I think the world began as illustrated here: Genesis 3:14-19, but what do I know?
-
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!
Let's Talk About the Holy Spirit
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Surely, God's spirit is Not hamburger helper, but there is a link between power and God's spirit at Luke 1:35
Micah 3:8 was full of power with the spirit of God. The apostles received power to preach when the holy spirit arrived - Acts of the Apostles 1:8
Also, Paul spoke of the power of the holy spirit at Romans 15:13; Romans 15:19
Isaiah 44:3 also likens God's spirit to water being poured out. How could one person fill an entire group ?
God's spirit comes from the word ' pneu'ma ( wind / breath / invisible )
Jesus accomplished things by the power of the spirit - Luke 4:14
Paul got comforting strength from God's power - Philippians 4:13 - enabling him to endure trials.
That power would bring comfort - Luke 11:13 B
Praying for God's spirit gives comfort in helping us cultivate the fruitage of God's spirit as listed at Galatians 5:22-23
What did David say by the power of the holy spirit - Psalms 110; Mark 12:36
God gives the tired one ( physical and spiritual ) the power to successfully face life's challenges - Isaiah 40:28-30,31
I'll raise you a Jesus John 10:38
NWT 38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works,+ so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.”+
Oh no! Did they add another word to change the scriptures again?
They added "in union"
See here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm
Matthew 1:18 in union with child
Matthew 1:20 conceived in union with her
Matthew 1:23 The virgin shall be in union with child
Matthew 2:1 was born in union with Bethlehem
http://biblehub.com/greek/en_1722.htm
Last edited:
There it is again......heaven help anyone who might find those responses rational.....
It is obvious that you have no responses to any of the questions I have asked you...
But what inappropriate propaganda is cropping up in your mailbox? Certainly nothing from me.
And do you need to speak for others here?
OK. That makes it affirmed. I am in a bad dream. This can't be real.
Can you cite some church fathers who did not hold with the immutability of God? Certainly not one of the major ones historically, I can tell you that. But in case I missed something, just whom do you have in mind?
I don't share you disdain for the "sectarian approach." As I have said, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, so we need as much help as we can get for all major fields of scholarship to try and put the biblical snap shots of God into a meaningful whole.
To me, some pantheon of gods all fighting it out just clutters things up but good and ends up in a messy polytheism. So I am content to think the "gods" are really references to human big shots. When it says you will die as men, it means their bubble is about to be burst and they will find out they really aren't gods at all.
I agree some passages do suggest Christ as a being separate from God, subordinate in some divine hierarchy. But, as I said, others equate, identify Christ with God. I do not accept an inerrant Bible . There are many contradictions in it, and perhaps this is one of them. On the other hand, teh contradiction may be resolved if we view God as having a complex social relationship with himself or herself. Psychological models of teh Trinity have been provided. We might follow in the tradition of Tertullian and say the dialogues between the Father and Son are analogous to the internal dialogues I have between, say myself and my reason. I view God as a social-relational being and therefore have no trouble viewing God as a synthesis of personalities, which could very well mean the each member of teh Trinity is a personality that can interact with others in various forms of relationships, all three constituting one larger, overarching, all-inclusive personality, or group mind, if you will, which is the one God.
All I have time for at present.
I agree
I agree and as I said I think of God's power as a direct, immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures.
OK, I have a bit of time now to get back to you. Regarding the end of Jn. 1:1. I like to use "The Revised English Bible." It translates the passage as, "In the beginning the Word already was. That Word was in God's presence and what God was." So I don't quite understand your question.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. Theophilus of Antioch comes to mind. He taught, "that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God,..." Anti-Nicene Fathers, Theophilus to Autolycus, vol 2 chp 22
Theophilus admitted The Father was alone “at first”. He goes on to claim the “Word” [Christ] was “in” Him and produced from the Father, analogous to us being “in” our human father’s loins before birth-Heb 7:9-10. This would indicate Christ was not in fellowship with Him at some point in the past and was brought forth, produced, created at some point.
2. I believe there are enough snap shots in scripture, along with advanced linguistic tools and technological resources to come to our own conclusions. Doctrinal scholarly opinion has merit, but I feel it can sometimes become a crutch that hinders our own due diligence.
3. The scholars of the NLT put it this way:
Psa 82:1 A psalm of Asaph. God presides over heaven's court; He pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
Psa 82:7 But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler.'"
Psa 82:7 But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler.'"
4. Then ask yourself, can Christ be a separate, subordinate God, yet still identify with God? I think that is precisely what John 10:30 together with 1 Co 15:28 indicate.
5. Sounds too complicated for the majority of us simpletons whom God calls (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)
. A simpler, scripturally supported explanation would identify the holy spirit is the "glorified" Christ Himself. The pre-incarnate Christ was the Father's holy spirit in the OT (Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 63:9-10).The resurrected Christ is identified as the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) in the NT. Thus reclaiming His title and glory as the holy spirit (John 17:5; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 15:45), with much more authority and power. To become human, Christ forfeited his supernatural privileges as a spirit being and had to be given the holy spirit (power) from its progenitor--The Father (John 1:32) .
All three entities (The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit) or existences encompass the two personalities (The Father and Christ) who play a vital role in our salvation. I guess if you like titles, it's not quite Trinitarianism and somewhat broader than Binitarianism. It's more like Tribinitarianism.
6. A bit of a linguistic stretch . I can easily quote a couple of translations that actually render the end of John 1:1 "a" God. At this point, I don't think confirmation bias will do any justice to either one of our positions on the translation of John 1:1. Nevertheless, to me, whether the indefinite article is added or not, really makes no difference to his deity. He is still a member of the "God/YHVH" family. Call Jesus Mr. God/YHVH Junior.
7. Nice to have a non-confrontational discussion for a change.
John 17:21 (Jesus' prayer): "May they be IN us." Do you still think that Scripture in John 14, applies that way?
1. Theophilus of Antioch comes to mind. He taught, "that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God,..." Anti-Nicene Fathers, Theophilus to Autolycus, vol 2 chp 22
Theophilus admitted The Father was alone “at first”. He goes on to claim the “Word” [Christ] was “in” Him and produced from the Father, analogous to us being “in” our human father’s loins before birth-Heb 7:9-10. This would indicate Christ was not in fellowship with Him at some point in the past and was brought forth, produced, created at some point.
2. I believe there are enough snap shots in scripture, along with advanced linguistic tools and technological resources to come to our own conclusions. Doctrinal scholarly opinion has merit, but I feel it can sometimes become a crutch that hinders our own due diligence.
3. The scholars of the NLT put it this way:
Psa 82:1 A psalm of Asaph. God presides over heaven's court; He pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
Psa 82:7 But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler.'"
4. Then ask yourself, can Christ be a separate, subordinate God, yet still identify with God? I think that is precisely what John 10:30 together with 1 Co 15:28 indicate.
5. Sounds too complicated for the majority of us simpletons whom God calls (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)
The resurrected Christ is identified as the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) in the NT. Thus reclaiming His title and glory as the holy spirit (John 17:5; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 15:45), with much more authority and power. To become human, Christ forfeited his supernatural privileges as a spirit being and had to be given the holy spirit (power) from its progenitor--The Father (John 1:32) .
All three entities (The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit) or existences encompass the two personalities (The Father and Christ) who play a vital role in our salvation. I guess if you like titles, it's not quite Trinitarianism and somewhat broader than Binitarianism. It's more like Tribinitarianism.
6. A bit of a linguistic stretch . I can easily quote a couple of translations that actually render the end of John 1:1 "a" God. At this point, I don't think confirmation bias will do any justice to either one of our positions on the translation of John 1:1. Nevertheless, to me, whether the indefinite article is added or not, really makes no difference to his deity. He is still a member of the "God/YHVH" family. Call Jesus Mr. God/YHVH Junior.
7. Nice to have a non-confrontational discussion for a change.
Interesting point about Theophilus. He does imply God is capable of change in that the Word emanates out of Him, out of God's "bowels," where it as contained, as he says, where it was contained. However, he was always in fellowship with teh Word, s the Word apparently was always within him, like a mother carrying her child within.
Ps. 82 definitely raises an interesting point. My REV reads a bit different. it says, "God takes his place in teh court of heaven in order to pronounce judgment among the gods." Vs. 6 says "sons of the most high," a term also applied to humans in the Bible. Vs. 8 says, "God, arise and judge the earth." Putting this all together, I think it is talking about earthly kings and rulers. However, you could also be right. Your translation, "heavenly beings" is also interesting. What really are the heavenly beings ? Could that reference be to some form of alien beings or residents of the universe? Very interesting point to consider.
I'd have to see the specifics of the translations of John 1 that you are talking about. I do know the JDubs issued their corrupted edition of teh Bible, The New World Translation,, which mistranslates Jn, and therefore reads "a God." But,as I said before, that breaks the rules f Greek grammar, and was their attempt to bludgeon Scripture into conformity with their philosophy. I also feel it creates a real problem in that it is polytheistic. How many gods are there? If the Son is "a" God, the Father must also be "a" God. Where does this end. Is the Spirit then also "another God?
If you are going to consider Christ a separate, subordinate entity from teh Father, then I see no way he can be God. The Father is God, the boss of bosses, with the Son some subordinate divine lieutenant. Of course, I really don't see how Father and Son can be considered separate beings, since I view all reality, including God, as relational.
I don't agree we could be able to put together the biblical snapshots without help from metaphysics. I don't view the Bible as some sort of magical answer book. It is a doorway, it opens a door to another dimension of reality. The rest is up to us.
Doctrinal scholarship, exactly what is that? If you mean the fathers and major creeds and confessions, I definitely see that as important. I don't want to make it the be all and end all, as I also want to look to modern, contemporary theological scholarship as well. For example, I do not agree with classical theism, with the model of God as presented by the fathers and major creeds. That's why I would call myself a neoclassical theist. So I don't want to set anything in cement. Basically, I think you need to bring into play as much theological and philosophical scholarship as you can muster. I think you should reach your own conclusions. But I think that just trying to tough it out with you and the Bible alone goes absolutely nowhere.
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
That is very true JB. The WT deceives by claiming Romans 10:13 is referring to Jehovah because the writer is quoting from the OT. What witnesses fail to realize is that Joel is a "prophecy" about Jesus.
Joel 2:32 (ESV Strong's) 32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Witnesses fail to connect Romans 10:5-12 to verse 13.
Romans 10:5-13 (ESV Strong's) 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
And Peter, "filled with the Holy Spirit" said,
Acts 4:8-12 (ESV Strong's) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
By inserting Jehovah into Romans 10:13, they are confirming that Jesus is God!
That is interesting to think that God's power as a direct, immediate flow of God's feelings because as 1 Peter 5:7 mentions God cares for you.
But besides feelings, God's power was a direct flow to accomplish the material/physical realm of existence - Psalms 104:30
No, in the beginning the Word was Not already (there) according to Revelation 3:14 B; Revelation 1:5, because Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God, and God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2. So, only God was before the beginning.
So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning. Jesus was the beginning or the start of God creating.- Rev. 3:14
Please notice that the same Greek grammar rules applies at both John 1:1 and Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
From the Greek, KJV omitted the letter 'a' at John, but inserted the letter 'a' at Acts 28:6 B
Jesus is divine coming from heaven, but Jesus is Not the LORD ( all upper-case letters JKV ) of Psalms 110.
There are two (2) LORD/Lords mentioned in the KJV translation at Psalms 110
The Tetragrammaton YHWH only applies to the LORD in all capital letters.
The Lord ( in some lower-case letters ) applies to the Lord Jesus.- Colossians 3:1
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. Theophilus said the Father "was alone". I feel it is illogical for Him and the Son to have had fellowship during this time of solitude. Even if we incorporate your analogy of a mother carrying her child, she cannot have fellowship/two-way dialogue with that child as an embryo or fetus. Thus the pre-incarnate Christ had to be the first born/produced/created YHVH. Just as the scriptures seem to indicate.
2. In Psalms 82:1, we have God doing something in respect to other gods. We are trained to think gods are idols or human elders /rulers in this passage. English translations tend to obscure things. Translators are not intentionally trying to deceive, they are mostly good people. They are just certain passages translators feel will make their average evangelical reader nervous or their publisher nervous. This is one of them.
Due to our Judaeo-Christian sub-culture, we have been taught and programmed to assign a specific set of attributes to the term "God", that are unique. We think omnipotent, omniscience, sovereignty, etc. That is why it feels creepy to put an "s" at the end and say there is more than one.
When the biblical authors wrote "elohim" millenia ago, they did not assign a specific set of attributes in the same manner we do to the term "God" today. This is evidenced by the biblical writers usage of the term "elohim" to identify several different entities. (humans, demons, angels, True God)
3. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NLT), YHVH divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods. YHVH delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While YHVH is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinatesYHVHs , who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where the head YHVH judges the YHVH's of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth. Notice:
Psa 89:6 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
We get a quick glimpse of a council meeting in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. A more detailed one is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. More clues are found in Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Daniel 12:1. The prince/ruler of the kingdom of Persia and Greece, most likely disobedient rulers of the heavenly court we read about in Psalms 82, challenging an obedient subordinate heavenly ruler, Michael.
The seven letters of Revelation are written admonitions to angels. John was told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus, Pergamos, etc.,[Rev 2:1]. There seems to be a hierarchal system of angelic rulers/gods/YHVHs assigned to exert influence (both good and evil) on the nations and the church(es).
Putting the snippets together begins to form a picture of an unseen realm we are only beginning to understand.
4. Mistranslation becomes a highly subjective term when you don't have the first copy ever of the Greek manuscripts. There are places in the KJV and other popular translations where grammar rules are also broken (I demonstrated a couple in a previous post). That is why the JW's can turn around and say the majority of the translations have John 1:1 wrong.
5. Depends on the context. The YHVH family are all considered created gods or YHVHs, therefore spirits (Hebrews 1:14). The Father can also distribute His own spirit in power form. Sort of like the force from Star Wars. For millennia we've been conditioned to think the Father and Jesus are the only YHVHs. But YHVH is also a distributed title that is given to the YHVH family. Some are assigned to serve on earth, others in heaven (Ephesians 3:14-15).
For instance, look at Genesis 19:18 where Lot addressed two angels as YHVH in the plural . All of the translations have lord or lords (adonai). But this is one of the 134 instances where Jewish scribes took it upon themselves to substitute adonai for YHVH. I suspect it was to conceal the fact there were multiple YHVH's. Google "134 emendations of the Sopherim." EW Bullinger has an appendix in his Companion Bible outlining the changes.
6. I think of it in terms of the Father and Son being number 1 and 2 in the YHVH/Smith family. They are both still YHVH/Smith. Christ can be YHVH/Smith in certain contexts and so can the Father, being mindful that Christ is a subordinate YHVH/Smith.
7. Are not all families relational? That is what God/YHVH is---a family with YHVH's/god's name (Ephesians 3:14-15), which we hope to one day join (Luke 20:35-36).
8. I agree. Scholarship has merit. But only as a guide. When I seriously study a doctrine, I place opposing scholarly views to the right and left with the 50+ electronic bible(s) and my various electronic, linguistic resources in the middle. I go down point by point, scripture by scripture. Sometimes it takes me months to cover several scriptures. I gather the information and come to a doctrinal conclusion. I consider input from scholarly sources both pro and con, but the scriptures are my final authority.
Last edited:
term "God" today. This is evidenced by the biblical writers usage of the term "elohim" to identify several different entities. (humans, demons, angels, True God)
3. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NLT), YHVH divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods. YHVH delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While YHVH is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinatesYHVHs , who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where the head YHVH judges the YHVH's of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth. Notice:
We get a quick glimpse of a council meeting in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. A more detailed one is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. More clues are found in Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Daniel 12:1. The prince/ruler of the kingdom of Persia and Greece, most likely disobedient rulers of the heavenly court we read about in Psalms 82, challenging an obedient subordinate heavenly ruler, Michael.
The seven letters of Revelation are written admonitions to angels. John was told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus, Pergamos, etc.,[Rev 2:1]. There seems to be a hierarchal system of angelic rulers/gods/YHVHs assigned to exert influence (both good and evil) on the nations and the church(es).
Putting the snippets together begins to form a picture of an unseen realm we are only beginning to understand.
4. Mistranslation becomes a highly subjective term when you don't have the first copy ever of the Greek manuscripts. There are places in the KJV and other popular translations where grammar rules are also broken (I demonstrated a couple in a previous post). That is why the JW's can turn around and say the majority of the translations have John 1:1 wrong.
5. Depends on the context. The YHVH family are all considered created gods or YHVHs, therefore spirits (Hebrews 1:14). The Father can also distribute His own spirit in power form. Sort of like the force from Star Wars. For millennia we've been conditioned to think the Father and Jesus are the only YHVHs. But YHVH is also a distributed title that is given to the YHVH family. Some are assigned to serve on earth, others in heaven (Ephesians 3:14-15).
For instance, look at Genesis 19:18 where Lot addressed two angels as YHVH in the plural . All of the translations have lord or lords (adonai). But this is one of the 134 instances where Jewish scribes took it upon themselves to substitute adonai for YHVH. I suspect it was to conceal the fact there were multiple YHVH's. Google "134 emendations of the Sopherim." EW Bullinger has an appendix in his Companion Bible outlining the changes.
6. I think of it in terms of the Father and Son being number 1 and 2 in the YHVH/Smith family. They are both still YHVH/Smith. Christ can be YHVH/Smith in certain contexts and so can the Father, being mindful that Christ is a subordinate YHVH/Smith.
7. Are not all families relational? That is what God/YHVH is---a family with YHVH's/god's name (Ephesians 3:14-15), which we hope to one day join (Luke 20:35-36).
8. I agree. Scholarship has merit. But only as a guide. When I seriously study a doctrine, I place opposing scholarly views to the right and left with the 50+ electronic bible(s) and my various electronic, linguistic resources in the middle. I go down point by point, scripture by scripture. Sometimes it takes me months to cover several scriptures. I gather the information and come to a doctrinal conclusion. I consider input from scholarly sources both pro and con, but the scriptures are my final authority.[/QUOTE]
I'm having trouble with my PC, so bear with me.
All mothers have a continual dialogue going on with the baby or babies they carry in their womb. Any medical research will show you there is a continual action and reaction between the two taking place. The interesting question is whether he would be willing to attribute any change to God. The idea of emanation's certainly does suggest God changing. However, Plotinus and other emanation thinkers insisted on the immutability of God. They viewed the heavily bodies, the sun, for example, as having a permanent essence and therefore remaining unchanged by their emanations, which we now know not to be true.
Inserting an "a" into the Prologue to Jn. does in fact break the rules. There is no question about it. That is purely the situation I am concerned with here. Whether or not translations of other passages does or does not break the rule is of no interest to me, and , as far as I am concerned, totally irrelevant here.
I gather you are interested in a kind of social theory of the Trinity. God is a cosmic society or committee of three gods, three unique personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact they all work together in perfect harmony. While that idea does have merits, and has been adopted by more than one contemporary theologian, it is too suggestive of polytheism for me to be comfortable with it. Yes, we are all nervous about putting in an "s," as that seems to compromise the strict monotheism of the Bible. Also, in process metaphysics, the many always become one. In each of our moments of self-formulation, we begin as a manyness, absorbing the many personalities out there, which we synthesize into one concrete unity of feeling, which is the self. So I have no trouble thinking of god as a synthesis of personalities. However, the process cannot stop at just three personalities , at just this manyness. The many become one. Thus, there is a further step where they become one overarching personality, which is the one God.
Whether there is or isn't realm of angelic beings isn't the question here, at least, not the question I am interested in. Either way, the Bible is making the point there is but one God in charge. Given that is the case, teh question I am focusing on is what meaning can we give the Trinity. Are we to affirm it, and if so, why and how? Are we to deny it, and if so why and how?
3. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NLT), YHVH divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods. YHVH delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While YHVH is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinatesYHVHs , who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where the head YHVH judges the YHVH's of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth. Notice:
Psa 89:6 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
We get a quick glimpse of a council meeting in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. A more detailed one is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. More clues are found in Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Daniel 12:1. The prince/ruler of the kingdom of Persia and Greece, most likely disobedient rulers of the heavenly court we read about in Psalms 82, challenging an obedient subordinate heavenly ruler, Michael.
The seven letters of Revelation are written admonitions to angels. John was told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus, Pergamos, etc.,[Rev 2:1]. There seems to be a hierarchal system of angelic rulers/gods/YHVHs assigned to exert influence (both good and evil) on the nations and the church(es).
Putting the snippets together begins to form a picture of an unseen realm we are only beginning to understand.
4. Mistranslation becomes a highly subjective term when you don't have the first copy ever of the Greek manuscripts. There are places in the KJV and other popular translations where grammar rules are also broken (I demonstrated a couple in a previous post). That is why the JW's can turn around and say the majority of the translations have John 1:1 wrong.
5. Depends on the context. The YHVH family are all considered created gods or YHVHs, therefore spirits (Hebrews 1:14). The Father can also distribute His own spirit in power form. Sort of like the force from Star Wars. For millennia we've been conditioned to think the Father and Jesus are the only YHVHs. But YHVH is also a distributed title that is given to the YHVH family. Some are assigned to serve on earth, others in heaven (Ephesians 3:14-15).
For instance, look at Genesis 19:18 where Lot addressed two angels as YHVH in the plural . All of the translations have lord or lords (adonai). But this is one of the 134 instances where Jewish scribes took it upon themselves to substitute adonai for YHVH. I suspect it was to conceal the fact there were multiple YHVH's. Google "134 emendations of the Sopherim." EW Bullinger has an appendix in his Companion Bible outlining the changes.
6. I think of it in terms of the Father and Son being number 1 and 2 in the YHVH/Smith family. They are both still YHVH/Smith. Christ can be YHVH/Smith in certain contexts and so can the Father, being mindful that Christ is a subordinate YHVH/Smith.
7. Are not all families relational? That is what God/YHVH is---a family with YHVH's/god's name (Ephesians 3:14-15), which we hope to one day join (Luke 20:35-36).
8. I agree. Scholarship has merit. But only as a guide. When I seriously study a doctrine, I place opposing scholarly views to the right and left with the 50+ electronic bible(s) and my various electronic, linguistic resources in the middle. I go down point by point, scripture by scripture. Sometimes it takes me months to cover several scriptures. I gather the information and come to a doctrinal conclusion. I consider input from scholarly sources both pro and con, but the scriptures are my final authority.[/QUOTE]
I'm having trouble with my PC, so bear with me.
All mothers have a continual dialogue going on with the baby or babies they carry in their womb. Any medical research will show you there is a continual action and reaction between the two taking place. The interesting question is whether he would be willing to attribute any change to God. The idea of emanation's certainly does suggest God changing. However, Plotinus and other emanation thinkers insisted on the immutability of God. They viewed the heavily bodies, the sun, for example, as having a permanent essence and therefore remaining unchanged by their emanations, which we now know not to be true.
Inserting an "a" into the Prologue to Jn. does in fact break the rules. There is no question about it. That is purely the situation I am concerned with here. Whether or not translations of other passages does or does not break the rule is of no interest to me, and , as far as I am concerned, totally irrelevant here.
I gather you are interested in a kind of social theory of the Trinity. God is a cosmic society or committee of three gods, three unique personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact they all work together in perfect harmony. While that idea does have merits, and has been adopted by more than one contemporary theologian, it is too suggestive of polytheism for me to be comfortable with it. Yes, we are all nervous about putting in an "s," as that seems to compromise the strict monotheism of the Bible. Also, in process metaphysics, the many always become one. In each of our moments of self-formulation, we begin as a manyness, absorbing the many personalities out there, which we synthesize into one concrete unity of feeling, which is the self. So I have no trouble thinking of god as a synthesis of personalities. However, the process cannot stop at just three personalities , at just this manyness. The many become one. Thus, there is a further step where they become one overarching personality, which is the one God.
Whether there is or isn't realm of angelic beings isn't the question here, at least, not the question I am interested in. Either way, the Bible is making the point there is but one God in charge. Given that is the case, teh question I am focusing on is what meaning can we give the Trinity. Are we to affirm it, and if so, why and how? Are we to deny it, and if so why and how?
I'm sorry but I can't at all see how you get that idea from those passages in Revelations. Jn. makes it clear that Christ (the Word) did at exist preexist creation in that the Word is the source , the power that brought about creation.
I am interested only in the situation with Jn.1, where putting in "a" is a clear breach of the rules. Why something like this may or may not have happened in other passages isn't the issue and is a whole other story.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
First, I would like to thank you for answering my questions as requested.
Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.
I’m sure you saw the illogic of this as soon as you wrote it down.
You must rebuke, renounce, and apostatize your old ways in order to become a Christian. In effect, you must become a new creature (2Cor 5:17) and be born again (1Pet 1:23; John 3:3).
If one who was never a Christian cannot apostatize, how on earth did the pagan, atheist, modern Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or gentile of the first century ever become Christian? According to your Watchtower teaching, they could never take on the new personality, could never be Christian, could never stop being what they were before because they were never Christian to begin with!It's more convoluted, circular reasoning, all designed to let you clearly stamp "Apostate!" on the backs of people who leave, but blind you to the same label attached on the forehead of those who enter.
Look, none of us were born accepting Christ. Not you, not me, not anyone on this board. To become Christian, we had to reject the world we were born in and make a conscious decision to rebuff our sinful nature. With the help of the Spirit, we must, as Shak34’s avatar states, “Disobey” our fallen, carnal nature, knowing full well we won’t totally succeed until Christ comes for us in glory. But I don’t see how any Christian can do that if they insist on carrying a plank in their eye and cynically shouting “Apostate!” when they are apostate (or should be) themselves. Not all apostates are Christians, but all Christians are apostate.
Well, if you didn’t apostatize then you and millions of others are still card-carrying members of “Christendom” because you never rebuked your former church. You have one foot in your Organization and one foot out, which, IMO, makes the name calling and labels all the more puzzling.
Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.
I’m sure you saw the illogic of this as soon as you wrote it down.
You must rebuke, renounce, and apostatize your old ways in order to become a Christian. In effect, you must become a new creature (2Cor 5:17) and be born again (1Pet 1:23; John 3:3).
If one who was never a Christian cannot apostatize, how on earth did the pagan, atheist, modern Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or gentile of the first century ever become Christian? According to your Watchtower teaching, they could never take on the new personality, could never be Christian, could never stop being what they were before because they were never Christian to begin with!It's more convoluted, circular reasoning, all designed to let you clearly stamp "Apostate!" on the backs of people who leave, but blind you to the same label attached on the forehead of those who enter.
Look, none of us were born accepting Christ. Not you, not me, not anyone on this board. To become Christian, we had to reject the world we were born in and make a conscious decision to rebuff our sinful nature. With the help of the Spirit, we must, as Shak34’s avatar states, “Disobey” our fallen, carnal nature, knowing full well we won’t totally succeed until Christ comes for us in glory. But I don’t see how any Christian can do that if they insist on carrying a plank in their eye and cynically shouting “Apostate!” when they are apostate (or should be) themselves. Not all apostates are Christians, but all Christians are apostate.
Well, if you didn’t apostatize then you and millions of others are still card-carrying members of “Christendom” because you never rebuked your former church. You have one foot in your Organization and one foot out, which, IMO, makes the name calling and labels all the more puzzling.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean but being "born again" means something entirely different to us than it does to you. Do you know what it means to apostatize? Do you know what being "born again" means?
To become a Christian, you have to obey Christ's teachings before you can claim to be "born again". Not all have the "heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1) I am sure you have your own definition of what that means for you, but we don't agree with it...so no common ground on that score.
An apostate to us is one who defects from their spiritual family after learning the truth from God's word...like Peter describes....
2 Peter 2:20-22 ESV
"20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
This is how God views it.
They became Christians through the preaching work that Jesus assigned to all of his disciples. On hearing the message, their heart responded, and God did the rest. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20; John 6:44)
There were Jewish converts who became Christians after hearing the message. (Acts 8:26-39) But when Christ had returned to heaven, Gentiles no longer had to become Jewish proselytes.
Since not a word of that is true, it is your own reasoning that appears to be circular. If you misunderstand our beliefs, how do you expect to evaluate them? If you have relatives who are JW's, have you ever even listened to them? If you had, you would not be posting nonsense like that.
The way to God through Christ was at first only open to Jews in the first century, as God promised. People of the gentile nations didn't even get an invitation until Peter's encounter with Cornelius...the first gentile Christian convert. That was directed by holy spirit at God's determination. Where is the circular reasoning?
The majority of Jehovah's Witnesses today are not of the "heavenly calling".....Jesus came first to resurrect his anointed "brothers" (who are also adopted "sons" of his father,) whom he said will rule as kings and act as priests during the 1,000 years of kingdom rule. (Revelation 20:6) That is how long it will take their earthly subjects to be regenerated back into an acceptable relationship with their Creator. This can happen only after every last vestige of sin has been removed from mortal human flesh....the very reason why Christ came....to get back what Adam lost for his children. His heavenly government will rule over those who will also need them as priests. We don't all expect to go to heaven because those who go to heaven don't need priests. They have shed their sinful flesh to take on an immortal spirit body in heaven. God's Kingdom is a heavenly government that will rule over earthly subjects. (Revelation 21:1-5) Those subjects will include resurrected ones whom Jesus calls from their graves; "both righteous and unrighteous". (John 5:28-29)
If that is your view, then you are welcome to it...it isn't even close to ours.
Again you are way short of the truth here. It is your assertions that are puzzling.
I see that this is a very serious problem for the Congregation of God. I think it was you who said you obey no authority, and I asked you if you believe Scripture is an authority and you did not answer me.
Jesus Christ is my final authority. I do not know why there are very, very few of us who obey The Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ's name as The Final Authority.
Why does nobody correct them who make listen mean reason?
You are all REASONING for your doctrine.
https://dailyverses.net/listening
John 10:27