Christ as the firstborn

  • 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!

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Nomad, on 21 November 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word. . .

I thought you were "deep" into Greek Vengle? How could you get this so wrong? First, "in the beginning" refers to creation. Look at verse 3. You have to pay attention to context. Second, do see the word "was" in
John 1:1? That is the imperfect tense form of our little friend "eimi." The imperfect tense expresses continuous action in the past. As far back as you wish to push "the beginning," the Word was already existing. That is what is clearly conveyed by the imperfect tense. The Word does not come into existence at the beginning, The Word is already existing when the beginning takes place. This is a hard fact of the Greek text that's not open to debate. Sorry. Seeing that you fancy yourself deep into Greek you should have no problem with what I've said. You hould have no problem looking it up. There's nothing here but what first year Greek students learn very early in their studies.


Vengle, on 21 November 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:
....
I love to witness your astounding ability to dazzle yourself. :lol: Even if it does limp a bit in genuine logic or truth.




It ain't "reason" that these folks are blinded, it's ideology. And where you so aptly discounted their lies, they didn't refute you, they dismissed you.



BibleScribe

"en" a simple simple word and you dare try to conjure such out of it?

Have you no conscience. :lol:

John 1:1 In <G1722> the <G9999> beginning <G0746>was <G2258> the <G3588> Word <G3056>, and <G2532> the <G3588> Word <G3056> was <G2258> with <G4314> God <G2316>, and <G2532> the <G3588> Word <G3056> was <G2258> God <G2316>.


Strong's <G2258> en -- pronounced: ane -- imperfect of 1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): KJV -- + agree, be, X have (+ charge of), hold, use, was(-t), were.

You guys are really squirming aren't you.

Anything but humble yourselves to accept the truth. :lol:
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
It is just too difficult for you to understand me when I have said repeatedly that I am fine with the way the KJV translates it.

I am fine with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

I have no (none, not even a single) problem with that. Yet you are going to great lengths to insist I am saying it must say "and the Word was divine" or "and the Word was god" or "and the Word was a god".

I understand that Jesus is "God revealed" or "the revelation of God."

And I thank God for that as John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Jesus does the job of revealing the Father so well that you are confused as to Jesus himself is:

Matthew 11:27 “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”

And here is why you do not know who the Son is:

Luke 10:22 “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

That is right. His identity is not revealed in your college studies of language and the usual learning which the carnal mind tends to take great pride in. The Father must reveal the Son to you even as it is the Son who must reveal the Father for you to know either of them.

The wisdom of that is that there are many false presentations of God in this world and there are many false presentations of His Christ (anointed one) who is His Son.

When you know one you know the other because each one reveals the other. So if you do not know one you really do not know either of them.

When you know them (John 17:3) there is no mystery to it. They are very clear and distinct to recognize as to who they are and you are then protected from manufacturing your own idea of them or from gulping down some fantastic pagan Trinity belief.

If they do not reveal themselves to you it is your fault for the reason they do not is that they have found some lack in your humility which makes them unwilling to show themselves to you.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Jesus is able of his power and authority, to issue power and authority: (Luke 9:1-2) “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.”

This is as it were for the Roman Centurion: (Matthew 8:9) “For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.”

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to tell them from where his authority came: (Matthew 21:23) “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?”

Jesus answered the Pharisees: (Matthew 21:24-25a) “And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?”

Jesus was plainly telling them that he was given his authority (anointed) when he was baptized with Holy Spirit from the Father through John’s work as a prophet. This ought to not be confused with Jesus having power from God’s Holy Spirit as though for the first time. But it is when Jesus was given authority for extended use of that power. He like John had been given the power of the Holy Spirit from the womb up. (Luke 1:15) But there is good reason for what Jesus told his mother, Mary, when she at the wedding requested he make wine, (John 2:4) “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” Jesus being the faithful Son that he is was careful not to use the gifts of his Father in a presumptuous way. He instead patiently waited upon his Father to authorize its extended uses and issue him authority to use that power over people and things.

But the evil minds of the Pharisees resisted seeing what Jesus had told them by means of his question to them: (Matthew 21:25b -27a) “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell.”

Therefore because this revealed evidence that their hearts were wicked Jesus refused to debate it with them: (Matthew 21:27b) “And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”

Now you could even receive that last paragraph unwillingly and claim Jesus did not have to wait upon evidence to know that. But that is neither here nor there. What I said is not about whether Jesus knew their hearts beforehand (for we know he did), but it is about that God will not refuse you for what is in you until you fail to discipline yourself and you let it become outward in your actions.

Do you get the sense of what this means for those of us who might feel that we are anointed to the services of God?

There is great purpose in our having to be patient. It is like as the 40 years of Moses’ preparation. And we need to be careful that we not let pride enter into us to cause us to be presumptuous with our gifts.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
To All,

Certainly one can debate Scripture all day long. But if it is already defended, why the incessant attack? But the defense, nevertheless, for any who may be interested:


Alpha & Omega Ministries, Christian Apologetics and Theology
http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html


John 1:1 Meaning and Translation
by James White

Section I

John 1:1-3, 14, 18
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth...No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


The prologue to John's Gospel has long been a center of controversy when discussing the Deity of Christ, and naturally so. One can hardly read the above sentences without catching a glimpse of One Who is far beyond the realm of simply human; even far beyond the realm of the angelic. The logos, the Word, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. The Word created all things, and there is absolutely nothing in existence that the Word did not create. Remember that the original readers of John's Gospel would not have already read verse 14, and they would not have the preconceived knowledge that the Word is identified as Christ. Try to detach yourself from that knowledge for a moment, and imagine what kind of being you would be imagining while reading about this Word. Certainly one can hardly conceive of a higher Being.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.

John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. ...





Please follow the above link to read the full article.

BibleScribe
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Throne signifies a seat of authority.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the son he saith: God thy seat shall be <¦thy seat endureth¦> for ever, and ever. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. (William Tyndale's translation - 16th century)


Jesus is able of his power and authority, to issue power and authority: (Luke 9:1-2) “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.”

This is as it were for the Roman Centurion: (Matthew 8:9) “For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.”
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Hi Vengle,

I thought we were talking about the "was" in John 1:1:


John 1:1-3

[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was in the beginning with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


And so if not only is the term "was" timeless, without a reference to a point of origin, (per J. White), then do you think that verse 3 preempts the Father from creating the Son, (as you have asserted)? For then you'll have to parse the meaning of "all things", to the exclusion of -- Jesus creating Himself?



BibleScribe
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Hi Vengle,

I thought we were talking about the "was" in John 1:1:


John 1:1-3

[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was in the beginning with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


And so if not only is the term "was" timeless, without a reference to a point of origin, (per J. White), then do you think that verse 3 preempts the Father from creating the Son, (as you have asserted)? For then you'll have to parse the meaning of "all things", to the exclusion of -- Jesus creating Himself?



BibleScribe

Actually you or Nomad or both of you dumped John 1: 1 back into the middle of the discussion that has been taking place concerning the throne that Jesus sets on at Hebrews 1: 8. :) You guys could not take the heat so you ran from that fire and are now trying to start a backward burning fire. :lol: A common forest fire fighter's tactic.

But it is fallacy what you are saying. I do not care to argue the ignorance of it but just as you desire to believe you can find biased individuals that are willing to butcher the language just as you are who are so-called experts. So it proves nothing, especially to me who is one who is familiar with the language skills but is not prideful like as you to make a display of it. And all you are really showing is ignorance. Almost everything you have said about the word en is a gross perversion and lie.

On-lookers that are unskilled in the languages have no way to know that so you are trying to impress them by use of scholars that are as fake as you or who are being misrepresented by you.

You are proving something important to the One who is important. But i will not participate in your charade.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Why would you want to leave John 1:1, and jump to another verse. Have you abandoned that which you cannot defend? And where you cannot defend your doctrine, that you should attack the individual?


...
But it is fallacy what you are saying. I do not care to argue the ignorance of it but just as you desire to believe you can find biased individuals that are willing to butcher the language just as you are who are so-called experts. So it proves nothing, especially to me who is one who is familiar with the language skills but is not prideful like as you to make a display of it. And all you are really showing is ignorance. Almost everything you have said about the word en is a gross perversion and lie.

On-lookers that are unskilled in the languages have no way to know that so you are trying to impress them by use of scholars that are as fake as you or who are being misrepresented by you.

You are proving something important to the One who is important. But i will not participate in your charade.


It appears that you not only cannot defend the context of the word "was" (en), but equally will not defend how it is that Jesus created "all things", but apparently it wasn't everything, because you assert that the Father created Jesus. So per your doctrine, Scripture should apparently read that Jesus created ~ most all things~, to the exclusion of Himself.

And to complete the concept of ~creation~, you apparently also need to insert some text which defines that the Father also creates.



Maybe the problem is with the original text. It apparently doesn't suit your doctrine very well, and you might consider making whatever revisions you deem necessary to meet your theological requirements.

But if I might, when you're making your revision(s), do you think you could make a provision for a 22 cal Henry repeating rifle? I've always admired the craftsmanship and quality of that little rifle, and would hope that maybe if it were noted in Scripture, that my wife might let me buy one. :lol:



BibleScribe
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Why would you want to leave John 1:1, and jump to another verse. Have you abandoned that which you cannot defend? And where you cannot defend your doctrine, that you should attack the individual?





It appears that you not only cannot defend the context of the word "was" (en), but equally will not defend how it is that Jesus created "all things", but apparently it wasn't everything, because you assert that the Father created Jesus. So per your doctrine, Scripture should apparently read that Jesus created ~ most all things~, to the exclusion of Himself.

And to complete the concept of ~creation~, you apparently also need to insert some text which defines that the Father also creates.



Maybe the problem is with the original text. It apparently doesn't suit your doctrine very well, and you might consider making whatever revisions you deem necessary to meet your theological requirements.

But if I might, when you're making your revision(s), do you think you could make a provision for a 22 cal Henry repeating rifle? I've always admired the craftsmanship and quality of that little rifle, and would hope that maybe if it were noted in Scripture, that my wife might let me buy one. :lol:



BibleScribe

John 1:2-3 “The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

So we see that the Word “was in the beginning with God, all things were made by the Word, and without the Word the Father God made not anything that was made.”

Your view, Biblescribe, dismisses the words “without him”. Those words relate back to the Father telling us that the Father did nothing without the Son (or the Word).

You have been the victim of great delusion, Biblescribe.

No parsing of the meaning of any words required.

If you have not lost all your reasoning capability take a lesson from Paul here in John:

1 Corinthians 15:27 "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him."
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
John 1:1-3 though speaking to the spiritual creation in Jesus Christ certainly alludes to the natural creation in Genesis 1-2. Even the most immature of students would understand John is contrasting the two creative works. Is it not recorded:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

You may also like to see Psa 107:20; 147:15,18,19,Heb 11:3and cmp Jer 10:12;13:5 also see 2 Peter 3:5, 7 "For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water... But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

You may not know this but these passages leave your theology in total disarray. Do you not know God's spoken Word and His work of creation is transparent? God (Single Persona) gave a divine command; and yes BibleScribe His will was done!

Now resist your desire to wrangle the language by twisting and forcing you profane doctrines.

We can determine very easily only one person is responsible for the creative work. And you would be correct BibleScribe if you drew to that person being God….wait for it.....The Father. He alone created without qualification from the errorists like you. He needed no secondary agency and this work is consistent with the single pronoun which sadly leaves you no room to doubt. He alone performed these works both in Gen and in John 1. ONE person BibleScribe, not two, three or even four if one is a Catholic who have gods for ever day of the week.

Only a blind fool could question this fact:
  • "But no one says, 'Where is God, my Creator'" Job 35:10
  • "Yet LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the product of your labor" Isa 64:8
  • "This is what the LORD, your protector, says, the one who formed you in the womb: 'I am the LORD, who made everything, who alone stretched out the sky, who fashioned the earth all by myself'" Isa 44:24
  • "'I made the earth and the people and animals on it by my mighty power and great strength, and I give it to whomever I see fit'" Jer 27:5
You know whats sad BibleScribe – even with this evidence you will dig down into your Trinitarian works and try to force multiple creative beings when the singular pronoun remains and stands firm.

Go on, ignore these facts and thrust your evil interpretation upon Jh 1:1-18 - pervert the message to your loss.

Insight
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
Those whom God places in human government are mere vassals.

True

An inferior is never said to sit on a superiors' throne in human government. Likewise, the Bible never speaks of a delegate sitting on God's throne.

Also true in regards to Gentile governments

To sit on God's throne would mean that the delegate or vassal would wield the full authority and power of God.

How so?

This is absurd on its face. Again, the Bible never indicates any such thing. Grasping at straws isn't going to help you prove that the Son is not God, Vengle. This whole conversation is sheer desperation on your part.

My claim of Jesus sitting upon the throne of his father David is still valid and Scriptural. Luke 1:32

Insight

To All,

Certainly one can debate Scripture all day long. But if it is already defended, why the incessant attack? But the defense, nevertheless, for any who may be interested:


Alpha & Omega Ministries, Christian Apologetics and Theology
http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html


John 1:1 Meaning and Translation
by James White

Section I

John 1:1-3, 14, 18
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth...No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


The prologue to John's Gospel has long been a center of controversy when discussing the Deity of Christ, and naturally so. One can hardly read the above sentences without catching a glimpse of One Who is far beyond the realm of simply human; even far beyond the realm of the angelic. The logos, the Word, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. The Word created all things, and there is absolutely nothing in existence that the Word did not create. Remember that the original readers of John's Gospel would not have already read verse 14, and they would not have the preconceived knowledge that the Word is identified as Christ. Try to detach yourself from that knowledge for a moment, and imagine what kind of being you would be imagining while reading about this Word. Certainly one can hardly conceive of a higher Being.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.

John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. ...





Please follow the above link to read the full article.

BibleScribe

This error has been answered.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
John 1:1-3 though speaking to the spiritual creation in Jesus Christ certainly alludes to the natural creation in Genesis 1-2. Even the most immature of students would understand John is contrasting the two creative works. Is it not recorded:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

You may also like to see Psa 107:20; 147:15,18,19,Heb 11:3and cmp Jer 10:12;13:5 also see 2 Peter 3:5, 7 "For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water... But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

You may not know this but these passages leave your theology in total disarray. Do you not know God's spoken Word and His work of creation is transparent? God (Single Persona) gave a divine command; and yes BibleScribe His will was done!

Now resist your desire to wrangle the language by twisting and forcing you profane doctrines.

We can determine very easily only one person is responsible for the creative work. And you would be correct BibleScribe if you drew to that person being God….wait for it.....The Father. He alone created without qualification from the errorists like you. He needed no secondary agency and this work is consistent with the single pronoun which sadly leaves you no room to doubt. He alone performed these works both in Gen and in John 1. ONE person BibleScribe, not two, three or even four if one is a Catholic who have gods for ever day of the week.

Only a blind fool could question this fact:
  • "But no one says, 'Where is God, my Creator'" Job 35:10
  • "Yet LORD, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the product of your labor" Isa 64:8
  • "This is what the LORD, your protector, says, the one who formed you in the womb: 'I am the LORD, who made everything, who alone stretched out the sky, who fashioned the earth all by myself'" Isa 44:24
  • "'I made the earth and the people and animals on it by my mighty power and great strength, and I give it to whomever I see fit'" Jer 27:5
You know whats sad BibleScribe – even with this evidence you will dig down into your Trinitarian works and try to force multiple creative beings when the singular pronoun remains and stands firm.

Go on, ignore these facts and thrust your evil interpretation upon Jh 1:1-18 - pervert the message to your loss.

Insight

I would like to add one thing to this excellent comment, Insight.

The involvement of the Son as the Word is as a medium; just as he is the mediator between us and God.

Can anyone comprehend that?

This is good reason for the typical Hebrew nature word play we see here (which they carried over into their use of the Greek).

God does all the commanding and the putting forth of the power that accomplishes. But he did that through Jesus and because of His love for His Son He has not left His Son out of a single thing that He has made. He always uses His Son as the medium for it. And He exalts His Son with glory beside Him.

That is why it is possible for all of those verses in the single persona giving all credit to God the Father, even as the Son himself gives all of the credit to God his Father.

John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0

BibleScribe enough quoting of Trinitarian works – we are all familiar with their wrangling’s.

I would like to add one thing to this excellent comment, Insight.

The involvement of the Son as the Word is as a medium; just as he is the mediator between us and God.

Can anyone comprehend that?

This is good reason for the typical Hebrew nature word play we see here (which they carried over into their use of the Greek).

God does all the commanding and the putting forth of the power that accomplishes. But he did that through Jesus and because of His love for His Son He has not left His Son out of a single thing that He has made. He always uses His Son as the medium for it. And He exalts His Son with glory beside Him.

That is why it is possible for all of those verses in the single persona giving all credit to God the Father, even as the Son himself gives all of the credit to God his Father.

John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Amen
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
You said Insight: "My claim of Jesus sitting upon the throne of his father David is still valid and Scriptural. Luke 1:32"

Surely you see that just as we have a dual picture of the spiritual and the physical creation, we have that also here?

The question is, "Whose throne did David set on?"

My point is that there are not two powers, but one.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
You said Insight: "My claim of Jesus sitting upon the throne of his father David is still valid and Scriptural. Luke 1:32"

Surely you see that just as we have a dual picture of the spiritual and the physical creation, we have that also here?

The question is, "Whose throne did David set on?"

My point is that there are not two powers, but one.

So few Christians understand this truth!

Praise be to Him who reveals secrets. Amos 3:7

Insight
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
Nomad’s non – committal to his own question needs answering for the sake of others reading this thread.

Then Solomon sat on THE THRONE OF THE LORD as king instead of David his father (1 Chron. 29:23 and Luke 1:32).

You see Nomad the children of Israel are God's chosen people, and their kings were appointed by Him, (like Jesus Christ) the seat of authority occupied by the latter, is appropriately called "the throne of the Lord, thereby distinguishing the kingdom of Israel from all the other kingdoms of the earth.

Maybe Heb 1:8 takes on new meaning for you now? Rather than abusing the record with Trinitarian doctrine a more complete and scripturally sound interpretation has been revealed to you, one without the need of foreign influence.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
I wonder if Nomad in his theological training was taught about the United Kingdom? Sadly, it did not remain so.

At Solomon's death a change eventuated that saw them move away from one immediate successor, he had two, Rehoboam and Jeroboam.

The two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained faithful to the rightful heir, Rehoboam; but the other ten tribes revolted and gave their allegiance to Jeroboam, who was succeeded by a long line of kings (most of whom did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (singular).

The establishment of a second kingdom was an act of rebellion against the line of kings appointed by God. The throne of the Lord still continued at Jerusalem; and the two tribes were still viewed as constituting God's kingdom. Hence Abijah, the successor of Rehoboam in the rulership of that kingdom, addressed Jeroboam, the head of the revolutionary tribes, in the following language:

"And now ye think to withstand the kingdom of the Lord " (2 Chron 13: 8).

So not only is the Throne, of the Lord, but the Kingdom also.

Insight
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Nomad’s non – committal to his own question needs answering for the sake of others reading this thread.

Then Solomon sat on THE THRONE OF THE LORD as king instead of David his father (1 Chron. 29:23 and Luke 1:32).

You see Nomad the children of Israel are God's chosen people, and their kings were appointed by Him, (like Jesus Christ) the seat of authority occupied by the latter, is appropriately called "the throne of the Lord, thereby distinguishing the kingdom of Israel from all the other kingdoms of the earth.

Maybe Heb 1:8 takes on new meaning for you now? Rather than abusing the record with Trinitarian doctrine a more complete and scripturally sound interpretation has been revealed to you, one without the need of foreign influence.

I missed that one. Thank you. Like I told you, the old brain is acting a lot like trying to take a straggler for a walk. :D