sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We don't claim that Jesus is another God. he is God, as YHWH is God.
(BTW, the Torah is, strictly speaking, not a gospel.)
-
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!
Why do you say Jesus is God?
- Thread starter Blood Thirsty Blade
- Start date
(BTW, the Torah is, strictly speaking, not a gospel.)
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin,
I am saying that the Trinity takes into account the whole of Scripture and the diverse experiences of its authors. It is a matter of fidelity to the Scriptures as a coherent whole. Jesus as a man and agent of God's will and Jesus as the God of Israel are both evident strands in the New Testament. The Trinitarian doctrine steps back and refuses to choose between both, and says, yes both of these are true, Jesus is both of those things.
Instead, what we get is "before Abraham was born (aorist passive) I am (present active)"
I think you are accusing Jesus of poor grammar.
Clearly Jesus is establishing his pre-existence in a very deliberate way: by making an identification with the sacred Name of God.
Nor did you answer my question:
Further, the New Jerusalem is said to be "the wife of the lamb". Again, how is it that the Christians could consider the Jewish religion fulfilled in Christ, while wedding the Covenant Nation and Holy City to someone other than God?
Furthermore, how can a person claim these titles (in addition to Alpha and Omega, First and the Last) without at least an implicit claim to divinity:
It becomes increasingly clear that the New Testament portrait of Jesus includes an identification of him with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I am saying that the Trinity takes into account the whole of Scripture and the diverse experiences of its authors. It is a matter of fidelity to the Scriptures as a coherent whole. Jesus as a man and agent of God's will and Jesus as the God of Israel are both evident strands in the New Testament. The Trinitarian doctrine steps back and refuses to choose between both, and says, yes both of these are true, Jesus is both of those things.
Did you happen to check out Revelation 22: 12-16?
Problematic for your case here is that the Greek language is perfectly capable of speaking in various tenses. If Jesus intended to establish his pre-existence why not use the Greek word eyn (eta+nu) which means "was". Thus, "before Abraham was born (aorist passive), I was (aroist)". Instead Jesus uses the present active of the verb to be, eimi (eta+iota+mu+iota).
Instead, what we get is "before Abraham was born (aorist passive) I am (present active)"
I think you are accusing Jesus of poor grammar.
Clearly Jesus is establishing his pre-existence in a very deliberate way: by making an identification with the sacred Name of God.
It's nice that it means that to you, but your interpretation also is informed by your pre-suppositions about Jesus' deity, which in this case obscure the plain meaning of the text. The text quite plainly identifies the Word with God, kai theos eyn ho logos. (and the word was God).
Nor did you answer my question:
Further, the New Jerusalem is said to be "the wife of the lamb". Again, how is it that the Christians could consider the Jewish religion fulfilled in Christ, while wedding the Covenant Nation and Holy City to someone other than God?
Furthermore, how can a person claim these titles (in addition to Alpha and Omega, First and the Last) without at least an implicit claim to divinity:
Christ is the light, the life, the truth, the door? The Resurrection? The Way?
It becomes increasingly clear that the New Testament portrait of Jesus includes an identification of him with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Part 1
And I'm saying it is that lack of not choosing that has caused some christians (trinitarians) to merge the two beings into one simply due to a lack of understanding the completely separate position of them both. Revelation 3:12 does a great job in letting you know that the ascended Yeshua is not God but has a god. Other verses, in regards to the scroll, are a complete indication that none of the heavenly beings regarded Yeshua (The Lamb) as their God (The one who sits on the throne). Yet it is this clear separation that is being completely over looked. You are trying to inform me that Alpha and Omega is in reference to Yeshua (The Lamb) and I have shown you that it isn't. Picking a few verses here or there won't cut it unless you are prepared to read them in context. I can make up whatever I want if read out of context. Sometimes it appears to me that some christians are unable to discern who is talking and what is actually being said in the book of Revelation. Case in point is your quote below;
If one cares to read in context they will quickly realize that Yeshua (The Lamb) is not talking here nor is he being referred to as the (Alpha and Omega).
To find out what is truly going on and who is talking one must start at verse 1. It is the angel who is talking to John. Note the clear progression how from the very beginning of Revelation God "GAVE" it to Yeshua, Yeshua sent and angel with the message, the message was given to John, and John was to deliver the messages to the churches. When you are reading most King James versions you most likely will not find quotation marks to identify who is talking or who is doing the quoting. Now, since we know the angel is doing the talking we quickly discover the angel is also the one doing the quoting. And as I showed earlier, God was the one referring to himself as the Alpha and Omega so in Revelation 22 it is the angel who is quoting God;
From the very beginning of chapter 22 there is a clear distinction between God and the Lamb. The angel that is delivering the message that he received from Yeshua who received it from God does not show them to be one being. Furthermore if Yeshua is God then the message would not need to be given to him to give to someone else. If he is God then the message resides with him completely. This is not the case. God "GAVE" Yeshua the message to give to the angel who in turn was to give it to John. Additionally Yeshua is called a couple of times (the "faithful" witness). Faithful to who? Yeshua acts in counsel with his god.
From the beginning of chapter 22 the angel is quoting God then toward the end he quotes Yeshua. It should be noted that He quotes God and it starts from verse 6. There are only a couple breaks after that where it is either the angel talking to John or John himself is doing the talking. Then it should also be noted that the angel quotes Yeshua and in that quote from Yeshua is a stern warning about what his god will do if the words are not obeyed or if the words of the prophecy is tampered with. So again I must repeat myself...22:13 is in reference to God and not Yeshua (The Lamb). A close examination from the beginning of that chapter shows that God and Yeshua, although being separate, have their thrones and both will be coming to judge.
And I'm saying it is that lack of not choosing that has caused some christians (trinitarians) to merge the two beings into one simply due to a lack of understanding the completely separate position of them both. Revelation 3:12 does a great job in letting you know that the ascended Yeshua is not God but has a god. Other verses, in regards to the scroll, are a complete indication that none of the heavenly beings regarded Yeshua (The Lamb) as their God (The one who sits on the throne). Yet it is this clear separation that is being completely over looked. You are trying to inform me that Alpha and Omega is in reference to Yeshua (The Lamb) and I have shown you that it isn't. Picking a few verses here or there won't cut it unless you are prepared to read them in context. I can make up whatever I want if read out of context. Sometimes it appears to me that some christians are unable to discern who is talking and what is actually being said in the book of Revelation. Case in point is your quote below;
If one cares to read in context they will quickly realize that Yeshua (The Lamb) is not talking here nor is he being referred to as the (Alpha and Omega).
To find out what is truly going on and who is talking one must start at verse 1. It is the angel who is talking to John. Note the clear progression how from the very beginning of Revelation God "GAVE" it to Yeshua, Yeshua sent and angel with the message, the message was given to John, and John was to deliver the messages to the churches. When you are reading most King James versions you most likely will not find quotation marks to identify who is talking or who is doing the quoting. Now, since we know the angel is doing the talking we quickly discover the angel is also the one doing the quoting. And as I showed earlier, God was the one referring to himself as the Alpha and Omega so in Revelation 22 it is the angel who is quoting God;
From the very beginning of chapter 22 there is a clear distinction between God and the Lamb. The angel that is delivering the message that he received from Yeshua who received it from God does not show them to be one being. Furthermore if Yeshua is God then the message would not need to be given to him to give to someone else. If he is God then the message resides with him completely. This is not the case. God "GAVE" Yeshua the message to give to the angel who in turn was to give it to John. Additionally Yeshua is called a couple of times (the "faithful" witness). Faithful to who? Yeshua acts in counsel with his god.
From the beginning of chapter 22 the angel is quoting God then toward the end he quotes Yeshua. It should be noted that He quotes God and it starts from verse 6. There are only a couple breaks after that where it is either the angel talking to John or John himself is doing the talking. Then it should also be noted that the angel quotes Yeshua and in that quote from Yeshua is a stern warning about what his god will do if the words are not obeyed or if the words of the prophecy is tampered with. So again I must repeat myself...22:13 is in reference to God and not Yeshua (The Lamb). A close examination from the beginning of that chapter shows that God and Yeshua, although being separate, have their thrones and both will be coming to judge.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Part 2
Actually (eimi) can be rendered as was. So it's not problematic for me rather problematic for you to suggest that it doesn't. It is fact, from the four gospels, that Yeshua saw himself as not part of this world. He viewed himself as one who was to be temporarily here on earth. It is laid out in the scriptures that he was in heaven with his own will separate from his god (thus not being God) but was sent here "not to do his own will but the will of the one who sent him". When he made that statement we can only conclude that his god sent him thus making him something other than God. This would mean that if he existed in heaven with his god who was the one teaching him, as he said, then his statement in John 8:58 was true. He existed before Abraham was born. It should also be noted that in John 17 as Yeshua is praying to his god he informs us that he had glory (WITH) his god (BEFORE) the foundation of the earth. So again we find his statement in John 8:58 to be validated.
Strong's Greek Lexicon
(Eimi) the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, it is I, was.
John 8:58
Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born
Here are just a small amount of scholars (I have more) that have rendered the verse as you see it above. NOTE: The above is actually from a christian online bible I use;
"prin Abraam genesqai egw eimi'before Abraham came into existence, I existed."-Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 United Bible Societies p.158
"I have existed before Abraham was born"-James Moffatt 1948 (Impression)
"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."-The Original N. T. by Hugh J. Schonfield 1985
"Truly truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."-The N. T. by Richmond Lattimore
"I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!"-Edger J. Goodspeed 1935 copyright
“Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’"-Chas. Williams’ The New Testament.
Nope. Not Yeshua...maybe the Septuagint scholars but certainly not Yeshua.
Him stating his pre-existence has nothing to do with him invoking the name of God. All he did was state as a fact that he existed before Abraham was born. We can get a sense of that in John 8:38. How do we know he existed in heaven and came down, well John 6:38 says so. He came from heaven not to do his will but the will of his god that sent him. If he is God surely he would not have separate wills.
Then we shall agree to disagree because If he told me the words he spoke were not his but whatever he spoke he heard from his god then I must conclude that the word made flesh is God putting his word in him to relay to the people....Just as Yeshua said.... ("I have given them your word).....
Well that's it right there. I don't consider Yeshua fulfilling the Jewish religion. But I guess it depends on your definition of fulfill. Fulfill to means complete or end of something. Nothing else is to be provided afterward. Since he instructed everyone to continue in following the laws how is that "fulfilling" jewish scripture? What do you think fulfill means?
He neither implicitly nor explicitly claimed divinity. Any and all power he said he had he said was granted to him. God needs not to be given something he already possesses. In order to be given something there must be a giver.
Actually (eimi) can be rendered as was. So it's not problematic for me rather problematic for you to suggest that it doesn't. It is fact, from the four gospels, that Yeshua saw himself as not part of this world. He viewed himself as one who was to be temporarily here on earth. It is laid out in the scriptures that he was in heaven with his own will separate from his god (thus not being God) but was sent here "not to do his own will but the will of the one who sent him". When he made that statement we can only conclude that his god sent him thus making him something other than God. This would mean that if he existed in heaven with his god who was the one teaching him, as he said, then his statement in John 8:58 was true. He existed before Abraham was born. It should also be noted that in John 17 as Yeshua is praying to his god he informs us that he had glory (WITH) his god (BEFORE) the foundation of the earth. So again we find his statement in John 8:58 to be validated.
Strong's Greek Lexicon
(Eimi) the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, it is I, was.
John 8:58
Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born
Here are just a small amount of scholars (I have more) that have rendered the verse as you see it above. NOTE: The above is actually from a christian online bible I use;
"prin Abraam genesqai egw eimi'before Abraham came into existence, I existed."-Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 United Bible Societies p.158
"I have existed before Abraham was born"-James Moffatt 1948 (Impression)
"I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."-The Original N. T. by Hugh J. Schonfield 1985
"Truly truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."-The N. T. by Richmond Lattimore
"I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!"-Edger J. Goodspeed 1935 copyright
“Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’"-Chas. Williams’ The New Testament.
Nope. Not Yeshua...maybe the Septuagint scholars but certainly not Yeshua.
Him stating his pre-existence has nothing to do with him invoking the name of God. All he did was state as a fact that he existed before Abraham was born. We can get a sense of that in John 8:38. How do we know he existed in heaven and came down, well John 6:38 says so. He came from heaven not to do his will but the will of his god that sent him. If he is God surely he would not have separate wills.
Then we shall agree to disagree because If he told me the words he spoke were not his but whatever he spoke he heard from his god then I must conclude that the word made flesh is God putting his word in him to relay to the people....Just as Yeshua said.... ("I have given them your word).....
Well that's it right there. I don't consider Yeshua fulfilling the Jewish religion. But I guess it depends on your definition of fulfill. Fulfill to means complete or end of something. Nothing else is to be provided afterward. Since he instructed everyone to continue in following the laws how is that "fulfilling" jewish scripture? What do you think fulfill means?
He neither implicitly nor explicitly claimed divinity. Any and all power he said he had he said was granted to him. God needs not to be given something he already possesses. In order to be given something there must be a giver.
Last edited:
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
It seems that your interpretation of Jesus saying " I am" is plausible, but I will do my best to research that more and see what the consensus of scholars is in that regard.
However, in regards to Revelation 22:12-16, I think you are clearly obscuring the passages in your favor. Though the Book itself begins by stating the "Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him", Jesus also speaks on his own behalf.
Look again to Revelation chapter 1, when John beholds Jesus. He narrates that "he [Jesus] laid his right hand upon me, saying do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last, the living one, and I was dead and behold I am alive".
Now we can see that Jesus is understood to be the First and the Last. This itself is not even a stone-throw away from "Alpha and Omega". As you know, Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last; First and Last.
Furthermore, as you yourself pointed out, Jesus refers to "his God" (3:12). He says in that verse, "behold, I am coming, hold fast to what you have in order that none take your crown from you, he who overcomes I will make a pillar in the Temple of my God".
Scripturally speaking, Jesus is the Son of Man "coming on the clouds of heaven". The book of Revelation is filled with the prayer of "Come Lord Jesus". In Chapter 22, where you say the title of Alpha and Omega belong to God, The title of "Alpha and Omega" in this chapter clearly belongs to the one who is coming:
The Book ends with "Come Lord Jesus".
Clearly the one who is coming is the Alpha and the Omega and clearly the One who is coming is Jesus. Therefore Jesus= Alpha and Omega.
However, in regards to Revelation 22:12-16, I think you are clearly obscuring the passages in your favor. Though the Book itself begins by stating the "Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him", Jesus also speaks on his own behalf.
Look again to Revelation chapter 1, when John beholds Jesus. He narrates that "he [Jesus] laid his right hand upon me, saying do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last, the living one, and I was dead and behold I am alive".
Now we can see that Jesus is understood to be the First and the Last. This itself is not even a stone-throw away from "Alpha and Omega". As you know, Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last; First and Last.
Furthermore, as you yourself pointed out, Jesus refers to "his God" (3:12). He says in that verse, "behold, I am coming, hold fast to what you have in order that none take your crown from you, he who overcomes I will make a pillar in the Temple of my God".
Scripturally speaking, Jesus is the Son of Man "coming on the clouds of heaven". The book of Revelation is filled with the prayer of "Come Lord Jesus". In Chapter 22, where you say the title of Alpha and Omega belong to God, The title of "Alpha and Omega" in this chapter clearly belongs to the one who is coming:
Now, framed between the statement that "I am coming soon, my reward is with me" (and of course it is Jesus who is coming on the clouds of heaven to bring the reward) and the identification of the voice with Jesus, " I, Jesus", is the claim "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last". (of which we have already established that Jesus is the First and the Last)
The Book ends with "Come Lord Jesus".
Clearly the one who is coming is the Alpha and the Omega and clearly the One who is coming is Jesus. Therefore Jesus= Alpha and Omega.
In order to affirm this you would need to be affirming that it is God, not Jesus, who is the One who is coming and who is bringing the reward.
Last edited:
My problem with your thoughts is that God gave the Jews an impossible job and said "If you do this!" all the time laughing up his sleeve, thinking "Only I can do this."
God's form of a Halloween, Trick or Treat!
Real "Loving Father"! Not in my opinion. (Replacement Theology)
My bible says the "word was made flesh"! Men made God in Flesh!
Every Sabbath we recite these words "God would not give us something that was impossible to do." And he would not! Fact. Period!
Can't argue with a Rock!
Shalom
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
The fact that the ascended Yeshua speaks, but not as God, but as himself should be further proof that he isn't God nor did any of the heavenly beings view The Lamb (Yeshua) as God. In the beginning of the book God (Gives) Yeshua something. God has no need to give something to himself. It's illogical. If he already had it how can he give it to himself? He gave it to a being that has continuously maintained his separateness from the four gospels into Revelation. One thing is constantly echoed by Yeshua and that is his god taught him, commanded of him and sent him. For God to give anything to Yeshua means that Yeshua didn't already posses it. For Yeshua to be God this would not make any sense.
Revelation 1:2 is a clear distinction between God and Yeshua (The Witness). These are two separate actions. God is the one who will make things happen and Yeshua is the faithful witness. The things that are to happen were relayed to Yeshua from his god and in turn Yeshua tasked the angel to instruct John to document and report these prophecies.
I still hold to it that It appears God and Yeshua are coming in judgment. The context for this starts at Rev. 1:4-8
This letter is from John to the seven churches in the province of Asia. Grace and peace from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come; from the sevenfold Spirit before his throne;
5and from Yeshua (The Messiah) who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.
As we can see here the one to come is not Yeshua. Not saying he isn't coming but this verse is in reference to God because the next verse says ("and Yeshua.......")
6 He has made us his Kingdom and his priests who serve before God his Father. Give to him everlasting glory! He rules forever and ever! Amen!
This is speaking of Yeshua and John lets us know that he did not consider Yeshua and God to be one god in this verse due to the fact that Yeshua was doing something for his god.
7 Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him--even those who pierced him. And all the nations of the earth will weep because of him. Yes! Amen!
Here is where it is in reference to Yeshua. Note the (amen) at the end. This represents a complete end of a quotation from John while verse 8 below represents a new quote and it's for God alone
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come, the Almighty One."
As I have said, it shows that Yeshua and his god come in judgment. So not only does it say he is coming but as verse 4 shows God is to come as well.
Again, in Rev. 1:4 and 5 we see God is coming (and Yeshua the Faithful Witness).
Where did I establish Yeshua was not coming at all. I think in my last post I said it appears that they both are coming in judgment. And it has been established that the Lord God (YHWH Elohim), in Rev. 1:8 is (Alpha and Omega)
Last edited:
So the speaker of this line, misspoke?
Joh 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.
My Strongs Concordance says it gospel(salvation through the Messiah). Or do I need new Christian glasses?
But I'll give you one, there is no word 'gospel' in Hebrew.
Yet remember close counts as one in Horseshoes! Didn't Yeshua say "the way is narrow"?
Shalom
Last edited:
dance-above
Member
There are many spirits but only one life giving spirit " the most High ".
The kingdom of God is not flesh and blood but righteousness and Peace.
There are earthly ways and there are heavenly ways.
Christ is the "fruit" of righteousness. Just as the father does, so does the son.
That born of flesh is flesh and that born of spirit is spirit. The new man Adam became a life Giving Spirit. The carnal man can not do the works of God only he born of his spirit.
The kingdom of God is not flesh and blood but righteousness and Peace.
There are earthly ways and there are heavenly ways.
Christ is the "fruit" of righteousness. Just as the father does, so does the son.
That born of flesh is flesh and that born of spirit is spirit. The new man Adam became a life Giving Spirit. The carnal man can not do the works of God only he born of his spirit.
dance-above
Member
Every plant bears its own fruit its own kind. And when this fruit falls to the ground and dies it also grows up to be just like the parent plant and also bears many children itsef not to return to death. God also had a son.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Regarding this passage:
I still maintain that it is Jesus speaking in Revelation 22. Not only is Jesus the pre-cursor to the coming of God, thus the Book prays "Come, Lord Jesus" several times, the figure who says "behold I am coming soon" in Chapter 22 and shortly later " I am the Alpha and the Omega" also says "my
reward is with me".
We must ask ourselves, who bears the reward? Is God rewarded? It is Jesus who, having made himself a servant, suffering and dying, has been allotted the place of greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven [ie. He is seated at the right hand of the Father] It is Jesus who has the reward, Jesus who is exalted, and all are offered a share in his reward on his account.
Furthermore, this same figure (coming soon, bringing the reward, the Alpha and Omega) who also says:
Finally, several verses down, we do see an identification "I, Jesus".
In my opinion, the most honest hermeneutic here recognizes Jesus speaking at the end of Chapter 22 here:
- It Jesus who has the reward for his work on earth
- Jesus who is coming [in the immediate sense to inagaraute his Father's Kingdom, and hence the "come Lord Jesus"]
- a likely identification of the voice with Jesus "I Jesus, have sent my angel"
- Jesus has already been called the First and the Last
Thus: Jesus is, in Revelation, at least once, referred to as the Alpha and the Omega
I still maintain that it is Jesus speaking in Revelation 22. Not only is Jesus the pre-cursor to the coming of God, thus the Book prays "Come, Lord Jesus" several times, the figure who says "behold I am coming soon" in Chapter 22 and shortly later " I am the Alpha and the Omega" also says "my
reward is with me".
We must ask ourselves, who bears the reward? Is God rewarded? It is Jesus who, having made himself a servant, suffering and dying, has been allotted the place of greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven [ie. He is seated at the right hand of the Father] It is Jesus who has the reward, Jesus who is exalted, and all are offered a share in his reward on his account.
Furthermore, this same figure (coming soon, bringing the reward, the Alpha and Omega) who also says:
The "blessed are those" recalls the beatitudes, but in John's Apocalyptic context. Thus drawing on the language of Jesus' own teachings and implying I feel, his voice.
Finally, several verses down, we do see an identification "I, Jesus".
In my opinion, the most honest hermeneutic here recognizes Jesus speaking at the end of Chapter 22 here:
- It Jesus who has the reward for his work on earth
- Jesus who is coming [in the immediate sense to inagaraute his Father's Kingdom, and hence the "come Lord Jesus"]
- a likely identification of the voice with Jesus "I Jesus, have sent my angel"
- Jesus has already been called the First and the Last
Thus: Jesus is, in Revelation, at least once, referred to as the Alpha and the Omega
Last edited:
AlexWylde
Just a fool.
Just because Jesus is referred to as "the first and the last" or the "Alpha and the Omega" doesn't mean that he is "God". That is certainly not enough evidence to suggest to me that I should disregard every time he is referred to as a separate entity from God. I see that reference like this: Jesus is the FIRST messiah and the LAST messiah. Therefore he is the ONLY person we should regard as the messiah.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
First and Last Manifestation of God. All the Manifestations of God from Adam, to Abraham, to Zoraster, to Krshna, to Buddha, to Jesus, to Muhammed, to The Bab and Baha`u'llah can make that claim since They are all a Revelation from the self-same Source--God.
Yet God is God and nothing else is God.
This is the relationship graphically described
1) The top horizontal line is God, Single and Self-Subsisting, we can never know His Essence.
2) The middle horizontal line is the Kingdom of the Manifestations, the chosen Messengers of God Who speak so that man MAY know the Essence of God, or keep getting closer to that knowledge.
3) The two stars represent the Alpha and the Omega of those Messengers. The first Whom we may nbot even know His name so far back in history we have lost Him, and the Last being so far in the future that all existence will be ended before He comes.
4) The bottom line is the Kingdom of Man.
5) The vertical line represents the Holy SPirit which is with God, flows through His Manifestations to us, so we may learn.
Regards,
Scott
rocketman
Out there...
Hmm. God gave Adam an impossible job.
Remember that Jesus claimed to exist before the world began, so the whole thing was figured out ahead of time. As you would expect of a loving Father. So yeah, God is god. No sweat for him to show up in a Jewish body (Son of Man/line of Adam) to save us as a sacrifice. After all, he was in the garden of Eden walking and talking to us, so any 'God is too big to simulataneously be Jesus' arguments are moot. None of the other prophets or angels are worth more than all of us put together, because the angels are not made in God's image and all of the other prophets sinned. And if God was capable of creating a sinless free-moral-agent-human-in-his-image other than Adam's line then why bother with Adam in the first place? I don't mind what others think, but let's keep in mind that the theological case for the jesus-as-God argument is rock solid and not some whimsical 4th century Catholic fantasy.
Shalom
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
While your point is worth discussing further, I simply wanted to make clear what Dirty Penguin denies- that the title "Alpha and Omega", a title of God Almighty, is in fact given to Jesus in the Book of Revelation.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
John was in a trance and had a vision. Does he speak tghe word of God, or is his vision merely a shadow of what God reveals through a Manifestation like Jesus?
The Gospel purports to give Jesus' actual word to mankind while He lived.
I cannot help but give more weight to the Gospels where He clearly denies being "God".
Regards,
Scott
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Several people here are working off different starting presumptions, so its difficult to speak in one way that will really meet the objections of all. For those of us who accept the canonicity, and therefore inspiration of the New Testament, we can not really give weight to one book, if by that one means over and against the implications of the other because we begin with our belief that the whole New Testament, together in its complexity and even inner argument, express the truth of who Christ is.
The debate over the nature of Christ within the New Testament, if we might call it that, is necessary from the Catholic point of view. It is precisely because Jesus is both God and man, and precisely because God works by grace (and therefore preserves the integrity and individuality of those concerned in authoring Scripture and therefore by no means robbing them of the ambiguity involved in these mysterious events) , that we see this kind of inner-discussion emerge. Each author is concerned with "who is Jesus?" Each offers us hints that the mystery of his person is beyond what they are able to communicate and each give us a hint of his real relationship to the God of Israel.
We do not presuppose that any author of the New Testament is what we call today a "Trinitarian". What happened in Christ's coming was of such gravity that no one person, not even the initial community (or us the Church today) were able to at once make sense of what his time among us meant or was.
As time grew on the Christian community was able to step back, somewhat dis-entangle these events and say: what we are witnessing to really was and is the event of "Emmanuel", the event of "God with us".
The debate over the nature of Christ within the New Testament, if we might call it that, is necessary from the Catholic point of view. It is precisely because Jesus is both God and man, and precisely because God works by grace (and therefore preserves the integrity and individuality of those concerned in authoring Scripture and therefore by no means robbing them of the ambiguity involved in these mysterious events) , that we see this kind of inner-discussion emerge. Each author is concerned with "who is Jesus?" Each offers us hints that the mystery of his person is beyond what they are able to communicate and each give us a hint of his real relationship to the God of Israel.
We do not presuppose that any author of the New Testament is what we call today a "Trinitarian". What happened in Christ's coming was of such gravity that no one person, not even the initial community (or us the Church today) were able to at once make sense of what his time among us meant or was.
As time grew on the Christian community was able to step back, somewhat dis-entangle these events and say: what we are witnessing to really was and is the event of "Emmanuel", the event of "God with us".
Last edited:
How many people and how many millinia passed for this loving father to come into flesh to save folks from their sin? Since you seem to be refering to "original sin", tell us why he didn't save more than 8 at the flood? Why did he give the Children of Israel the ten words then the 613 laws and still no Messiah?
Christian "Back of the book" mentality is anal!
Stating as fact, 'rock solid' is just as lame as a dead horse!
Never! Ever! Did Yeshua/word of the Lord, say "I am God."
Why do you think the Messianic Millinium has not occured?
Let me give you a clue.
The truth has not yet been preached in all the nations! You folks who make Jesus a god man are the hinderance to the truth.
I love my gift of salvation, that is why I give all the glory to Y H V H -!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
AlexWylde
Just a fool.
I have many problems with this line of thought, but I will limit my objections here. So since it took 300 years (more? IDK... just say a lot) to figure out that we can't comprehend what the Bible says, it is obviously not absolutely critical that we accept the notion of Trinitarianism. Is that correct? Surely there were millions of people who lived within that 300 year time span before the "Trinitarian" concept was solidified. I refuse to believe in a God that would hold those people responsible for believing in something that hasn't even been revealed yet. And I also don't believe that the meaning of the words of the Bible change throughout time periods. I believe salvation for the people 2000 years ago is the same as salvation for me. And since it wasn't crucial that all of those people accepted Trinitarianism, than it's not critical for me to either.
(The 300 year figure is just arbitrary, but whatever the actual number of years it was, my argument remains unaffected.)