Jesus

[may]

Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he came to earth. He was God's first creation, and so he is called the "firstborn" Son of God. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) Jesus is the only Son that God created by himself. Jehovah used the prehuman Jesus as his "master worker" in creating all other things in heaven and on earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:16, 17) God also used him as His chief spokesman. That is why Jesus is called "the Word."—John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13. so there we have it , Jeus is Gods son , just as the bible teaches us . many people say that Jesus is God himself , but the bible quite clearly teaches us that Jesus is not God at all, he is Gods first-born son.

 

[Darkness]

Finally someone who understands this fact of the Bible. :yes:

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I believe that the facts surrounding Jesus are and will remain a mystery.

It is important to Love both God and follow the teaching of Jesus.

As the son of God our understanding of his present relationship with God, depend on our interpretation of numerous Biblical passages, and the group of Christians to which we associate our selves.

None of these things make us less or more than other Christians

 

[sojourner]

Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he came to earth. He was God's first creation, and so he is called the "firstborn" Son of God. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14) Jesus is the only Son that God created by himself. Jehovah used the prehuman Jesus as his "master worker" in creating all other things in heaven and on earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:16, 17) God also used him as His chief spokesman. That is why Jesus is called "the Word."—John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13. so there we have it , Jeus is Gods son , just as the bible teaches us . many people say that Jesus is God himself , but the bible quite clearly teaches us that Jesus is not God at all, he is Gods first-born son.

The understanding of the early Church, as voiced so eloquently in the Nicene Creed, was that Jesus was begotten, not made (created). Their understanding was also that Jesus was begotten "God from God." The Church herself asserts that the Son is God, as the Father is God. Since the Bible is a construct of the Church, it must have been written with that particular concept in mind. Perhaps you're missing something in the translation...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The understanding of the early Church, as voiced so eloquently in the Nicene Creed, was that Jesus was begotten, not made (created). Their understanding was also that Jesus was begotten "God from God." The Church herself asserts that the Son is God, as the Father is God. Since the Bible is a construct of the Church, it must have been written with that particular concept in mind. Perhaps you're missing something in the translation...

I am sure many of us would agree with your interpretation.
How ever it is not the only one recognised or believed by all Christians.
since interpretation changes neither the nature of God nor Jesus,but only our personal understanding; I prefer not to be dogmatic on this point, it is some thing that will be revealed to us all in due course.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I am sure many of us would agree with your interpretation.
How ever it is not the only one recognised or believed by all Christians.
since interpretation changes

Individuals' interpretations change; the Church's don't on matters of doctrine. The Nicene Creed has been one of the most fundamental declarations proclaiming true Christian orthodoxy in all of Church history, by Catholics, Orthdox, and Protestants alike.

neither the nature of God nor Jesus,but only our personal understanding; I prefer not to be dogmatic on this point, it is some thing that will be revealed to us all in due course.

If you're not going to be dogmatic on something as fundamental as God's nature, what are you dogmatic on?

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, May.

I agree with the following:

Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he came to earth.
He was God's first creation, and so he is called the "firstborn Son of God."
God also used him as His chief spokesman. That is why Jesus is called "the Word.
Jesus is Gods son, just as the Bible teaches us.

I agree with some qualifications with the following:

Jehovah used the prehuman Jesus as his "master worker" in creating all other things in heaven and on earth.

I agree that God used His Son to create the universe and everything in it, but I believe that Jehovah was the name by which Jesus was known in His pre-mortal existence. LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father was known as Elohim.

Many people say that Jesus is God himself, but the Bible quite clearly teaches us that Jesus is not God at all.

I agree that God the Father is not the same individual as Jesus Christ. Jesus referred to His Father as His God. He constantly referred to His Father as a separate person. The Latter-day Saints believe, however, that as the Son of God, Jesus is also rightfully called "God." He shares this title with His Father and is himself divine. According to our doctrine, He is the second personage of the Godhead and is one in will and purpose with His Father.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he came to earth.

Jesus Christ, the Son, has always existed, as He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega. (Rev. 1:17-18, 22:13)

He was God's first creation, and so he is called the "firstborn" Son of God. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14)

He is pre-eminent over all creation, having been the Creator. His status as Firstborn derives from Hebrew usage denoting eminence and authority, not chronological beginning (Psalm 89:27, referring to King David, a youngest son; Jer. 31:9, referring to Ephraim, second born son).

Jesus is the only Son that God created by himself. Jehovah used the prehuman Jesus as his "master worker" in creating all other things in heaven and on earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:16, 17)

As Colossians 1:16-17 says, Jesus created all things; the term "other", inserted in the NWT in brackets, is not found in the original Greek. Since Jesus created all things, He by definition cannot be created Himself.

God also used him as His chief spokesman. That is why Jesus is called "the Word."—John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13.

As John 1:1 plainly states, the Word, Jesus, is God.

so there we have it , Jeus is Gods son , just as the bible teaches us . many people say that Jesus is God himself , but the bible quite clearly teaches us that Jesus is not God at all, he is Gods first-born son.

I have probably gone too far already in this thread, since it's not in the debate section, but I think one sees my point...as the Church has declared for 2,000 years now, Jesus Christ is God, who came in the flesh and died for us.

 

[nutshell]

The understanding of the early Church, as voiced so eloquently in the Nicene Creed, was that Jesus was begotten, not made (created). Their understanding was also that Jesus was begotten "God from God." The Church herself asserts that the Son is God, as the Father is God. Since the Bible is a construct of the Church, it must have been written with that particular concept in mind. Perhaps you're missing something in the translation...

Or perhaps the those at the Nicene Creed were missing something with their interpretations and decisions as to what gets in and what's taken out.

 

[nutshell]

Individuals' interpretations change; the Church's don't on matters of doctrine. The Nicene Creed has been one of the most fundamental declarations proclaiming true Christian orthodoxy in all of Church history, by Catholics, Orthdox, and Protestants alike.

And yet the creed itself is not scripture - it's another interpretation.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

And yet the creed itself is not scripture - it's another interpretation.

Correct, an interpretation by the Church, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, which Christ continually guards from error through His power and authority. Scripture historically is inseparable from Tradition and Church teaching.

But do you really want to go there?

 

[Katzpur]

Correct, an interpretation by the Church, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, which Christ continually guards from error through His power and authority. Scripture historically is inseparable from Tradition and Church teaching.

But do you really want to go there?

:yes: , but not on this thread.

 

[nutshell]

Correct, an interpretation by the Church, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, which Christ continually guards from error through His power and authority. Scripture historically is inseparable from Tradition and Church teaching.

But do you really want to go there?

I'm not scared of your threats. The Church is run by men...thus the interpretation is mans.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Individuals' interpretations change; the Church's don't on matters of doctrine. The Nicene Creed has been one of the most fundamental declarations proclaiming true Christian orthodoxy in all of Church history, by Catholics, Orthdox, and Protestants alike.

In the church of England it was once Dogma that it was God's will that only men could be priests priests. this has been over turned and now any priestly office can also be held by women. The Catholic Church may change very slowly but others are not so encumbered. The catholic Church once thought the inquisition was a valid form of control and through it, it was doing God's will.

If you're not going to be dogmatic on something as fundamental as God's nature, what are you dogmatic on?

I tend not to be dogmatic at all, as a heretic, that is a reasonable position to hold.
I mean Dogmatic in the sense of absolutism. I believe I know some thing about God's nature, but not every detail, Further enlightenment is always possible.

 

[sojourner]

And yet the creed itself is not scripture - it's another interpretation.

That statement implies a sola scriptura stance -- a stance the Church didn't take for the first 1500 years of her existence. Therefore, the Creed is not an interpretation of Biblical information, but a tradition of belief formulated from the beginning.

Or perhaps the those at the Nicene Creed were missing something with their interpretations and decisions as to what gets in and what's taken out.

See above. The Nicene Creed is not Biblical interpretation, per se. Rather, it's a document that attempts to outline and define a belief of the Church.

 

[nutshell]

That statement implies a sola scriptura stance -- a stance the Church didn't take for the first 1500 years of her existence. Therefore, the Creed is not an interpretation of Biblical information, but a tradition of belief formulated from the beginning.



See above. The Nicene Creed is not Biblical interpretation, per se. Rather, it's a document that attempts to outline and define a belief of the Church.

I understand this, but the decided what got into the Bible what was left out and used the document to explain their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Seraphiel]

For me Jesus represents a (kind of Buddha). He was certainly an enlightened person.

 

[sojourner]

I understand this, but the decided what got into the Bible what was left out and used the document to explain their interpretation of the Bible.

Sorry. I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. What "document" are you talking about? The Nicene Creed? The creed is nothing more than an attempt to state succinctly what the Church at that time could agree upon were the basic truths about God. Those truths have not changed.

 

[nutshell]

Sorry. I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. What "document" are you talking about? The Nicene Creed? The creed is nothing more than an attempt to state succinctly what the Church at that time could agree upon were the basic truths about God. Those truths have not changed.

And those truths represent their interpretation of he Bible.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I'm not scared of your threats. The Church is run by men...thus the interpretation is mans.

It was hardly a threat, nuthsell, however, it would severely derail this thread I imagine. A belief that the Church is merely manmade and man-run, with no divinely given guidance or authority, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Biblical Church.