Can it aply to more than one person?
-
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!
Who is the father of Jesus
- Thread starter truseeker
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
And that question has been answered, by Katz and me, from two different Christian perspectives: No.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
In this context, I'd say no.
So, in what context could "Almighty" be applied to more than one person? Jesus is only called might god, never Almighty, as that applies to the Father, who as you rightly pointed out, is superior.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I can't think of one offhand.
I've actually never referred to Jesus as "might god."
(Was that supposed to be "mighty"?) And I would always capitalize "God" when referring to any of the three persons in the Godhead. As I said before (though possibly on a different thread; I can't really remember), I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all equally divine, i.e. one is no more "godly" than another. The Father holds a place of supremacy is terms of their relationship, though. He always has and always will.I can't think of one offhand.
I've actually never referred to Jesus as "might god."
Sorry, yes, my typo. Typing fast....Anyway, I see what you are saying about their divinity but as far as the Father being supreme, you mean in a headship sense?
And, like I said as the term Almightly is only applied to the Father then that makes him superior to Jesus. And Jesus said that that was the case. Where as the Athanasian Creed says that there is no varying level of supremacy but that they are co-equal. Point 25. "And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another."
So your understanding seems to be incorrect as far as the official teaching goes?
MyJesusis#1
New Member
John 1
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
How you like that. Not only is God the Father of Jesus, but Jesus is also God.....which explains why verse 1 in Chapter 1 of John says that Jesus WAS God.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Why do you think that Muslims want to tell everyone that the Bible is inaccurate?
They HAVE TO make out the Bible to be a lie because it clearly states that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, that Jesus is the One Who forgives men of their sins, Who is the King of Kings, and the Prince of Princes.
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
How you like that. Not only is God the Father of Jesus, but Jesus is also God.....which explains why verse 1 in Chapter 1 of John says that Jesus WAS God.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Why do you think that Muslims want to tell everyone that the Bible is inaccurate?
They HAVE TO make out the Bible to be a lie because it clearly states that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, that Jesus is the One Who forgives men of their sins, Who is the King of Kings, and the Prince of Princes.
The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcomes New Translation: With a Corrected Text.:
and the word was a god.
The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
and a god was the word
and the Word was a divine being. La Bible du Centenaire, LEvangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel
and the Word was divine. The BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed
and of a divine kind was the Word. Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
and the Word was a God. The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek
and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word. Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz
and godlike kind was the Logos. Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
By "official," I'm assuming you are referring to the Creeds. Is that correct?
Yes and the teachings of the church.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Which creeds and which church.
I asumer your church teaches the trinity, if you belong to a church that is, and the creeds I refer to are the Athanasian and Nicene creed.
Smoke
Done here.
The Athanasian Creed, which has nothing to do with St. Athanasius, is not accepted by the Eastern churches, and in fact is considered heretical. It's strictly a Western Christian creed.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The anglican church is trinitarian.
My personal view is not so set on how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are unified.
Many church mysteries are Just that. They need no Creed to establish them.
My personal view is not so set on how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are unified.
Many church mysteries are Just that. They need no Creed to establish them.
OK, that's fine, but is it right that your church teaches the trinity?
Muffled
Jesus in me
The verse does not use the term Holy Ghost but Holy Spirit.
The Father is the Holy Spirit.
The son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit incarnated.
The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit indwelling believers
There are no partners. All three are the Holy Spirit and one Allah.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I agree that the Athanasian creed contains statements that are not consistent with Biblical truth. Heresy is a departure from ecclesiastical orthodoxy and can be true or false.
The Nicene creed's mention of the Trinity is Biblically supportable.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
"The" Church? Which one would that be? My beliefs are totally in line with what the Bible teaches and with the teachngs of "the Church" I am affiliated with.