll kick you out in the name of Unity. And please know, if that ever happens to you Deeje, people like me will be here to embrace you with open arms. You are never alone! :glomp:
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
But the problem is that "lord" has multiple meanings.

Contextually, this 'meaning', implies that who it is referring to, led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant.
Other than that, yes, it does mean both the 'father', and Jesus.
Again, not a problem, if one believes that Jesus is God. It's a problem if you think that Jesus isn't God, because, then you have an ambiguity issue, /among other problems//, all around.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hi Deeje, I'm wondering if we should start another thread coz it seems we might be taking over this thread with our posts getting longer and longer. As long as the other members don't mind I'm happy to continue.

If we get a correction from the mods or the OP we can move this conversation to a new thread. No worries.

You may or may not be pleased to know that I googled NASB + Strongs for esword after my last post and decided to buy it for $20. Wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't said something so thank you!
Online is free...I'm such a cheapskate!
shame.gif


May I ask, do you place His birth as occurring before creation or at the time He was born to Mary?? And is this where you get the idea of Jesus being a created being from? In that Jesus was God being born into His Creation through Mary. But before that He existed as God, separate to His Creation:

Isaiah 43:10-11 NASB :)""You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God FORMED, And there will be none after Me. "I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me."

I also like the NWT version which says:

Isaiah 43:10-11 NWT“You are my witnesses,”+ declares Jehovah,“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,+So that you may know and have faith in me*And understand that I am the same One.+Before me no God was FORMED,And after me there has been none.+11 I—I am Jehovah,+ and besides me there is no savior.”+

Please note that the word translated FORMED is from the Hebrew word YATSAR (H3335) which is the same word used in Genesis 2:7-8:

"Then the LORD God FORMED man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7

In this way, He was the "first born" and "only child" as you mentioned, and beginning of God's creation as Revelation 3:14 says.

1 John 4:7-10:
"Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins."

How do you read that passage JB?
To me, God's son was in existence before being sent into the world as a propitiatory sacrifice to 'cover' our sins. When did God's son become his "son"? If he was God before being born as a human, how can John say that God's son was sent? When does a father become a father? Isn't it when his child comes into existence? When was Jesus "born"?

He said he had glory with his father "before the world was", and the other verses (Col 1:15) say that he is "the firstborn of all creation"......"the beginning of the creation by God"....but I cannot find a single direct passage of scripture that says Jesus was God before he came to be born as a human. He was "with" his Father as his "Logos" (spokesman) but when John 1:1 says that he was "god" (theos) it does so without the definite article, so it is a description of what he was, (god-like or divine) rather than who he was.

The only difference I see with my understanding is I thought they would reign as immortals on earth amongst mortals:
""You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."" Revelation 5:10


Messiah's kingdom was always going to rule the earth. The ancient Jews had no ideas about going to heaven. But there is no need for their transformation into spirit beings if they are going to remain on earth.
A material being cannot be immortal. Spirits can materialize human form, but they are not humans. The Bible doesn't tell us in what form our rulers will be, but judging from God's previous dealings with his human servants, he will have representatives on earth to serve the interests of the Kingdom.

I understand your reasoning but I don't see evidence in Scripture that this had to be the case. The only verse I can think of is that He had to be born of a woman which He was. I can't recall any evidence that he had to be 100% mortal
If you understand the mechanics of the ransom, it is self explanatory. God's law demanded equivalency...."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life". The perfect (sinless) life that Adam forfeited had to be atoned for by an equivalent perfect life. If Jesus was immortal, he could not have died. Immortals are indestructible. If Jesus was immortal, then he didn't really die, which means that the ransom was not paid, and we are still doomed.
no.gif


The kingdom is a heavenly government with earthly subjects. Take for example the nation of Israel. They were initially a true theocracy. Jehovah was their God, their King and lawgiver. He designated earthly servants and authorized them to represent him, his worship, and his interests. Like God, these heavenly "kings and priests" who will rule in the kingdom do not need to leave heaven in order to bring their rulership to the earth. The kingdom is seen to be bringing blessings to "mankind", restoring what Adam lost. (Revelation 21:1-5)

Peter wrote..."Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you." (1 Pet 1:3)

and in fact I can think of a verse that suggests to the contrary:

""For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have AUTHORITY to lay it down, and I have AUTHORITY to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."" John 10:17-18

Can I get you to think about the words of that scripture for a moment? If Christ is God, why does he need authority to lay down his life and take it up again? Who resurrected Jesus?
And when he said to his disciples before his ascension...."All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth". Why does God need to give himself authority? If Jesus is God, then he has all authority already.

However it does support the view that He had free will like Adam. I agree with the rest of your comments! :thumbsup:
Gotta love agreement.
6.gif
 

JesusBeliever

Active Member
Online is free...I'm such a cheapskate!
shame.gif
So am I usually :) but it was worth it!



1 John 4:7-10:
"Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins."

How do you read that passage JB?
Thanks for sharing it actually. I needed to just sit and really soak those words up. For I truly believe these are words of life, and I always try to remind myself to stop, and absorb the words of the Lord. :hugehug:
I've got a busy day with my mum today so I'll have to come back later and read the rest of you're post.
This verse is food for my day so thanks for sharing it. :kissingheart:
Hope you have a good day as well.
Kind Regards.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Sorry, we must have posted at the same time.....

Hello again Deeje, What do you mean by Christendom Spin? We read from the same book so there's a good chance I'm gonna have views in common with Christendom. That doesn't make it spin or a lens, well not in the context that you first used that word.Are you sure about that? Coz I see evidence to the contrary:

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

gaah.gif
sorry, just a natural reaction to archaic English....."brethren"..."ye"... "hath"...'unto"..."sitteth"? C'mon....


You should have kept reading coz the very next verse says:

"For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." 1 Corinthians 1:11-15

I agree. Please see above coz your lens seems to be clouding your view of the New Testament. Even the Apostles chosen by the Lord Himself had their issues:

"But when Cephas (aka Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

You misunderstand.....it isn't that they disagreed.....all humans do that...it was what they did about the disagreement that counts. Do you see that in all instances, the issues were resolved so that peace and unity could prevail in the congregation. The circumcision issue for example was splitting the congregations down the middle with Jewish Christians insisting that gentile Christians had to get circumcised.....it was unanimously resolved by the governing body in Jerusalem who sent letters to all the congregations with their ruling on the matter. (Acts 15:1-35)

I'm sorry Deeje, but this sounds awfully convenient. The Mormons can and do say the same thing, as do the Seventh Day Adventists. Same tactics different denominations.

And herein lies the problem. The Hirelings were fired a long long long time ago:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and ONE SHEPHERD." John 10:16

"But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." John 10:12-14

Please can I read this in modern English?
cow.gif


"The hired man, who is not a shepherd and to whom the sheep do not belong, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and flees—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them— 13 because he is a hired man and does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the fine shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my life in behalf of the sheep." (NWT)

Now isn't that just plain English?

The opening part of John ch. 10 is....
“Most truly I say to you, the one who does not enter into the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by another way, that one is a thief and a plunderer. 2 But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The doorkeeper opens to this one, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought all his own out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. 5 They will by no means follow a stranger but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus spoke this comparison to them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them". (NWT)

There is the original sheepfold (Israel) but it appears that "thieves and plunderers" came to be in that sheepfold. There is a doorkeeper who first opens to the Shepherd, and then the sheep follow the Shepherd and he leads them out of that pen. The sheep "know the voice" of the Shepherd and they refuse to follow "the voice of strangers". Only the sheep who followed the Shepherd were led out...the rest remained with the thieves and plunderers.
17.gif


Can you picture the scene Jesus has just described? There are three sheepfolds in John, chapter 10. These were (1) the Jewish sheepfold of which John the Baptizer was the doorkeeper, (2) the fold of anointed Kingdom heirs, and (3) the fold of the “other sheep,” whom we believe picture those with an earthly hope who will be subjects of the kingdom on earth. (John 10:2, 3, 15, 16)

The doorkeeper was John the Baptist who 'prepared the way' for the Fine Shepherd to come and lead his sheep out of that corrupted pen because "thieves and plunderers" were there amongst them, not responding to the lead of the Shepherd.
All of the first Christians were anointed with a "heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1) as "heirs" to the kingdom, and Jesus also spoke of "other sheep" who were not anointed for life in heaven, but who were still subject to the Shepherd who saw them all as "one flock" under his care.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
And for good measure read the whole chapter of Ezekiel 34 because it was fulfilled by OUR one and only Lord and Shepherd, Jesus Christ!

Read that chapter in Ezekiel from the ASV and see if it is talking about Jesus directly? The "son of man" is Ezekiel. And the LORD is Jehovah who also identifies himself as a Shepherd. You seem to equate titles as mutually exclusive when such is not the case.

These are the verses that come to mind:
Ephesians 2:11-22
OK, what are these verse actually saying?

In writing the letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul contrasts the Israelites with “strangers.” There was a “wall,” he said, that “fenced” the two groups off from each other. (Ephesians 2:11-15) Paul was referring to “the Law of commandments” given through Moses, but his use of the word “wall” might have reminded readers of a stone barrier that really existed.
In the first century C.E., Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem had a number of courtyards with restricted access. Anyone could enter the Court of the Gentiles, but entry into any of the temple’s courtyards was restricted to Jews and proselytes. Separating the reserved areas from those accessible to all was the Soreg, an elaborate stone balustrade, said to be about four feet [1.3 m] high. According to first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, inscriptions in Greek and Latin were posted on this barrier, warning Gentiles not to cross it so as not to set foot within the holy precincts.
One complete Greek inscription from this partition wall has been recovered. It reads: “Let no foreigner enter inside of the barrier and the fence around the sanctuary. Whosoever is caught will be responsible for his death which will ensue.”
Paul apparently used the Soreg to represent the Mosaic Law covenant, which had long separated Jews and Gentiles. The sacrificial death of Jesus abolished the Law covenant and thus “destroyed the wall in between.”

The questions posed were......
"What does it mean when it says, "he is a new creation"? In what way were these human beings a "new creation"? What does it mean to be "in Christ" or "in union with Christ"? How is Christ in union with his Father?"

The joining of Jews and Gentiles into one brotherhood under Christ is not an answer to those questions.....

I'm sorry Deeje but that doesn't make it true. Recall what Our Lord said while praying for His Apostles:

""Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for THOSE ALSO who believe in ME through THEIR WORD; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:17-21

If you only knew how many denominations of Christendom and Jewry teach this I think you'd be shocked. I'm sorry but I can smell leaven. Are you aware of circular reasoning coz you use it a lot?

As I said, satan is a mimic. Why do you think Jesus identified the "faithful and wise slave" the way he did? It is framed in an intriguing question. (Matthew 24:45)
The slave exists because Jesus commissioned him.....but who is he?
89.gif

The devil thinks that by raising up counterfeits, he will prevent people from gaining access to the truth....but the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd and follow him....the voice of strangers they will not follow.

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm singling (is that a word?) the JWs out. I might get heat for saying this but I see the same tactic used in the Governing Bodies of Jewry, Catholicism, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and that is that is the lie that the average Christian or Jew can not read and understand the Scriptures. They must rely on "an anointed or appointed" Rabbi, Priest or Elder to interpret it for them. The same interpreters who translate it to say, "You have to listen to us because we are chosen, anointed and appointed and if you don't you are of the devil!" Sorry but I ain't wearing it and I ain't intimidated by it!

If you know the devil's MO, you will understand why that happened.
At the time when Daniel foretold that God's worshippers would be 'cleansed and refined' in this "time of the end", there were stirrings of others at the same time. Breakaways and splinter groups started appearing. Following the voice of strangers, these ones were led out of traditional Christendom and into fringe groups, following the voice of others.

The one thing that identified Jehovah's early servants as different, was that they were not a breakaway from any religious denomination. The men who came together were from different religious backgrounds in Christendom and had one united purpose...and that was to examine the Bible and see if the teachings of Christendom actually held up to deep scrutiny. Gradually, they weeded out all the things that had crept in over many centuries and the cleansing and refining continued for decades. It may still continue as the "light on our path" continues to shine more brightly. (Proverbs 4:18)

If you knew how many people and governing bodies I have submitted to in my life time, seeking healing and someone to keep watch over my soul you would probably be shocked. And I have found that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has been the only faithful Overseer of my soul. If you'd like to know more just read my signature.

I can understand your apprehension, but if you have faith in Jesus as the Fine Shepherd, he assures us that he knows his sheep and will lead them into his flock. You must be part of his sheepfold, just as his first century disciples were. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) You cannot be a Christian in isolation, feeding yourself. The slave is assigned to feed Christ's household.....so you have to find him in order to be fed by him. (Matthew 24:45)

Can you see how you contradict yourself here. One minute you're saying we shouldn't feed ourselves and then you're saying we are told to be Bereans. I know very well what a Berean is coz my life has literally depended on me being one. I know by experience that I can depend on the Scriptures with my life. I think you are being gullible by trusting a Governing Body that has motive for changing the Scriptures to support their doctrine their Governing.
Did you read a contradiction?
306.gif
There was none.
Being encouraged to be like the Beroeans means that we don't blindly accept what the shepherds are teaching. We check everything by the scriptures to make sure that everything is as it should be. Everything is harmonious in the Bible, so if something were to crop up that did not align with what we know scripture teaches, it will be glaringly obvious. We know what we believe and why we believe it.

Anyone can present when they have motive for doing so. But just you try to share a revelation from Scripture that's contrary to their doctrine and see how humble the GB are then. They'll kick you out in the name of Unity.

Wow....where did you get that from?
297.gif
"Sharing a revelation from scripture that is contrary to their doctrine"? Are you serious? If there is a revelation from scripture, it will come through the slave who have their authorization from Jesus himself. If someone jumps ahead and starts creating divisions in the congregation because of something they personally believe, then they don't belong with us. Let them go and cause more division in Christendom! We recognize that order and unity are part of God's authority over his people. His servants do not individually have the right to correct the slave any more than the Israelites had to correct Moses. If the slave needs correcting it will be done by Jesus, not any of us. (2 John 9-11)
 
Last edited:

JesusBeliever

Active Member
Hi Deeje, decided to have a quick read of all your messages tonight before going to bed. And maybe having the flu is a blessing for both of us, coz I'm tired. One of us has a log and the other a splinter. I think it's you with the log and you think it's me, but maybe just maybe we both have logs. All I know for sure is I feel like a log. :confused:

I wish you well in your journey and may the Lord Jesus bless and keep us all. :praying:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:22
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'll explain the original argument a bit further.

There are many people who hold the idea, that certain ''titles'', always refers to the ''son'', Jesus,, and other ''titles'', always refer to the 'father', God,, of course. Now, in the verses I presented, the 'title', being used, is a title that some think always refers to the son. The inference from the verses, if they actually hold that position, is that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the First Covenant. This may refute a position that the father, and Jesus, are distinct, /arguments in the manner that 'Jesus, is not God,, and certainly, would seem to refute the idea that the 'title', being used in the verses, only refers to Jesus, and not the father.
That is not scriptural proof to me that Jesus is God, especially in the light of clear and unequivocal Scriptural evidence that Jesus is not God. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God." I hope no one would argue that man, of whom Christ is head, is the same person as his head, Christ. Here is a clear hierarchy of headship:

God
|
Christ
|
Man
|
Woman
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That is not scriptural proof to me that Jesus is God, especially in the light of clear and unequivocal Scriptural evidence that Jesus is not God. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God." I hope no one would argue that man, of whom Christ is head, is the same person as his head, Christ. Here is a clear hierarchy of headship:

God
|
Christ
|
Man
|
Woman

In
Hebrews 1:10
The father clearly states that His ''son'', /I hope you agree that that is referring to Jesus,, created the heavens and earth. Now, unless you are reading an entirely different Bible, the 'creator', in Genesis, is 'God'. Agreed? Now, ask around, but, that is generally meant to refer to the Godhood. It isn't multiple gods, which are being referred to as 'God', in Genesis. Therefore, either you think that there are multiple deities, which helped the father create, or, you think that Genesis is false, , or, you think that the book of Hebrews, is false. /I would guess, lies, basically, as it is so clear/. Any of those options is great, however, you cannot simply ignore Scripture, to suit your position.
That being said, the verse in Hebrews , that I referenced, would entirely make sense, if the divine principle,//God,, per common translation,, isn't a 'divided', Godhood. Sort of reminds me of something that Jesus stated; about Him and the father being one.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hi Deeje, decided to have a quick read of all your messages tonight before going to bed. And maybe having the flu is a blessing for both of us, coz I'm tired. One of us has a log and the other a splinter. I think it's you with the log and you think it's me, but maybe just maybe we both have logs. All I know for sure is I feel like a log. :confused:

I wish you well in your journey and may the Lord Jesus bless and keep us all. :praying:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:22

I wish it was as simple as that one verse in 1 Corinthians 15:22....but unfortunately it isn't. It's not that God makes things difficult, but that satan is the ruler of this world and he is the one calling the shots for the majority of people. (1 John 5:19; Matthew 7:13, 14) Who are the "all in Christ" in that verse?
You never did tell me what you think being "in Christ" actually means. If you know, then those who are NOT "in Christ" would become self evident. (Matthew 7:21-23) They would be the ones calling themselves Christians but not living up to the teachings of the one they claim to serve. Jesus will reject those who identify as his disciples, but who disobey his teachings, which he said comes from his Father. (John 7:16-17) He says he has NEVER known these ones.....NEVER means NOT EVER. That is a sobering thought.

All of us have a journey to take....one step at a time
th_running1.gif
.....the thing we must realize is, that all journeys have to come to an end. It's where and how they end that makes the difference.
There are just two choices that God places before all humans.....we can choose to be either a "sheep" or a "goat"....."wheat" or "weeds".....to travel "the cramped narrow road to life" or the "broad easy one to death". There is nothing in between....no middle ground....no fence to sit on. Once our choice is made and Jesus passes judgment, there is no going back, so we need to think carefully about what we believe or perhaps more importantly, WHO we believe. (Matthew 24:37-39)

To the nation of Israel, God also only gave two choices...and it wasn't heaven or hell....it was simply "life or death". (Deuteronomy 30:19-20) They were told to choose life by loving God, obeying him in all things, and sticking to him.

Our choices determine whether we inherit everlasting life or everlasting death.....That is fairly simple, isn't it? Every day we are telling God who we are....just by what we accept as truth.

I never tire of talking about God and his word.
springsmile.gif
(Acts 4:29)
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31." (Reasoning on the Scriptures, p. 414)
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Contextually, this 'meaning', implies that who it is referring to, led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant.
Other than that, yes, it does mean both the 'father', and Jesus.
Again, not a problem, if one believes that Jesus is God. It's a problem if you think that Jesus isn't God, because, then you have an ambiguity issue, /among other problems//, all around.
But all I have to do is look up the referenced story and, nope, no Jesus there, so ...
The father clearly states that His ''son'', /I hope you agree that that is referring to Jesus,, created the heavens and earth.
Have you ever learned about narratives and how to tell who the narrator is? God is not speaking in your quote. Paul is. I don't trust Paul's command of the scriptures as he is frequently wrong. Any human can claim anything about God, Jesus, and the like. What matters is how the CHARACTERS are ACTUALLY portrayed, and Jesus just simply isn't in Genesis, Exodus, or anywhere else prior to the Gospels.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
"Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31." (Reasoning on the Scriptures, p. 414)

Because, the inference of Jesus in Godhood, /as inferred by His creator status, in Genesis,, / Hebrews 1:10 , is the 'same thing', as stating that 'God', the Godhood, is the creator. The only creator.
If you think that the verses in Hebrews mean 'something else', than in Genesis,//the creator, 'God', ,, then, something is obviously wrong. They have to mean the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Top