Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think I will.Again another indication of your intelligence level. Frankly, I am not interested. Tell someone else.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think I will.Again another indication of your intelligence level. Frankly, I am not interested. Tell someone else.
Jesus is both my king and Lord.1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect..kaleb, as a JW, do you believe Jesus Christ is LORD? Do you believe that Isaiah 6:1-4 is a reference to the risen Christ?
That's not quite true. The LXX substitutes "Lord" (kurios) for YHVH. In Philippians, Paul uses the same word (kurios) in referring to Jesus.Lord God Almighty is only ever used with reference to Jehovah, never to Jesus.
Just because someone is called "Lord" doesnt mean he is God. Jesus was called Lord, the Angel of God's Presence, Abraham, etc.....That's not quite true. The LXX substitutes "Lord" (kurios) for YHVH. In Philippians, Paul uses the same word (kurios) in referring to Jesus.
But it is compelling that the exact term is used -- and it's not a term that's "usual" or "everyday" -- it's a term that's reserved in the LXX for YHVH. Since the term is reserved for a divine identity, what that tells us is that Paul sees Jesus' "Lordship" the same as YHVH's -- IOW, Jesus' divinity is seen by Paul as the same as YHVH's. Otherwise, Paul would have used a different term.Just because someone is called "Lord" doesnt mean he is God. Jesus was called Lord, the Angel of God's Presence, Abraham, etc.....
redemption you raise some interesting reasonings there, so let's consider it one at a time.Well, .kaleb, I suggest you look at John 12:41 (in context). When Isaiah saw 'his glory, and spake of him' he was speaking about Jesus Christ, the King.
Good question by the way, I'll address this once we have dealt with your other questions.Allow me to ask one more question, directed at both .kaleb and truthofscripture: Is Jehovah our Saviour, or is Jesus Christ our Saviour?
This is not a puzzle at all. All three were angels. Angels can bear God's name as in the angel of God's Presence. He can speak as if God Himself was speaking. He could also forgive sins. God can talk through His angels too. Remember what the bible says about God, no one has ever seen God at anytime. Two of the angels went to Sodom and the third angel stayed with Abraham. God does not come down to earth. There is no reason for that. His spirit is everywhere. He also has His angels doing work here too. God manifestation.moorea944, here's a puzzle for you:-
In Genesis 18:1 it says that 'The LORD appeared unto him;' (Abraham visited by three men); in verse 22 it is said, 'The men turned their faces from thence, and went towards Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD;' and in chapter 19:1 it is said, ' There came two Angels to Sodom at even.'
Can we deduce from this that of the three men who appeared to Abraham, two were angels, and one, who remained, was Yahweh/Jehovah himself?
we are in agreement on this.Kaleb, I agree that we should look carefully at the passage in Isaiah first.
And yes, I would agree that 6:3 refers to Yahweh, read as Adonai in my Bible. So, it makes sense to say that the king on the throne is Jehovah.
The same Jehovah is mentioned in verse 5, 'for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts (Jehovah)'.
One in what sense? Jesus himself said in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."The issue is whether Jehovah is one with his Son, Christ Jesus.
I concurClearly, the 'arm of the Lord' (John 12:38) is a reference to Jesus Christ.
can you expand on thisBut so too is the reference to his 'glory', verse 41. This same GLORY cannot be separated from the Lord of hosts, any more than the arm can be separated from the being of Jehovah.
Again I'll let the scriptures do the talking.Which is the very reason that I ask you to explain how Jehovah and Christ can be divided into two distinct beings.
Paul certainly acknowledges Jesus lordship. However, what do you think Paul means, and the implications of what he writes at 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.But it is compelling that the exact term is used -- and it's not a term that's "usual" or "everyday" -- it's a term that's reserved in the LXX for YHVH. Since the term is reserved for a divine identity, what that tells us is that Paul sees Jesus' "Lordship" the same as YHVH's -- IOW, Jesus' divinity is seen by Paul as the same as YHVH's. Otherwise, Paul would have used a different term.
Here's your referenced text in a MUCH more reliable translation:Paul certainly acknowledges Jesus lordship. However, what do you think Paul means, and the implications of what he writes at 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
How is it that Jesus' divinity & lordship is the same as Jehovah's when Jesus subjects himself to Jehovah, but as vs 26 states: it is evident that this does not include the One (Jehovah) who subjected all things to him?