Trinity

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Tell you what Alex. Mee lays off of the Trinity, and I'll not mess with his beliefs either. But after several years of Mee's stuff, well anything can get old.

By the way, how does the cape feel?

lol you know what at first it was a little itchy... But I took it down to this chinese laundry place as I heard they have a magical way with clothing, and It's been like silk since...

[mee]

[quote=Quahom1;151307][quote=mee;151306] Mee cuts and pastes instead of expressing self. quote]
mee likes doing that . and it is very good

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

[

Alex P has more passion and thought than mee.

mee is a work in progress just think it will take mee a 1000 years to get to perfection , along with a great crowd of others revelation 7;9-10 but getting on the right road to everlasting life will work wonders in the end John 17;3 revelation 7;14
and its always better to listen to the son of God luke 9;35 because the most high JEHOVAH wants mee to .

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18.

and listening to JESUS in these last days means feeding from the channel that Jesus is feeding matthew 24;45-47

annd it is very good and full of good direction

work in progress is mee

[mee]

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. .....John 1;1 NWT


John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (King James Version)

Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that "the Word" is Jesus. (John 1:14)


Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God.



Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek.

Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages.

A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase "the Word was God." Why not?


Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How?


Here are a few examples: "The Logos [Word] was divine." (A New Translation of the Bible)


"The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version)



"The Word was with God and shared his nature." (The Translator’s New Testament)


According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god" means "mighty one."


and yes Jesus sure is a mighty one , as ISAIAH 9;6-7 informs us .

but as for being the ALMIGHTY there is only one ALMIGHTY GOD and the bible informs us just who that is.



yes it is the most high JEHOVAH PSALM 83;18

Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father.



He calls his Father "the only true God."


And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying

"These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." (John 20:31)


Its good what the bible REALLY teaches isnt it ? and we dont need to have any manmade doctrines to know the truth of the bible . thats good we only need the bible


For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ISAIAH 9;6

Or, "Mighty Divine One." Heb., ’El Gib·bohr´



KISS THE SON psalm 2;12

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

Originally Posted by mee

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1 NWT

Yes, this shows:
a) the poor translation of the NWT:
In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative — equal to the subject). But it is the same word for 'God', and in both phrases here indicates the One God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

This shows a poor comprehension of biblical Greek.

b) There is no indefinite article ... this is an assumption of men.

+++

Originally Posted by mee

John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (King James Version)

Yes. That's a more accurate translation of the original.

Originally Posted by mee

Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that "the Word" is Jesus. (John 1:14)

Yes. Jesus is the Incarnate God.

Originally Posted by mee

Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God.

This shows a poor understanding of theology. It implies a third God of whom the Son and the Father are parts.

The actual meaning is that the Son is of the same nature as the Father. This is evident throughout John, and also in the Synoptics. It's there in Peter's confession, it's there in Thomas' confession, and it is there, again and again, in Jesus' own words.

Originally Posted by mee

Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek.

Yes ... do ... in which case you'd need Greek scholars to translate it accurately?

Originally Posted by mee

Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages.

Yes. But it's always best to work from the original.

Originally Posted by mee

A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase "the Word was God." Why not?

Because they made a mistake in translation?

Originally Posted by mee

Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How?

Because their knowledge of Greek was poor?

Originally Posted by mee

Here are a few examples:
"The Logos [Word] was divine." (A New Translation of the Bible) [/FONT]

The word 'divine' is not in the text, is it? So this is a somewhat free and inaccurate translation. On a pedagogic note — as God is divine, and the Logos is divine, then God and the Logos share the same divine nature, n'est pas?. So why not simply say what the text says — the Logos is Theos?

Originally Posted by mee

"The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version)

Another erroneous translation ... there is no indefinite article.

Originally Posted by mee

"The Word was with God and shared his nature." (The Translator’s New Testament)

We're into interpolation now. The word for nature — physis — is not in the text, is it, so this is an invention.

Originally Posted by mee

According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god" means "mighty one."

Well, your interpretation is as flawed as these translations.

The Jews, and the Christians, had many terms for God, such as 'Lord' (Heb. Adonai, Gk. Kurios) but never with the implication that God was of the same order of being as an aristorcrat, do they?

And simply quoting a translation does not make it right. does it?

Your whole proposition is a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by mee

yes it is the most high JEHOVAH PSALM 83;18

Well, by your logic, as the Name derives from the Hebrew verb hayah, "to be" ... as I am, and you are, and He is, we are all three the same? See what I mean?

Originally Posted by mee

Its good what the bible REALLY teaches isnt it ? and we dont need to have any manmade doctrines to know the truth of the bible . thats good we only need the bible

If only that were true ... but as is evident from your argument, which consistently falls foul of error, it is amply evident that we need someone to show us the truth, and yours is demonstrably not the way.

Thomas

[Thomas]

How can you dispute the scriptural evidence of the following:

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord [Jehovah] himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (literally, "God" or "Jehovah with us").

Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God [Jehovah], The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

The key to Isaiah 7:14 is the name "Immanuel" which means "God with us".

Since there is none other but The Lord (Adonai), and since by His own declaration on the tongue of the Prophet Isaiah:
"You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none. I am, I am the Lord: and there is no saviour besides me" (Isaiah 43:10–11).

John 8:58
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am."

Therefore Jesus Christ and The Lord God (Jehovah) are of the same in essence and substance, in being and nature, hence equal — in fact coequal.

There is no doubt that Our Lord (Greek Kurios from the Hebrew Adonai meaning God) is the son of the virgin portrayed in Isaiah 7:14.

How do you refute the declaration of Scripture, that God (Jehovah) and Jesus Christ are "One", and the same, since the very word "Immanuel" ("God" or "God (Jehovah) with us") belies any other interpretation?

Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, (in John 1:1) the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is Word, the verb was. There can be no direct object following 'was' since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives, which refer back to the subject—in this case, Word.

In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1.

It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for (God), and to translate it “a god” is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word.

Christ, if He is the Word “made flesh” (John 1:14), can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be denied.

Thomas

[mee]

Although Jesus never claimed to be God, as Jehovah’s appointed ruler he is identified in Isaiah’s prophecy by the terms "Mighty God" and "Prince of Peace." Isaiah’s prophecy adds

"To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end." (Isaiah 9:6, 7)


So, as the "Prince"—the son of the Great King, Jehovah—Jesus will serve as Ruler of the heavenly government of "God Almighty."—Exodus 6:3.




Yet, a person may ask, ‘In what sense is Jesus a "Mighty God," and didn’t the apostle John say that Jesus is himself God? In the King James version of the Bible, John 1:1 reads

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Some argue that this means that "the Word," who was born on earth as the baby Jesus, is Almighty God himself. Is this true?


If this verse were interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, "the Word was with God."



Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person.

Many Bible translations thus draw a distinction, making clear that the Word was not God Almighty.


For example, a sampling of Bible translations say the following
"The Word was a God,"
"a god was the Word,"
and "the Word was divine."
Bible verses that in the Greek language have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression "a god."


For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’

And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: "He is a god." (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6)


It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but "a god."—John 1:1.


Consider how John identified "the Word" in the first chapter of his Gospel.

"The Word became flesh and resided among us," he wrote, "and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs [not to God but] to an only-begotten son from a father."


So "the Word," who became flesh, lived on the earth as the man Jesus and was seen by people.

Therefore, he could not have been Almighty God, regarding whom John says "No man has seen God at any time."—John 1:14, 18.

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

Originally Posted by mee

Although Jesus never claimed to be God...

Oh yes He did — in word and deed — of course He did, that's what the authors of Scripture believed.

The charge against Him was blasphemy, not false prophecy. He spoke and acted with Divine Authority and in His own name.

Originally Posted by mee

as Jehovah’s appointed ruler he is identified in Isaiah’s prophecy by the terms "Mighty God" and "Prince of Peace."

Yes. A God. No Jew, and certainly no prophet, would claim polytheism. Therefore He is God made man. There is only One God of Israel.

Originally Posted by mee

So, as the "Prince"—the son of the Great King, Jehovah—Jesus will serve as Ruler of the heavenly government of "God Almighty."—Exodus 6:3.

Yes. Because He is God.

Originally Posted by mee

Yet, a person may ask, ‘In what sense is Jesus a "Mighty God," and didn’t the apostle John say that Jesus is himself God? In the King James version of the Bible, John 1:1 reads
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Some argue that this means that "the Word," who was born on earth as the baby Jesus, is Almighty God himself. Is this true?

Yes, as John goers on to say
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

Originally Posted by mee

If this verse were interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, "the Word was with God."

Then it's been interpreted wrongly, hasn't it? Because many saints and sages have proved that Scripture does not contradict itself. Where there is contradiction, there is unknowing. What's missing?

A proper understanding of The Holy Trinity.

Originally Posted by mee

Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person.

You can if you are God, "With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26).

If that were impossible, Divine Union would be impossible.

Originally Posted by mee

Many Bible translations thus draw a distinction, making clear that the Word was not God Almighty.

A man-made distinction, thus corrupting the text.

Originally Posted by mee

Therefore, he could not have been Almighty God, regarding whom John says "No man has seen God at any time."—John 1:14, 18.

Oh Mee ... if only you'd read on:
"Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, show us the Father?" (John 14:9)

Thomas

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Mee —




Oh Mee ... if only you'd read on:
"Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, show us the Father?" (John 14:9)

Thomas

Jesus said: "He that has seen me has seen the Father also." (John 14:9)


Jesus perfectly imitated his Father in everything he said and did. powerful and wise words indeed, compassion moved him to heal others,
and he had empathy
(Matthew 7:28, 29; Mark 1:40-42; John 11:32-36) The ways and will of the Father are perfectly revealed in the words and actions of the Son. (John 5:19; 8:28; 12:49, 50)so we need to heed the teachings of Jesus and follow his example.—John 14:23

Yes Jesus certainly was Gods spokesman , and he was taught by the most high JEHOVAH ,
Jesus had a good teacher he learned many things from his father, but then he would he lived in the heavens with his father JEHOVAH before he came to the earth .

and it is good to take note about Jesus and what he taught and praticed ,because that is what JEHOVAH is like


However, Jesus cried out and said: "He that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me [only], but in him [also] that sent me; and he that beholds me beholds [also] him that sent me. john 12;44-45


Therefore Jesus said: "When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these thingsJohn 8;28

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by mee

However, Jesus cried out and said: "He that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me [only], but in him [also] that sent me; and he that beholds me beholds [also] him that sent me. john 12;44-45

Therefore Jesus said: "When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these thingsJohn 8;28

Yes, because they are one in the same. Faith in Christ is faith in the father, beholding the Son is beholding the Father, Christ is the redeemer and saviour, God is the redeemer and saviour. They are one in the same, one God in three persons; father, son, and holy spirit.

[Thomas]

The counter-side of Blazyn's succinct and excellent little post, is that if Jesus is 'just' a man, then how can He redeem the whole human race? A man cannot even redeem himself, how then everyone else?

To suggest that God let one man suffer and die for the sin of all is the same as saying it's OK to execute an innocent man for the guilt of others — as long as someone pays the price, who cares ... not the God I have come to know, and not a god I would like to know, anyway.

The ransom theory of atonement has never been a happy one ... who pays the ransom, and to whom? Can God be bought off?

God killed His own son to satisfy His sense of injustice? Makes no sense to me.

A God who loves however, a God who takes the burden of another upon Himself, now that's someone worth standing up for ... when Abraham showed he was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac, God stayed his hand. Yet a ram was on hand to offer in sacrifice ... Why? Abraham had proved his point, so why kill a creature? God says He wants our love, not our sacrifice, why the ram?

Its a sign ... God would never ask a man to do something He is not prepared to do Himself, so rather than ask a man to surrender his son, God surrendered His son, for us.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The counter-side of Blazyn's succinct and excellent little post, is that if Jesus is 'just' a man, then how can He redeem the whole human race? A man cannot even redeem himself, how then everyone else?... Its a sign ... God would never ask a man to do something He is not prepared to do Himself, so rather than ask a man to surrender his son, God surrendered His son, for us.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

G!d surrendered his son, but his son is G!d and G!d is the son so the son sacrificed himself, or the if the son=G!d and G!d=the son, then the son sacrificed G!d, yikes... I'm clueless as to why folks have trinity issues, it is so clear.

If Jesus was a man, and realized his oneness with all and the father. (doesn't your own scripture say ye are G!ds?). And this man who realize his innate divinity and everyone elses. (these things and more you shall do for I go to the father). So I see no reason that our elder brother and wayshower, this man we call Jesus, who realized his Christ potential could not be the redemption of all mankind. He paved the way, blazed the path, made it plain for us, he walked his talk.

So you too can come thru realizing your Christ potential to go to the father....(ie no one comes to the father except thru me)

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Thomas,

G!d surrendered his son, but his son is G!d and G!d is the son so the son sacrificed himself, or the if the son=G!d and G!d=the son, then the son sacrificed G!d, yikes... I'm clueless as to why folks have trinity issues, it is so clear.

No, the Son did not sacrifice the Father, the Son sacrificed himself, because he came from the Father. Having emptied himself for a short time leaving his position in heaven as the Word of God and grew up to be a man, he became subject to the law. Allowing himself to be put to death by accepting all of our sins as the ultimate sacrifice, and the ultimate display of love of us all, as it pleased the Father. Now he is glorified back to the Father in heaven from which he came. The Fathers will to redeem us, the Son carrying out that will being full of his Spirit, and thru the Spirit being resurrected. Lowering himself to such a position, he was glorified and exalted to the highest position. And if we believe that we can now come to the Father through our high priest and be saved, who has been perfected through his sufferings and sits at the right hand of the Father, then this Spirit will dwell in us, and we will then be raised up and changed to be with the Lord forever.

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

G!d surrendered his son, but his son is G!d and G!d is the son so the son sacrificed himself, or the if the son=G!d and G!d=the son, then the son sacrificed G!d, yikes... I'm clueless as to why folks have trinity issues, it is so clear.

That's why informed commentary is essential. Many, many Catholics find no problem with this at all — but the biggest error is in assuming that all mysteries must reveal themselves to our intellects.

Originally Posted by wil

If Jesus was a man, and realized his oneness with all and the father.

Not just a man though, was He? The Scriptures seem quite clear on the issue of paternity.

Originally Posted by wil

(doesn't your own scripture say ye are G!ds?).

Yes it does, but you'll find not one Scripture scholar who derives the meaning from it that you do. Again, commentary is necessary to understand the meaning of the text. It does not mean that man is by nature divine. I could go into the details, but that would take us too far off the topic.

Originally Posted by wil

And this man who realize his innate divinity and everyone elses.

His innate divinity comes via His Father. Our fathers were not divine, ergo nor are we.

Man's nature is open to the Divine, but that does not make man divine in himself. To assume divinity as part of his birthright or nature is to fall foul of the sin of Adam, to possess what is given as one's own.

Originally Posted by wil

So I see no reason that our elder brother and wayshower, this man we call Jesus, who realized his Christ potential could not be the redemption of all mankind. He paved the way, blazed the path, made it plain for us, he walked his talk.

I see a whole host of reasons. For one, if man's nature is somehow blinded to itself, one man's illumination does not thereby illuminate all. So if Christ is just a man, he might be able to redeem himself, but not everyone else.

To separate 'Jesus' from 'Christ' is the oldest error in the book.

Athanasius said "Christ became man, he did not come into a man" and likewise a maxim of the Fathers is "what is not assumed is not saved". Your idea negates both these ideas. If what you say is true, Christ is 'out of here' and mankind is in the same state he was in before Christ appeared on the scene.

At the very least, if what you say is true, then the 'way' and the 'path' of which you speak leads to the Cross, surely? Not only would we be required to pick up our crosses, we would be required to die on them, as He did.

Originally Posted by wil

So you too can come thru realizing your Christ potential to go to the father....(ie no one comes to the father except thru me)

Which, if we are all Christ, is a meaningless statement — and which actually validates everyone's choice to decide how they get to God.

A proper reading of Scripture shows that Christ is not some abstract faculty of the person, but rather the Logos of God through whom the logoi of all come into, and are sustained, in being. The point then is our incorportion in Him, the Mystical Body of which St Paul speaks.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes it does, but you'll find not one Scripture scholar who derives the meaning from it that you do. ...

Actually if I worked at it I'd probably find hundreds, none of which you'd accept though. So if that be true, that you wouldn't accept these scholars, pray tell why should anyone accept yours?

Originally Posted by Thomas

— and which actually validates everyone's choice to decide how they get to God.

Heaven forbid

Actually I think it is G!d's choice and he has determined that we all return, no matter how many lives it takes.