1. 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!

Featured Colossians 1:16 Jesus the Almighty, [John 1:3, Jesus is God incarnated

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Desert Snake, Aug 16, 2019.

  1. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,551
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •Lord God•
    I'm ok with either interpretation of Psalms 110

    Both could probably be argued in Scripture.
    Matthew 22:37-46

    Ie, is Dovid calling Jesus the second Lord, or the first Lord, in Psalms 110:1

    The second Lord does parallel Scripture, as Jesus is the Mighty One, basically, Psalms 110
     
  2. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +2,038
    I haven't rejected God or Jesus, just the churches.
     
  3. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,050
    Ratings:
    +1,378
    Religion:
    Christian
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,949
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I understand that God Jehovah is nothing to do with a video game, nor does he exist in virtual reality....it is a very immature analogy IMO. I can only assume that you are young, even to accept that as a valid explanation. Believe me when I tell you that first century Christians would have never thought of such a thing.You have to think like a first century Jew.

    I don't believe that you understand the plain English of the Bible. Those who adhere to the trinity have fallen for the greatest con in Biblical history. The MO used by the devil has never changed. On the brink of entering the Promised Land, how did satan prevent many of those camped there on the outside, from ever getting in there? He produced some beautiful women who lured the Israelite men into immorality. The devil did not prevent them from entering the Promised Land, they did it themselves because they fell for his temptations. He did not separate them from their God...they did by their failure to uphold God's moral laws.This approach works so well for him because, all he has to do is get God's people to separate themselves from God by their own disobedience. Christendom is disobedient in so many ways.

    The trinity has been around for centuries, but the concept is not only found in Christendom....it pre-dates Christianity and is found in many parts of the world....in non-Christian religions. It seems strange that Christendom can adopt many ideas and practices from false religion, but you hardly ever see false religions adopt any beliefs or practices from the true God. Not hard to figure out why...is it?

    When Jesus comes as judge, by what criteria does he evaluate those who claim him as their "Lord"?
    He said....
    "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:21-23)

    Think for a moment just what that means.....he is addressing those who call him their "Lord", and he indicates that many of them are NOT doing the will of his Father....(not Jesus' will, but his Father's will.)

    Now look at the excuses that they offer to him to indicate that they believe they are serving his interests....'prophesying....casting out demons and performing mighty works', all 'in Jesus' name'..yet what is his response? "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness".....Jesus says that he has NEVER known these ones. "Never" means "not ever", so this is an indication that those who consider themselves "Christians" might not be so in the eyes of God and his Christ. What does he call them? "workers of lawlessness"......how can that be? These are supposedly good Christians who thought that their form of worship was acceptable to Jesus, but who have been fooling themselves all along. Whose laws are they breaking? God's laws...how?

    They have broken the first Commandment by placing God's son on equal footing with God, usurping his Father's position, making him an equal.....but Jesus was himself God's servant.

    Acts 4:29-30 says..."And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

    So you see that in the first century, 'powerful works' identified servants who did these things 'in Jesus' name'.....yet at the judgment Jesus rejects those who claim to have done these very same things....so, why does he call them "workers of lawlessness"?

    The apostle Paul indicated that the spiritual gifts given in the first century were to cease and be replaced by the more important spiritual qualities that mature Christians would demonstrate.

    He wrote...1 Corinthians 13:8-13...
    "But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."


    The identifying marks of true Christianity today are the big three..."faith, hope and love"....not tricks that can be mimicked by the devil to trap the unwary.

    Paul warned..."Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?" (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5)

    Does this not aptly describe what happened in Rome in the 4th century? "The rebellion" was an apostasy that was to take genuine Christianity away from the people and offer them a weak substitute. The "man of lawlessness" is one who promotes this fake "weed-like" Christianity and leads the people in an opposite direction. This had to happen before Christ's second appearance. Who sat in God's temple proclaiming himself to be Christ's representative on earth? Who, by their actions and teachings misrepresented Christ to the world? Who are responsible for the false teachings that run through all of Christendom? Whose hands are filled with innocent blood? Who teaches falsehoods about God that lead people to worshipping the wrong God?

    The parable of the "wheat and the weeds" indicates that the "harvest time" will show up who is really serving God as disciples of his Christ...and who are not. In the beginning it was hard to tell the difference...but at the harvest time, there is no similarity. Its the differences that makes identification possible. Only one united global brotherhood are 'doing the will of the Father' in this time period. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) The rest are pretending to or making excuses for why they don't.....but actions speak louder than empty words.

    What do you think the will of the Father is?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,949
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The generally accepted form of the divine name in English is “Jehovah,” and the name is similarly represented in other languages.

    Here is a list of all the different ways that God's name is translated in other languages...we seem to get hung up on the English translation as if it is the only one. So tell me which of these names does God answer to?

    • Aneityum: Ihova

    • Arawak: Jehovah

    • Awabakal: Yehóa

    • Bangi: Yawe

    • Batak (Toba): Jahowa

    • Benga: Jěhova

    • Bolia: Yawe

    • Bube: Yehovah

    • Bullom So: Jehovah

    • Chácobo: Jahué

    • Cherokee: Yihowa

    • Chin (Hakha): Zahova

    • Chippewa: Jehovah

    • Choctaw: Chihowa

    • Chuukese: Jiowa

    • Croatian: Jehova

    • Dakota: Jehowa

    • Dobu: Ieoba

    • Douala: Yehowa

    • Dutch: Jehovah

    • Efate (North): Yehova

    • Efik: Jehovah

    • English: Jehovah

    • Éwé: Yehowa

    • Fang: Jehôva

    • Fijian: Jiova

    • French: IHVH, yhwh

    • Ga: Iehowa

    • German: Jehovah; Jehova

    • Gibario (dialect of Kerewo): Iehova

    • Grebo: Jehova

    • Hawaiian: Iehova

    • Hebrew: יהוה

    • Hindustani: Yihováh

    • Hiri Motu: Iehova

    • Ho-Chunk (Winnebago): Jehowa

    • Ila: Yaave

    • Iliku (dialect of Lusengo): Yawe

    • Indonesian: YAHWEH

    • Kala Lagaw Ya: Iehovan

    • Kalanga: Yehova; Yahwe

    • Kalenjin: Jehovah

    • Kerewo: Iehova

    • Kiluba: Yehova

    • Kipsigis: Jehoba

    • Kiribati: Iehova

    • Kisonge: Yehowa

    • Korean: 여호와

    • Kosraean: Jeova

    • Kuanua: Ieova

    • Laotian: Yehowa

    • Lele: Jehova

    • Lewo: Yehova

    • Lingala: Yawe

    • Logo: Yehova

    • Lomongo: Yawe; Yova

    • Lonwolwol: Jehovah

    • Lugbara: Yehova

    • Luimbi: Yehova

    • Luna: Yeoba

    • Lunda: Yehova

    • Luo: Yawe

    • Luvale: Yehova

    • Malagasy: Jehovah; Iehôvah

    • Malo: Iova

    • Marquesan: Iehova

    • Marshallese: Jeova

    • Maskelynes: Iova

    • Mentawai: Jehoba

    • Meriam: Iehoua

    • Misima-Paneati: Iehova

    • Mizo: Jehovan; Jihova’n

    • Mohawk: Yehovah

    • Mortlockese: Jioua

    • Motu: Iehova

    • Mpongwe (dialect of Myene): Jehova

    • Muskogee: Cehofv

    • Myene: Yeôva

    • Naga, Angami: Jihova

    • Naga, Konyak: Jihova

    • Naga, Lotha: Jihova

    • Naga, Mao: Jihova

    • Naga, Northern Rengma: Jihova

    • Naga, Sangtam: Jihova

    • Nandi: Jehova

    • Narrinyeri: Jehovah

    • Nauruan: Jehova

    • Navajo: Jîho’vah

    • Ndau: Jehova

    • Nembe: Jehovah

    • Nengone (or, Maré): Iehova

    • Ngando: Yawe

    • Ntomba: Yawe

    • Nukuoro: Jehova

    • Polish: Jehowa

    • Portuguese: Iáhve

    • Rarotongan: Jehova; Iehova

    • Rerep: Iova

    • Rotuman: Jihova

    • Sakao: Ihova; Iehova

    • Samoan: Ieova

    • Seneca: Ya’wĕn

    • Sengele: Yawe

    • Sesotho: Yehofa

    • Sie: Iehōva

    • Spanish: Jehová; Yahvé; YHWH; Yahweh

    • Sranantongo: Jehova

    • Sukuma: Yahuwa; Jakwe

    • Tahitian: Iehova

    • Teke-Eboo: Yawe

    • Temne: Yehṓfa; Yehofa

    • Thai: Yahowa

    • Toaripi: Jehova; Iehova

    • Tonga: Jehova

    • Tongan: Jihova; Sihova

    • Tshiluba: Yehowa

    • Tswana: Jehofa; Yehova; Yehofa

    • Umbundu: Yehova

    • Uripiv: Iova

    • Wampanoag: Jehovah

    • Welsh: Iehofah

    • Xhosa: Yehova

    • Zande: Yekova

    • Zulu: Jehova; YAHWE
    The answer is...ALL of them.

    The creator of language knows his name in all languages. A translation is not a transliteration.....do you know the difference?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,050
    Ratings:
    +1,378
    Religion:
    Christian
    All very interesting. So, YHWH becomes Jehovah, how exactly did that work ? Where did the vowels come from ? Who decided what vowels to use ?

    Jehovah is an agreed upon name of God. /that is, people got together and agreed that this word would mean God.

    It IS NOT the name of God as represented by YHWH, or three dots ... , or an empty space . .

    No one knows what the name was or how it was pronounced.

    So, Jehovah an agreed upon name of God, is not THE name of God.

    It is NOT used in the inspired books of the NT.
     
  7. moorea944

    moorea944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,083
    Ratings:
    +250



    The 'trinity' is what makes the Tetragrammaton, who you are calling Yahweh, G-d, into G-d, scriptually.

    The trinity is what makes the tetragrammation? The trinity, my friend, has nothing to do with scripture. It is a man made doctrine. Do you actually know what the word Tetragrammation means?

    Why? Because of belief. As Judeo- Christians we have derived every argument under the sun, to say that the Tetragrammaton , is 'G-d', and not what you are unknowningly presenting, which makes Jesus the Tetragrammaton , and 'G-d' , into a different g-d, altogether.

    What are you writting "G-d". I'm just curious..... Plus, I"m really tring to figure out what exactly your trying to say here. Very confusing.... It's almost like your putting words in my mouth that I didnt even say. Interesting........

    Your argument makes the Tetragrammaton, who you are calling Yahweh, into "not g-d".

    What??????
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. moorea944

    moorea944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,083
    Ratings:
    +250
    lol
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +2,038
    One thing I'd like to discuss with you: I "think" that most Muslims, aside from the violent ones who believe nothing, hold God in such high esteem that they think he is a spirit being. Thus, Jesus can not be his Son because to them, God (Allah SWT) being a spirit, does not procreate. I'm western, from Evangelical roots, so have had the point of view that "Jesus is the Son of God" essentially programmed into me. Even when I was a very observant Muslim, there was a conflict for me. You can't discuss this with a Muslim because they accuse you of "Shirk" and worthy of death. In some Middle Eastern countries I would have been beheaded. I finally decided that the whole thing was special and beyond the understanding of man. I just did not speak of it during that time.

    I think that Christians who daemonize Muslims are displaying profound ignorance and lack of compassion.

    For me, there is One Faith, one God, and one way to please him.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,740
    Ratings:
    +2,814
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    And to you.
    In Paul and John, Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God. He was always divine. Paul has him 'empty himself' in order to become human, and says he was born of (an unidentified) woman. The precise nature of his emptied Jesus is unclear, not least because Paul's Jesus is close to always in heaven.

    In Mark, Jesus is simply a Jew from a Jewish family whom God adopts at his baptism; only later, perhaps at his resurrection, does God elevate him to heavenly status.

    In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is divine from the moment of his conception, but has no heavenly pre-existence.
    It's very difficult to say what that could mean in real terms. If Jesus were examined at a modern hospital, is it suggested than any real difference would be found? Or is 'god nature' a judgment which an individual human attributes to another person?
     
  11. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +2,038
    This is comical to me. The Muslims insist he has 99 names. I think that comes from their feeling that they can not honor the Creator enough. :)

    Some of the things I hear people say, make me want to shake my head and wander off. I wonder how often I disgust people?
     
  12. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,050
    Ratings:
    +1,378
    Religion:
    Christian
    And what way is that ?
     
  13. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,050
    Ratings:
    +1,378
    Religion:
    Christian
    Probably more times than you think.
     
  14. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,551
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •Lord God•
    The gnostic ideas may exist where there is theism. If Jesus is being called the demiurge, then a sacrifice makes sense, it seems.
     
    #74 Desert Snake, Aug 18, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
  15. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,551
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •Lord God•
    We're going by words, here. Not speculation.
    Genesis 1:26
    Being an example. You might have a 'theory', or a belief, that that verse was changed, or should say something else, however, it doesn't.
    That's how we compare Biblical arguments, by what they say, as opposed to what we might believe was changed, or should say, or whatever.

    In other words, I am making compromises in the arguments, outside of belief. That is how an argument is "presented". Then, we can explain the belief, or even just make a contextual argument, with references.

    So, when we are using the Christian Bible, that includes the OT, the Gospels, and the Epistles, and contextually, the Apocrypha.

    Therefore when you say 'Jesus is Adonai', a pre'existant Lord, so forth, then we follow that, with Jesus is the Adonai of the Bible, where it matches, or can be argued.
    For example
    Psalms 110

    Matthew 22:37-46
    'David calls me Lord', is what Jesus says,

    Jesus says that David calls Him Lord. Now, there are two 'lords', in Psalms 110:1

    We already know that Dovid calls Jesus Lord, the question, is which 'Lord', in Psalms 110:1 is Jesus referring to?

    If Dovid is calling Jesus the second Lord, Adonai, then Psalms 110
    Is obviously about Jesus, not David.

    If David means the first 'Lord', that is Yahweh, and means that David is calling Jesus, Yahweh.

    So, which is it? Which 'Lord' in Psalms 110:1 is David calling Lord?

     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,949
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    So "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or just the title "Lord"...does it matter?

    "Which Pronunciation Will You Use?

    Where, though, did pronunciations like Yahweh come from? These are forms that have been suggested by modern scholars trying to deduce the original pronunciation of God’s name. Some—though not all—feel that the Israelites before the time of Jesus probably pronounced God’s name Yahweh. But no one can be sure. Perhaps they pronounced it that way, perhaps not.

    Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

    To take the most prominent example, consider the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus’ family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or perhaps Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus.

    However, when the accounts of his life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve that original Hebrew pronunciation. Rather, they rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sousʹ. Today, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soosʹ). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zooʹ). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yayʹsoos).

    Must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation? So far, no translator has suggested this. We like to use the name, for it identifies the beloved Son of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his lifeblood for us. Would it be showing honor to Jesus to remove all mention of his name in the Bible and replace it with a mere title like “Teacher,” or “Mediator”? Of course not! We can relate to Jesus when we use his name the way it is commonly pronounced in our language.

    Similar comments could be made regarding all the names we read in the Bible. We pronounce them in our own language and do not try to imitate the original pronunciation. Thus we say “Jeremiah,” not Yir·meyaʹhu. Similarly we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.

    And the same is true with the name Jehovah. Even though the modern pronunciation Jehovah might not be exactly the way it was pronounced originally, this in no way detracts from the importance of the name. It identifies the Creator, the living God, the Most High to whom Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”—Matthew 6:9."
    God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

    You cannot sanctify a name you never use.

    I think your arguments are weak here shmogie. "Jehovah" is a translation...not a transliteration like "Yahweh".....do you know the difference? There are sound reasons for using it in preference to not using anything but a title. A title will NEVER replace God's unique name in his own inspired word.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,740
    Ratings:
    +2,814
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The word 'demiurge' doesn't occur in the NT, but Paul and the author of John attribute demiurge-like functions to their Jesuses - pre-existing with God, building the material world, mediating between God and that world. The demiurge's connection to materiality in this view makes him inferior to God, who's pure spirit; the Jesuses of John and Paul aren't put in those terms, but in heaven they're servants, not master.
     
  18. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,551
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •Lord God•
    Isn't this in the context of Yahweh 'changing persona'? In other words, that is just a theory, and textually, the inference would be that Yahweh, is the demiurge, not the 'g-d' of pure spirit, that you mention. Yahweh generally believed to be the personal god, so forth.
     
  19. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,740
    Ratings:
    +2,814
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The relationship between God and the demiurge resembles the relationship between Yahweh / the Father and Jesus. The idea that God is pure spirit fits with the author of John's various remarks about 'No man has seen God', leaving Jesus as the mediator:

    John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

    John 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;

    John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.​

    I can't think of an example of Paul putting it like that. There's:

    1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.​

    but I Timothy is these days regarded as a pseudepigraph.
     
  20. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,466
    Ratings:
    +3,131
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hey, @moorea944 , my friend! How have you been? Glad to have you back.

    You have been gone a while, right?
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...