Before Abraham Existed I AM
- Thread starter ByGraceThroughFaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lets see you answer this
Job 35:10 “But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night”. Here “God” is “˒ĕlōah”, masculine, singular; and “Maker”, “‘ō·śāy”, masculine, plural, literally, “God my Makers”. Again, why the singular “˒ĕlōah”, with the plural, “‘ō·śāy”? It is clear from this, that “˒ĕlōah”, is used to show the “Essential Unity”; and “‘ō·śāy”, for the “Plurality of Persons”. There is not other explanation for this. We should have expected, the singular “‘ō·śê·nî”.
This is also seen in Isaiah 54:5, “For your Maker (‘ō·śa·yiḵ, plural, your Makers) is your Husband (ḇō·‘ă·la·yiḵ, plural, your Husbands), the LORD of Hosts is His Name (šə·mōw, sing); and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called”. Why not as in Isaiah 51:13, where we read the singular?
Likewise, in Ecclesiastes 12:1, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth”
Here “your Creator”, “bō·wr·’e·ḵā”, is the masculine, plural, “your Creators”. Why the plural?
WHY is the PLURAL used, when God Father is supposed to be the ONLY Creator?
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
....................................................
....................................................
Hebrews 1:8
The 'original copies' of Heb. 1:8 (P46 is the earliest - first to middle part of second century) says Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. (θεὸς is in its abbreviated form). Yes, literally the oldest NT Greek manuscripts read (like all others): “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”
There was no punctuation, so it is honestly translated as either: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" OR “God is thy throne for ever and ever” - Dr. James Moffatt's translation (also AT and others).
Even the great NT grammarian A.T. Robertson wrote in his Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT discussing Heb. 1:8:
“It is not certain whether ho theos here is the vocative [‘Thy throne, O God’] .… or ho theos is nominative….(‘God is thy throne’)”
Heb. 1:8 translated from Ps. 45:6
Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”
So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).
So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God ...” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?). In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:
“The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient
pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”
The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for this passage:
“God .... here the writer might be using the word ‘God’ as a title for the king.” (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)
If we can find a few trinitarian-translated Bibles which translate Ps. 45:6 in a non-trinitarian way, we really shouldn't accept it (also Heb. 1:8 - see post above) as actual trinity evidence.
The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate
reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”
The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”
The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”
The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”
The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.”
The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”
And the NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”
We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.
In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”
Why is Heb. 1:8 so often presented as proof of Jesus being God? Have so many trinitarians really not seen the numerous alternative translations and interpretations of this scripture? At the very least these alternatives should be admitted by them (but seldom are).
Here is a newsflash for you.
the UNITARIAN New Testament by Dr George Noyes, reads, "Thy throne O God..." The New Testament : Noyes, George R. (George Rapall), 1798-1868 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Another UNITARIAN, Dr George Winer, says in his Greek grammar, that Hebrews 1:8, is used as the VOCATIVE, which means an ADDRESS, and therefore cannot read "God is your throne", etc. It is "Your Throne O God"
The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163). It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative. The 11th century French Rabbi, Shlomo Yitzchaki, also known as Rashi, in his comments on this verse, renders it, “Your throne, O judge: Your throne, O prince and judge, shall exist forever and ever” (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16266/showrashi/true).
Rashi, here takes “אֱלֹהִים”, as “judge”, as he would not apply the words to The Messiah, but to an earthly king. However, it is clear that he understood the words as an address in the vocative
I think I see where this post is coming from and I am now going to click a certain button...
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
I am a newby here... there could be some history behind the tension between the two.
Post #5 could be disingenuous - not really sure.
Whatever pales into insignificance compared to the blatant intimidation that goes with the other.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Thy throne, O God, is for ever - כסאך אלהים עולם ועד kisacha Elohim olam vaed. “O God, thy throne is for ever, and eternal!” The word Elohim here is the very first term or name by which the Supreme God has made himself known to the children of men. See Gen_1:1; and this very verse the apostle, Heb_1:8, has applied to Jesus Christ. On this I shall make a very short remark, but it shall be conclusive: If the apostle did not believe Jesus Christ to be the true and eternal God, he has utterly misapplied this Scripture.
The translation in the old Psalter, and the paraphrase will, on this controverted text, be considered of some importance: Thi settil God in werld of werlde: wande of ryghtyng wande of thi kyngedome. Here he loues [celebrates] God Crist - of dome. Thi settil of demyng and of kynges pouste. God es werld of werld for al that he demes es noght chaunged and that byfalles the, for the wande that es ceptre and the governyng of thi kyngdom es wande of ryghtyng, that ryghtes croked men this es the wand of goddes evenes that ay es ryght and never croked that reules ryghtwis men ard smytes wiked men. The reader will observe a blank space between the word Crist and of dome: it is the same in the original. A word has been so carefully erased with the scalpel in the above place, that not a vestige of a letter is left. From the following words I should suspect it to have been kynge or lard. Here he praises God, Christ, king of judgment. However this may be, it is evident that this ancient commentator understood the word God to be applied to Christ. I have given the sentence as it is pointed in the original.
Clarke
J.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Johann
Well-Known Member
Jesus Himself addressed this in His saying that they themselves were called gods, so why did they have a problem with Him saying He was the Son of God? But He was forcing them to confront the contextual issue, who actually is called G/god, and under what circumstances. Had they actually answered appropriately, it would have been along the lines of, "You know that's not what we mean!" Jesus was resubmitting the information to then in a different fashion, so they could come to understand, to rethink what they were so adamant to reject.
I see all this dissection and analysis, leading so many different directions, but I read the simplicity of the Word itself, and that's what I see, simplicity, and these things can be easily known. But we have to be submitted to the Word.
Much love!
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
Yes and Amen...
It is easy to forget that God cares about the content of mainstream scripture, which when in the hands of the average person combined with the inspiration of the Author Himself renders more than enough understanding to build salvation faith.
Acts 16:17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ who is the most high God! Acts 9:16
Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ who is the most high God! Acts 9:16
Hebrews Chapter One
Another New Testament passage is readily appealed to in order to prove that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. It is Hebrews 1. In this chapter, when isolated from its context, individual phrases seem to justify this Trinitarian interpretation. These phrases are: "through whom all so He made the world" (v.20); "And let all the Angels of God worship him" (v.6); "But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever’" (v.8); "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you will remain…You are the same, and your years will not come to an end" (v.10,12). Read in isolation-out of contexts-these verses seem to say that Jesus is (Jehovah) God. Is this interpretation justified? Many expositors think not. Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356. Is adamant that we do not have to "interpret the Christology of Hebrews in such an extremely ontological terms (in the light of Nicea!) (Ontology is the study of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.) Kuschel comments that "the majority of exegetes" do not now assume "an extremely developed Hellenistic-syncretistic Christ-myth as a background to Hebrews, nor are dilemmas foisted on the text. Material from the Hellenistic Jewish tradition is thought enough to explaine the Christology of Hebrews." In other words, we are cautioned not to read back into the text what later traditions have taught us.
Although debate has centered around who the actual author of Hebrews is, we note that the his whole literary skill and theological argumentation is indebted to the world of Old Testament ideas. The reason why the book of Hebrews was first written was to encourage believers who were undergoing fierce persecution to remain loyal to Christ. These believers were Jewish converts to Christ and they must be encouraged to see the superiority of Christ over the old Jewish system of things. Christ is inferior to the angels (who had mediated the old covenant); he is superior to Abraham, Moses, and Joshua. Christ is inferior to the Levitical priesthood and Temple rituals and sacrifices.
This superiority rests in the fact that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, not that he is Almighty God. If Jesus is the Almighty in human form, then the author could have saved himself a lot of the ink and papyrus. All he needed to do was write that Jesus is superior to all because he is God. End of argument.
But the opening verses of Hebrews allows no such interpretation. They run like this: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He (God) appointed heir of all things, through (dia... on account of...) whom also He (God) made the world (ages)" (v.1-3).
Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making believes Hebrews 1:1-3 is parallel to Colossians 1: 15-17, which I as we have just seen is written with eschatology in mind, not protology. This contention is justified because it is explicitly stated that the end-time has already dawned; it is "these last days" that are in view. We are again looking at the eschatological shift of the ages with the appearance of Christ.
Under the old covenant God spoke in various portions in various ways to the fathers in the prophets. In contrast, he now speaks through a Son. One of the ways God spoke in those days was also through the mediation of angels (see Heb. 2:2). This means, amongst other things, that God's message to Israel was not through a preexistent Son who was an angel, as Jehovah witnesses believe ie... ByGraceThroughFaith (they teach that Jesus was Michael the archangel). Nor can it mean-as many Trinitarians think-that Jesus was the "the angel of the LORD" who appeared on numerous OT occasions. Nor indeed can it mean, according to later Nicene "orthodoxy," that God spoke to the fathers in Old Testament days through a preexistent Son.
For the opening verse of Hebrews testifies that before the birth of Jesus there was no Son of God as God's messenger to men. It is axiomatic that in the Old Testament God did not speak through the Son. Bluntly then: What emerges from the first two verses of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus was not God's agent to Israel in Old Testament times.
The Son-through whom God has in these end-times spoken-has been "appointed heir of all things" (v.2). This language of the delegation of all authority to Jesus as Son reminds us of the many times Jesus said that his authority was given to him (John 5:22, 26-27). And just when was this authority, this appointment given to him? It was given to him after his resurrection as the reward for his obedience (see Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11; Rom. 1:4; Acts 17:31).
Then comes the statement that through his appointed heir of all things God "made the world" (v.2). The old KJV translation has "through whom He made the worlds." Again, the way this is translated predisposes are tradition-bound minds to run along a well-worn rut. We tend to immediately think of the Genesis creation at the beginning of the universe. But the word used for "worlds" here is the word for "ages" (it is the word from which we get our English word eon/s). The writer is not speaking of the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He is speaking about time periods, epochs. In Jewish thinking there were classically two great ages. The first is the present and evil age. The next will be the Messianic age to come. And Hebrews 1:2 is speaking of the world-or more precisely-the Messianic age to come. He goes on to tell us that through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross a new way has been opened up for us to enter the new earth and the new heavens of the future Messianic Kingdom when it dawns.
This "appointed heir of all things" is the agent, the mediator through (dia) whom God has-in prospect-brought about the new Messianic age. The eschatological Son "is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (v.3).
Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356
The eschatological contexts in the present participles used in these statements (literally: he, being reflection and stamp) make it clear that here there can be no question of any protological statement about preexistence or a statement about the earthly life of the Son, but a statement about the significance of the son for the community in the present.
Again Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making, p.208 writes:
Christ is the Son who is the eschatological climax ("in these last days") to all God's earlier and more fragmentary revelation (v.1-2a); that climatic revelation focuses on his sacrifice for sins, and exaltation to God's right hand (v.3d-e).
In other words, there is not any intimation here in this end-time contexts that Christ is seen as the preexistent God the son, second member of the Trinity. True, this Son now "upholds all things by the word of his power" (v.3b). But it is the new creation-the Messianic age-that is held together by his (authorized and delegated) power.
And in that new age even the Angels will worship the Son, for he has "become as much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they" (v.4). This is what the Father had decreed through the prophets long ago (v.5). If there's any doubt that Christ the Son will be worshiped in that glorious new age the author dispels such a question by promising that "when He [God] again brings the first-born into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship him’" (v.6). At the Second Coming the Father's decree will become history. Every knee, whether in heaven or on earth, will pay home which to the Son. Jesus will then "sit on the throne of his glory" (Matt. 25:31). This worship of Jesus the Son does not make him Almighty God: later in Hebrews 2 Jesus is seen leading his "brethren"-the redeemed church-in the (ultimate) worship of God the Father (Heb. 2: 12-13). This act of (relative) worship of Jesus by the angels will honor the Father, for it is his will they do this (Phil. 2:9-11). Then the ultimate act of Jesus’ own worship of God the Father will be "when he delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24). When all things are subjected to Christ, including the angelic host, "then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). "As representing the divine majesty of the father, the Messianic title ‘god’ will be applied to Jesus, as it once was to the judges of Israel who foreshadowed the supreme judge of Israel, the Messiah (Ps.82:6).
Study harder...
Paul
Only God has angels!
Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Jesus is God
Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us').
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.
John 1:3
ALL things were made by HIM (Jesus); and without him was not ANY thing made that was made.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 10:30
“I and the Father are one."
John 15:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], “My Lord and my God!”
Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us').
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.
John 1:3
ALL things were made by HIM (Jesus); and without him was not ANY thing made that was made.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 10:30
“I and the Father are one."
John 15:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], “My Lord and my God!”
At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Second Person was declared to be consubstantial with the Father, where the term homo-ousios became the consecrated word for expressing perfect numerical identity of nature between the Father and His Son who became incarnate.
But Nicea did not settle the controversy. Speculators, especially in the Near East, insisted on probing and rationalizing the Trinity so that in 382 AD Pope St. Damasus called a council at Rome in which he summarized the main errors up to his time. Called the Tome of Damasus, this collection of anathemas is a series of definitions on the Trinity that to this day are models of clarity. Twenty-four in number, a sample from the collection again reflects the Church's perennial faith:
If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.
If anyone says that the Son made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while He was on earth: he is a heretic.
If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.
The most extensive declaration of the Church's teaching on the Trinity was made at the Eleventh Synod of Toledo in Spain (675 AD). It is a mosaic of texts drawn from all the preceding doctrines of the Church. Its purpose was to assemble as complete a list of doctrinal statements as possible, in view of the still prevalent errors in nominally Christian circles, and (providentially) in view of the rise of Islam which struck with particular vehemence against the Iberian peninsula. Since the main target of Moslem opposition to Christianity was the Koranic claim that Christians were idolaters because they adored Christ as God, it is instructive to see how the faithful were prepared to resist the Moslem Unitarianism by a clear declaration of their own belief in the Triune God. The full text of doctrine at Toledo runs to over two thousand words. Only a few lines will be given to illustrate the tone:
We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power.
We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other.
Two general councils of the Church formulated the faith in the Trinity in specific creeds, namely the Fourth Lateran and the Council of Florence.
The focus of Fourth Lateran was twofold, to reaffirm the faith in the face of the Albigensian heresy and to defend it against the vagaries of Abbot Joachim.
Since the Albigenses were Manichaens, for whom there were two ultimate sources of the universe, one a good principle and the other an evil one, Lateran declared the absolute oneness of God, who is at the same time Triune:
We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God, eternal, immense, unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and indescribable, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three persons but one essence and a substance or nature that is wholly simple.
The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. God has no beginning; He always is, and always will be. The Father is the progenitor, the Son is the begotten, the Holy Spirit is proceeding. They are all one substance, equally great, equally all-powerful, equally eternal. They are the one and only principle of all things – Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who, by His almighty power, from the very beginning of time has created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing, the spiritual or angelic worlds and the corporeal or visible universe.
But Nicea did not settle the controversy. Speculators, especially in the Near East, insisted on probing and rationalizing the Trinity so that in 382 AD Pope St. Damasus called a council at Rome in which he summarized the main errors up to his time. Called the Tome of Damasus, this collection of anathemas is a series of definitions on the Trinity that to this day are models of clarity. Twenty-four in number, a sample from the collection again reflects the Church's perennial faith:
If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.
If anyone says that the Son made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while He was on earth: he is a heretic.
If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.
The most extensive declaration of the Church's teaching on the Trinity was made at the Eleventh Synod of Toledo in Spain (675 AD). It is a mosaic of texts drawn from all the preceding doctrines of the Church. Its purpose was to assemble as complete a list of doctrinal statements as possible, in view of the still prevalent errors in nominally Christian circles, and (providentially) in view of the rise of Islam which struck with particular vehemence against the Iberian peninsula. Since the main target of Moslem opposition to Christianity was the Koranic claim that Christians were idolaters because they adored Christ as God, it is instructive to see how the faithful were prepared to resist the Moslem Unitarianism by a clear declaration of their own belief in the Triune God. The full text of doctrine at Toledo runs to over two thousand words. Only a few lines will be given to illustrate the tone:
We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power.
We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other.
Two general councils of the Church formulated the faith in the Trinity in specific creeds, namely the Fourth Lateran and the Council of Florence.
The focus of Fourth Lateran was twofold, to reaffirm the faith in the face of the Albigensian heresy and to defend it against the vagaries of Abbot Joachim.
Since the Albigenses were Manichaens, for whom there were two ultimate sources of the universe, one a good principle and the other an evil one, Lateran declared the absolute oneness of God, who is at the same time Triune:
We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God, eternal, immense, unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and indescribable, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three persons but one essence and a substance or nature that is wholly simple.
The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. God has no beginning; He always is, and always will be. The Father is the progenitor, the Son is the begotten, the Holy Spirit is proceeding. They are all one substance, equally great, equally all-powerful, equally eternal. They are the one and only principle of all things – Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who, by His almighty power, from the very beginning of time has created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing, the spiritual or angelic worlds and the corporeal or visible universe.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
My best guess is it is the IGNORE BUTTON . I whiffed it too my friend . I whiffed it as well . Folks are talking themselves into
anything that denies the diety of Christ in these final days . As for me , I shall indeed push the IGNORE that doctrine button real fast as well .
Thank you for pointing this out....
Mat 24:31 "And He will send forth His angels G32 with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
G32
ἄγγελος
ággelos; gen. aggélou, masc. noun. Messenger, one sent to announce or proclaim.
(I) A messenger, one who is sent in order to announce, teach, perform, or explore anything (Mat_11:10; Luk_7:24; Luk_9:52; Gal_4:14; Jam_2:25; Sept.: Jos_6:17; Mal_2:7). In 1Co_11:10, aggélous, acc. pl., is interpreted variably as spies or angels, good or evil, even demons. The angels of the seven churches are probably the bishops or pastors of those churches, the delegates or messengers of the churches of God (Rev_1:20; Rev_2:1, Rev_2:8, Rev_2:12, Rev_2:18; Rev_3:1, Rev_3:7, Rev_3:14). Heb_13:2 may have reference to itinerate preachers rather than angels.
(II) An angel, a celestial messenger, a being superior to man. God is represented as surrounded by a host of beings of a higher order than man. These He uses as His messengers and agents in administering the affairs of the world and in promoting the welfare of humans (Mat_1:20; Mat_18:10; Mat_22:30; Act_7:30). As to the numbers of the angels, see Heb_12:22; Rev_5:11. See archággelos (G743), archangel. In 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6, some of the angels that sinned are said to have been cast down to hell. They are called the angels of the devil or Satan (Mat_25:41; 2Co_12:7; Rev_12:9). In Rev_9:11, the angel of the bottomless pit is the destroying angel Abaddṓn (G3), Abaddon.
Deriv.: aggelía (G31), message; archággelos (G743), archangel; isággelos (G2465), like or equal to an angel.
Syn.: apóstolos (G652), apostle, messenger.
Angels.... are not God... and neither was Jesus... Yet... they Both have the same roll in Gods plan....
Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He (God) appointed heir of all things, through (dia... on account of...) whom also He (God) made the world.
I AM... going to show you how Jesus confirms what I just said... Pay attention...
Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
According to Jesus himself the creator of ALL was .... Read above.... Do the Math... Think for yourself....
Really... Even Jesus tells you the truth and you call Him a liar......
Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Jesus is constantly
contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.
Oh Yee of little theefaith...
The other Paul...
Neh 1:1 The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol,
See, I can post random scripture too!
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him
I mean... he gave you revelation too... but that does not ,make him God... Try harder...
Last edited:
Similar threads
