moorea944
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but you have to remember, the HS is not a person, it is the power of God or God's power. If the HS was a person, then he would be Jesus's father. Plus, the bible says it is the power of God.
-
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!
The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God
- Thread starter 74x12
- Start date
Yeah, but you have to remember, the HS is not a person, it is the power of God or God's power. If the HS was a person, then he would be Jesus's father. Plus, the bible says it is the power of God.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Thank you for recommendation. I find the use of "essence" for God rather confusing. What is God is hidden, transcendent, unknowable for our limited view, beyond any definition and category. Infinity can be only One. Essence assumes some attributes that define something. It can be used only for God's glory. As by analogy we can't look at the sun but we can look at it's light.
After all is it really important to know if Jesus is God or the first next to God or...?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're more than welcome.
I don't believe it applies in this case. God is God, thus the more important question that does relate is what is Jesus and the Holy Spirit vis-a-vis God. The 1st century Church believe Jesus and the HS was of God but there appears to have been different concepts as to what that exactly was. Needless to say, I don't propose that I know the answer to that.
It's less of a definition than it is drawing parallels and relationships. IOW, what is the "essence" of Jesus and the HS vis-a-vis God.
I think it's far more important to do what Jesus taught us to do and thus internalize his message to "love one another as I have loved you".
Huh, there is No triune, No trinity God in Scripture, so Jesus can't be God.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12; Hebrews 9:24.
God created the world through pre-human Jesus - Genesis 1:26; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14 B.
Both John and Jesus were sent for a purpose.
However, John was never in Heaven - John 3:13 - but pre-human Jesus was. -Acts of the Apostles 2:34; Psalms 110
I find the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus is the first next to his God - Revelation 3:12; 3:21
God has No beginning as per Psalms 90:2, but Jesus has a pre-human beginning - Revelation 3:14 B
So, only God was before the beginning, thus Jesus was Not before the beginning as his God was.
This places Jesus ' in ' the beginning, but never ' before ' the beginning as his God was ' before ' the beginning.
Jesus always gives the credit to his God - Revelation 4:11; John 4:23-24.
I find God's spirit (Psalms 104:30) is Not a person but a neuter 'it ' as per Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25
And before the so-called modern version of Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26 God's spirit was a neutral 'it ' in those verses.
Plus, Job did Not have a person in his nose - Job 27:3
Yes, if we internalize Jesus' message of John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
Then, that internalization will show externally toward others.
Externally by obeying Jesus' commission to tell others about the good news of God's kingdom as Jesus instructed.
- Daniel 2:44; Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I was reminded of a story from the saying's of the desert fathers:
A brother from Abba Poemen's neighbourhood left to go to another country one day. There he met an anchorite. The latter was very charitable and many came to see him. The brother told him about Abba Poemen. When he heard of his virtue, the anchorite wanted to see him. Some time afterwards when the brother had returned to Egypt the anchorite went there to see the brother who had formerly paid him a visit. He had told him where he lived. When he saw him, the brother was astonished and very pleased. The anchorite said to him, 'Please will you be so kind as to take me to Abba Poemen.' So he brought him to the old man and presented him, saying, 'This is a great man, full of charity, who is held in high estimation in his district. I have spoken to him about you, and he has come because he wants to see you.' So Abba Poemen received him with joy. They greeted one another and sat down. The visitor began to speak of the Scriptures, of spiritual and of heavenly things. But Abba Poemen turned his face away and answered nothing. Seeing that he did not speak to him, the other went away deeply grieved and said to the brother who had brought him, 'I have made this long journey in vain. For I have come to see the old man, and he does not wish to speak to me.' Then the brother went inside to Abba Poemen and said to him, 'Abba, this great man who has so great a reputation in his own country has come here because of you. Why did you not speak to him?' The old man said, 'He is great and speaks of heavenly things and I am lowly and speak of earthly things. If he had spoken of the passions of the soul, I should have replied, but he speaks to me of spiritual things and I know nothing about that.' Then the brother came out and said to the visitor, 'The old man does not readily speak of the Scriptures, but if anyone consults him about the passions of the soul, he replies.' Filled with compunction, the visitor returned to the old man and said to him, 'What should I do, Abba, for the passions of the soul master me?' The old man turned towards him and replied joyfully, 'This time, you come as you should. Now open your mouth concerning this and I will fill it with good things.' Greatly edified, the other said to him, 'Truly, this is the right way!' He returned to his own country giving thanks to God that he had been counted worthy to meet so great a saint.
A brother from Abba Poemen's neighbourhood left to go to another country one day. There he met an anchorite. The latter was very charitable and many came to see him. The brother told him about Abba Poemen. When he heard of his virtue, the anchorite wanted to see him. Some time afterwards when the brother had returned to Egypt the anchorite went there to see the brother who had formerly paid him a visit. He had told him where he lived. When he saw him, the brother was astonished and very pleased. The anchorite said to him, 'Please will you be so kind as to take me to Abba Poemen.' So he brought him to the old man and presented him, saying, 'This is a great man, full of charity, who is held in high estimation in his district. I have spoken to him about you, and he has come because he wants to see you.' So Abba Poemen received him with joy. They greeted one another and sat down. The visitor began to speak of the Scriptures, of spiritual and of heavenly things. But Abba Poemen turned his face away and answered nothing. Seeing that he did not speak to him, the other went away deeply grieved and said to the brother who had brought him, 'I have made this long journey in vain. For I have come to see the old man, and he does not wish to speak to me.' Then the brother went inside to Abba Poemen and said to him, 'Abba, this great man who has so great a reputation in his own country has come here because of you. Why did you not speak to him?' The old man said, 'He is great and speaks of heavenly things and I am lowly and speak of earthly things. If he had spoken of the passions of the soul, I should have replied, but he speaks to me of spiritual things and I know nothing about that.' Then the brother came out and said to the visitor, 'The old man does not readily speak of the Scriptures, but if anyone consults him about the passions of the soul, he replies.' Filled with compunction, the visitor returned to the old man and said to him, 'What should I do, Abba, for the passions of the soul master me?' The old man turned towards him and replied joyfully, 'This time, you come as you should. Now open your mouth concerning this and I will fill it with good things.' Greatly edified, the other said to him, 'Truly, this is the right way!' He returned to his own country giving thanks to God that he had been counted worthy to meet so great a saint.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Huh, there is No triune, No trinity God in Scripture, so Jesus can't be God.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12; Hebrews 9:24.
I totally agree!!
God created the world through pre-human Jesus - Genesis 1:26; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14 B.
Pre-human Jesus? What's the point of that? Why cant we just understand that he was born and that he is the son of God......
Plus, how are you getting Jesus in those verses if he wasnt born yet? Gen 1v26 is not talking about Jesus, it is God and the angels. Elohim in Hebrew. Remember that Jesus was born lower than the angels or Elohim.
Col 1v15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" Should say creation... But what creation? Paul states that there are two. The second one is through Christ. We are a "new creation"......
Rev 3v14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" Your going back to the actual beginning of creation. Why? What's Rev about? Things to come. "The beginning of the creation of God" - The creation of God comprises the Elohim of the Age to come. (Luke 20v36). of whom Christ is the beginning. (Col 1v15-19).
Christ is the real and ideal manifestation of all that was typified under the old dispensation. He is the true light foreshadowed by the typical light that shone from the beginning (John 1v9). the true bread typified by the manna (John 6v32) the true vine anticipated in the OT (John 15v1).
There are true worshippers in contrast to false (John 4v23) and the true God who demands our living loyaity and worship (1 John 5v20)
Both John and Jesus were sent for a purpose.
I agree
However, John was never in Heaven - John 3:13 - but pre-human Jesus was. -Acts of the Apostles 2:34; Psalms 110
I disagree. Jesus is from God, yes. If Jesus pre-existed, what's the point of going through the father and son thing. And his birth? Why cant the bible just say that the "pre-existed" Jesus is coming down to earth. Why go through the birth?
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand," That's a future prophecy by David. David was never told that the coming messiah was already here pre-existing..
moorea944
Well-Known Member
I think we need to be careful on how we label things. And because of words before or after a certain word. Esp, like "spirit". Therefore we might change the meaning of something and now we go down the wrong path.
Me personally, I have a hard time calling God's spirit "it". Have I done it before in a converstation or something? Probably.......
The HS or the spirit of God is his power. Look what Mary was told of the HS in Luke 1.
And look at Jesus, he is the manifestation of his father. He is the power and glory of his father. He also came in his father's name. But unfortunately, people make him God the son.
Angels were also called the Holy Spirit to in certain instances. Esp in the time of Moses in the wilderness.
Hockeycowboy said : "Keep in mind, John 1:1 does not say "In the beginning"...it says "In beginning". (post #564)
Commenting on THIS claim :
Clear said : : 15119"]Hi @Hockeycowboy : I just wanted to offer a correction to your comment on John 1:1. Since the Greek "Αρχη" ("beginning") in John 1:1 is a noun. It requires either a direct or indirect article and thus it must be translated as either "A beginning" or "THE beginning" in english (as opposed to a verb "beginning" which does not require "a" or "an"). Either the direct or indirect is often simply implied in the greek and that is why you do not see it in John 1:1 in this specific instance. (post #566)
Katzpur, responding to Hockeycowboys original post, said : That may be the case, but it's only because there were no definite or indefinite articles in ancient Greek." (post #605)
Hockeycowboy responded to Katzpur, saying : Hello Katzpur, There were definite articles, like ho, as in “hoTheos” (the God) .Just not indefinite ones (a god).(post #608)
Hi @Katzpur
Languages are really tricky and ideosyncratic sometimes, aren't they?
While Hockycowboys' claim in post 564 is incorrect for the reason I pointed out in post #566, Hockycowboys point regarding the greek definite article inn post #608 IS correct.
I just wanted to make a specific point that makes things a bit more difficult but interesting as it will parallel your underlying beliefs as they existed anciently. While neither Greek nor Hebrew have an indefinite article it is a bit more complicated regarding the phrase "in the beginning" between the greek and Hebrew.
The John 1:1 phrase "In the beginning" HAS to be either an indefinite beginning ("in A beginning") or a definite beginning (in THE beginning"). The word "beginning" in this case is a noun form, thus it is either definite or indefinite.
The hebrew professors as the University of Jerusalem Hebrew language program point out that The Genesis 1:1 phrase "In the beginning" HAS to be an indefinite form since the critical mark under the word for "In" (a hebrew Beyt) is a sheva. Thus the phrase is "In A beginning" or "In Beginning (noun)" but it is not "In THE begiinning" (which would require a patach or chamatz, etc. as a diacritical mark).
The point is that such subtle diffferences change the meanings of the early texts and applies to later interpretations of them. For example, it makes such discussions that Morrea944 and URAVIP2ME less applicable to early Judeo-Christian religion since these words are not talking about a absolute beginning of everything. It affects Oeste's religious interpretation that this verse means "time" had a "beginining" at this specific point indicated by Genesis 1:1s "beginning".
For example, the Oral talmudic traditions tell us that God the Father had created many, many other worlds before this one and thus the specific "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 refers to this specific creation involving this earth and the specific creations applied to this specific time period.
Thus such textual references such as 2nd Enoch where God explains "the devil understood how I wished to create another world" refers to this early Judeo-Christian teaching.
In fact, several modern bible translations are changing the wording of Genesis 1:1 to indicate it is not "in THE beginning" to reflect this point.
You said in post #596 (in response to a poster who theorized nothing existed, and nothing was going on before this earth was created) "I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that there was nothing "before" the beginning. If God existed -- as He presumably did prior to the creation of our universe -- it is entirely possible that He was doing something! "In the beginning" refers to the period of time from the creation forward. The Bible is not intended to be an account of the time prior to the creation. All it actually tells us about Jesus existence is that He (i.e. "the Word") existed "in the beginning." (Katzpur, post #596)
You were perfectly correct historically, that there was much in existence and much that was going on before this earth was made.
Kudos to you for this historical point.
Clear
ειτωακνεφυω
Commenting on THIS claim :
Clear said : : 15119"]Hi @Hockeycowboy : I just wanted to offer a correction to your comment on John 1:1. Since the Greek "Αρχη" ("beginning") in John 1:1 is a noun. It requires either a direct or indirect article and thus it must be translated as either "A beginning" or "THE beginning" in english (as opposed to a verb "beginning" which does not require "a" or "an"). Either the direct or indirect is often simply implied in the greek and that is why you do not see it in John 1:1 in this specific instance. (post #566)
Katzpur, responding to Hockeycowboys original post, said : That may be the case, but it's only because there were no definite or indefinite articles in ancient Greek." (post #605)
Hockeycowboy responded to Katzpur, saying : Hello Katzpur, There were definite articles, like ho, as in “hoTheos” (the God) .Just not indefinite ones (a god).(post #608)
Hi @Katzpur
Languages are really tricky and ideosyncratic sometimes, aren't they?
While Hockycowboys' claim in post 564 is incorrect for the reason I pointed out in post #566, Hockycowboys point regarding the greek definite article inn post #608 IS correct.
I just wanted to make a specific point that makes things a bit more difficult but interesting as it will parallel your underlying beliefs as they existed anciently. While neither Greek nor Hebrew have an indefinite article it is a bit more complicated regarding the phrase "in the beginning" between the greek and Hebrew.
The John 1:1 phrase "In the beginning" HAS to be either an indefinite beginning ("in A beginning") or a definite beginning (in THE beginning"). The word "beginning" in this case is a noun form, thus it is either definite or indefinite.
The hebrew professors as the University of Jerusalem Hebrew language program point out that The Genesis 1:1 phrase "In the beginning" HAS to be an indefinite form since the critical mark under the word for "In" (a hebrew Beyt) is a sheva. Thus the phrase is "In A beginning" or "In Beginning (noun)" but it is not "In THE begiinning" (which would require a patach or chamatz, etc. as a diacritical mark).
The point is that such subtle diffferences change the meanings of the early texts and applies to later interpretations of them. For example, it makes such discussions that Morrea944 and URAVIP2ME less applicable to early Judeo-Christian religion since these words are not talking about a absolute beginning of everything. It affects Oeste's religious interpretation that this verse means "time" had a "beginining" at this specific point indicated by Genesis 1:1s "beginning".
For example, the Oral talmudic traditions tell us that God the Father had created many, many other worlds before this one and thus the specific "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 refers to this specific creation involving this earth and the specific creations applied to this specific time period.
Thus such textual references such as 2nd Enoch where God explains "the devil understood how I wished to create another world" refers to this early Judeo-Christian teaching.
In fact, several modern bible translations are changing the wording of Genesis 1:1 to indicate it is not "in THE beginning" to reflect this point.
You said in post #596 (in response to a poster who theorized nothing existed, and nothing was going on before this earth was created) "I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that there was nothing "before" the beginning. If God existed -- as He presumably did prior to the creation of our universe -- it is entirely possible that He was doing something! "In the beginning" refers to the period of time from the creation forward. The Bible is not intended to be an account of the time prior to the creation. All it actually tells us about Jesus existence is that He (i.e. "the Word") existed "in the beginning." (Katzpur, post #596)
You were perfectly correct historically, that there was much in existence and much that was going on before this earth was made.
Kudos to you for this historical point.
Clear
ειτωακνεφυω
Last edited:
Why go through the birth is a good question.
Adam was Not born but created as a sinless creation.
We are all to be descendants from Adam and Eve.
Jesus was at first a pre-human heavenly creation.
In other to balance the Scales of Justice for us another sinless 'Adam' would be needed.
This is a factor as to why spirit Jesus would have his heavenly life transferred to human life.
Adam proved unfaithful in least, whereas sinless Jesus was faithful in much.
Because we can't stop sinning, and we can't resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can resurrect us.
Faithful-to-death sinless Jesus can and will resurrect the dead - Revelation 1:18.
Dead David (Acts 2:34) needs a resurrection (Acts 24:15)
No one who died before Jesus died will have a heavenly resurrection - John 3:13
Only those like those of Luke 22:28-30 are called to heavenly life (that is the new creation) - Revelation 20:6
The rest or majority of mankind can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection as David will have.
This is why we are all invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come and resurrect the sleeping dead ( includes David ) when there will be healing for earth's nations.
When mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' on Earth again - Revelation 22:2
This takes place during Jesus' 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth begins.
I find at Psalms 104:30 God sends forth His spirit............
God's spirit is found in Job's nose - Job 27:3
Thus showing the spirit of God is His power and Not a third triune person.
In Greek grammar rules a neuter can be called as a he or a him.
Even in English we speak of a car or a ship as a ' she ' although the car and ship remain a neuter ' it '.
The writer of Numbers 11:17,25 had No problem calling Gods' spirit 'it'.
So, this leads me to conclude that we need to learn what the Bible really teaches about God's spirit being neuter 'it'.
But unfortunately, it is people who make God's spirit as God and His Son.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Not quit sure what a "heavenly resurrection' is. Bible doesnt say anything on that one. There is only one resurrection when Christ returns. Baptism wasnt needed in the OT. Jesus wasnt born yet and did not exist. When we get baptized, we are symbolically being baptized into his death and resurrection. Romans 6
I find we need to know who are the 'we' being addressed.
At Luke 12:32 there is a 'little flock' of followers mentioned.
At John 10:16 there are 'other sheep' mentioned.
At the coming time of separation ' of Matthew 25:37; Matthew 25:40 there are sheep and brothers mentioned.
The ' other sheep ' are offered to live on Earth forever. ( terrestrial bodies )
The ' brothers ' are also the ' brothers' of 1 Corinthians 15:50. ( celestial bodies - 1 Corinthians 15:40)
Those ' brothers ' have that 'first or earlier' resurrection to heaven as per Revelation 20:6; 5:9-10; 2:10.
Romans 1:7 lets us know Paul is addressing the ' brothers ' ('saints' of Daniel 7:18) in the book of Romans.
The ' other sheep ' are Not the saints or holy ones, but those ' brothers ' who are the 'little flock'.
Whereas, the 'other sheep ' can remain on Earth whether through living through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14; Revelation 7:9 or for those already dead via a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection.
For there ' will be ' (future tense) a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous - Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
Muffled
Jesus in me
What is your definition of person? There are several including this one: Member of the Trinity.
John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
I believe bearing witness is a personal attribute.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is. If God died to save us then it is a sure proof that He loves us and forgives our sin.
Muffled
Jesus in me
However the Paraclete is not just God but is also us. God in us. So that makes the Paraaclete male and female.
Also by the definition of having a personality ie personal characteristics, then God who is a Spirit is a person.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
First of all, you already "think" that the HS is a person. The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God can be..... what? Who can also help people while God is working through them. Angels.
Second, you have to remember that the trinity is not scriptural. It was added into some doctrines in about 325 AD. There is no such thing as a "member of the Trinity".
I find at Psalms 90:2 that God can Not die, He does Not die.
Because God is from-and-to 'everlasting' meaning God is: death proof.
Plus, I find in Scripture that the one who resurrected dead Jesus was his God.