IS JESUS GOD?

[Brakelite]

ha well ok but then you are left with why Jesus said what He did, i guess

fwiw something that is made to be something doesnt necessarily actually have to be that, prolly; hence why it must be "made to be" i think

The emphasis I was thinking about was more to do with the "knew no sin", rather than the burden of sin that was later laid upon Him as the sacrifice.

 

[Aunty Jane]

well, our spirit will return to Yah, Who gave it, too, i guess; but most believers are consumed with getting their life/soul into heaven i think? Completely diff concept

Indeed a whole different concept to what the ancient (as opposed to modern) Jews accepted as truth....and way different to the beliefs of the pagans who all believed in life after death.

Solomon wrote that the person who died was in a state of complete unconsciousness.....
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun. . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." (ESV)
"Sheol" was the common grave of all mankind. In the Septuagint "sheol" is translated as "hades"......what has Christendom taught about hades? Just the opposite to what Solomon said.

Solomon also lamented that man has no superiority over the other "souls" (which is what animals are called in Genesis) who share our planet because he said....
"For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return." (ESV) The same as God told Adam. (Genesis 3:19) No one went anywhere at death...just back to the dust.

The "spirit" in man however, was not his soul, though somehow these two words became synonymous for some reason. I believe that satan has messed up our understanding of words so that when the Bible speaks of various things, it gets muddled in the translation.

A "soul" is never spoken of as a disembodied spirit.....and the only spirits are those created by God to BE spirits. We do not become spirits at death and leave our bodies to go somewhere else.....satan has had a field day with this concept, but really it is just reinforcing his first lie to the woman in Eden....."you surely will not die".....but God said the opposite.

So, what is the "spirit" that returns to God? The word "spirit" in the Bible, when it pertains to humans, is not in itself a conscious entity.
The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, translated as “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and gives evidence of force in motion.

The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s holy spirit.

So for humankind, who are spiritual in nature, the "spirit" is the same as that which animated Adam.....it is the "breath of life" that made Adam a "living soul" or "living being". Since the spirit returns to God....what does that mean? It isn't a physical return because there is nothing that survives death to literally go anywhere. The breath is returned to man from God when he performs the coming resurrection of the dead through his son.....(John 5:28-29) Only God can give back the breath of life and make a person into a "soul" again.
Resurrection is a return to life...not a continuation of it.

that He is being used as Nehushtan was--and what we still go to people with snakes on their lapels for today, incidentally--a remedy for bad behavior; a palliative to treat a symptom (rather than addressing the cause iow) So, a sacrifice has been provided bc people believe they need a sacrifice, not bc Yah needs one

I'm not sure where you get the idea that sacrifices were something the people needed rather than because God commanded them...? It was God who made it his law that the Israelites were to offer sacrifices to God, and the blood of the animals temporarily atoned for their sin. When Christ laid down his life to atone for the sins of mankind, the Israelites already knew what sacrifice meant. It wasn't empty ritual but it demonstrated that the only way to cancel out or atone for Adam's sin was to create another "Adam" and offer his life for theirs. Jesus volunteered to become "the last Adam". (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 9:24)

Like the copper serpent that Moses placed on a pole in the wilderness, the Son of God was impaled or fastened on a stake, thus appearing to many as an evildoer and a sinner, like a snake, being in the position of one cursed. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24)
In the wilderness a person who had been bitten by one of the poisonous serpents that Jehovah sent among the Israelites evidently had to gaze at the copper serpent in faith. Similarly, to gain everlasting life through Christ, it is necessary to exercise faith in him.

The King was commanded to destroy the copper serpent after several hundred years when Israel made an idol out of it. Satan as we know is a mimic and loves to use symbols in a way that offends the Creator....like the cross for example.....a disgusting religious symbol from ancient times, way before Christianity, that symbolized sexual intercourse. The Ankh cross in Egypt was called the symbol of life because it portrayed what cause life. Nowhere does the Bible say that Christ died on a cross. The word used is "stauros" which basically means an upright stake. It was according to God's law that he be hanged on "a tree".(xylon)
Galatians 3:13....
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”.

It's Esau/Jacob told a diff way, basically; Esau needs red stew or he "will die," and Jacob makes the red stew (but does not eat any)

Not sure I understand the correlation....? Can you explain....simply please.

 

[Aunty Jane]

the point i meant to make is not whether he is "right" or not, or i am right or not, so much as since neither of us knows for sure,

Are you saying that we cannot know what the Bible clearly tells us?
What did Barney say that the scriptures do not tell us?

Let's see....
@BARNEY BRIGHT said..."Jesus Christ who is the Only Begotten Son of God was given immortality and inherited incorruption when he was resurrected. All those born again who will be in heaven with Jesus when resurrected will be given immortality and inherit incorruption."

It is clear that Jesus was God's "only-begotten son" before he came to this earth to redeem mankind. (John 3:16)

1 Timothy 1:17 identifies God as the "Eternal King".....

1 Timothy 6:16 says that 'alone possesses immortality'.

But a new truth became known to Christ's "elect"...the "saints" or spirit anointed Christians....the revelation of a "mystery"....
1 Corinthians 15:5--53...
"Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I am telling you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. " (NASB)

The Jews had no belief in going to heaven.....they all believed that one slept in death...in an unconscious state until the establishment of God's Kingdom with Messiah as King.....then he would resurrect the dead. So when this mystery was revealed......'not all would sleep'. The time would come when Christ returned and the "elect" would not need to sleep in death and await their resurrection....it would be instantaneous...and instead of being raised to life on earth as the majority would be, these ones were heaven bound...something not revealed before.

Jesus had informed them that the time would come when death would mean an instant transformation to become spirit beings in order to dwell with him in heaven.....this is what being "born again" means......the time when the last days of the present world would see the setting up of God's Kingdom and the chosen "kings and priests" being raised to take their places in that heavenly arrangement, "born again" as spirit beings. (Revelation 20:6)

Those chosen ones (Christ's elect) were told that they would be "baptized into Christ's death" which meant dying the same death as he did and being raised as spirits to exist in heaven as he had been. As Paul said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". So not all Christians would become immortal spirit creatures, only those who were chosen to rule with Christ. All members of this heavenly Kingdom would become immortals upon their resurrection. They will rule over subjects on earth who are not "immortal", but will be granted "everlasting life"....most people do not understand the difference....but its significant.

So from our perspective, we are sure about what the Bible teaches. We have no lingering doubts because we believe that we are led by God's spirit and the deep things are revealed. If we were to express doubts, failing to understand the Kingdom message, then our faith would be weak....and we could never take that message to others with any confidence.(Matthew 28:19-20)

Ephesians 4:11-15...
"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ". (ESV)

This is what we should strive for......if we do not have that kind of faith, we are at the mercy of doubts. (James 1:5-8) We can ask for more faith, but it will only come as a result of our own efforts....this is what God blesses. We have to show him that we want that knowledge in all sincerity....then he will show us where to find it.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that sacrifices were something the people needed rather than because God commanded them...?

well, i dont know ok, but God also commanded an eye for an eye, but as a limiting factor, right? So it might be that God commanded timely sacrifices to limit some of the destruction, but it was during the giving of law, after all (set up to fail iow); or, why would God later say I detest your sacrifices

Not sure I understand the correlation....? Can you explain....simply please

unfortunately i dont yet have the perspective to really explain why Esau is not Jacob, is not Israel, but it is apparent that Esau got something he “needed” that Jacob did not need, “red stew,” and Esau also appears to functionally inherit after the episode; it is Jacob who becomes a wanderer, right? And we only find out about Esau’s end as Edom, later, for not allowing Israel to pass through.

so while i hesitate to officially define “red stew” or who these guys rep…well, i might just ask “who is standing in Esau’s place, today?”

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you saying that we cannot know what the Bible clearly tells us?

”clearly?” well, i would say that there are um clouds in the way, but one still might (via hearing i think) come to “know” some stuff, sure (he who says that he knows anything, does not…) but as we can see there should apparently also remain a sense in which one is open to admitting that they do not

What did Barney say that the scriptures do not tell us?

Let's see....
@BARNEY BRIGHT said..."Jesus Christ who is the Only Begotten Son of God was given immortality and inherited incorruption when he was resurrected. All those born again who will be in heaven with Jesus when resurrected will be given immortality and inherit incorruption."

so then, since you asked, everything after “said” up there? Being as how Christ already was, and so already had immortality and incorruption, and @ “all those born again…” bc while technically correct i guess, “heaven” there implies “tomorrow, after we/they have literally died,” yes? Therefore life, more abundantly has been turned into “death, more abundantly” and see, it is all done by—what was your phrase, lemme go look—“someone who knows what the Bible clearly tells them,” right?

But really i mostly want to stress here that Barney might also be right in a certain context, however when one makes statements of absolute truth, they are always also wrong in some other sense, and that this seems to be the nature of truth

So from our perspective, we are sure about what the Bible teaches. We have no lingering doubts because we believe that we are led by God's spirit and the deep things are revealed.

Esau felt that he needed red stew or he would die; but would he have? And Jacob wrestles with a man which i dunno but that sure seems to imply some doubts. So im not meaning to say that there arent things we can be sure of, but i try to beware of having a “sure” perspective on what the Bible teaches simply bc i may have misidentified some element in a story, or iow bc clouds.

Also fwiw i note that people who have no doubts seem to wanna take allegorical language literally, while also being at odds with apparently literal Scripture at other verses, that when i post them, see, i get no address

If we were to express doubts, failing to understand the Kingdom message, then our faith would be weak....and we could never take that message to others with any confidence

when i am weak, then i am strong
although i also wouldn’t deny the value of a certain kind of knowledge…only it isnt about tomorrow, at least to me; and i dont want anyone to take this wrong ok, but i would even go so far as to say that any believer who claims to be a Christian that is talking about tomorrow is deceived, not that i am not of course. Strong are those forcing their way in, in this context, at least i suspect so.

So, i could ask that people stop taking their messages to others with confidence as i doubt that that is what proclaiming is about anyway, but of course that isnt gonna happen, and i guess what is happening is perfectly fine anyway, and them what have ears can hear; but i simply cannot describe how harmful proselytizing is, nor how wonderful it is to have people ask for a defense instead

 

[reformed1689]

Iv started reading my holy bible, and I've got the impression that Jesus is God. Is that right or wrong?

The Beginning
(Genesis 1:1–2; Hebrews 11:1–3)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

Yes, Jesus is God.

 

[Happy Trails]

Iv started reading my holy bible, and I've got the impression that Jesus is God. Is that right or wrong?

The Beginning
(Genesis 1:1–2; Hebrews 11:1–3)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

Jesus is YHVH's image. Colossians 1:15

The only way to see YHVH is to have something confined to our dimensions.

If Jesus is "the Word of YHVH," then these are He:

Genesis 15:1, 4.
1 Samuel 3:21, 1 Samuel 15:10
2 Samuel 7:4

The list goes on:
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "word of the lord"

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

well barn, to that i would say dont be too surprised when your divinings here dont work out like you planned
we do not yet know what we will become; except for barney?

but since you prolly are not in a position to hear that right now, i might point out your apparent confidence in your statements of absolute truth up there, notice that? Generally a (dead) giveaway, i think. Now i could post lotta Script to refute your statements, No one has ever gone up to heaven etc, but to what end? Point is one can apparently only ever tell a half-truth, which equals a half lie, i guess
the kingdom of heaven is within

A person can deny the scriptures that say that those who will be in heaven with Jesus will be given immortality and inherit incorruption when they are resurrected, but all they're doing is denying scripture.
The scripture that tells us, "no one has ever gone up to heaven" was true when it was written but the scriptures also tell us that the resurrection will begin at Jesus Christ's second presence, which we are in now, so those who have died and who will be with Jesus in heaven have already been resurrected and given immortality and inherited incorruption.
Also the scripture in certain Bibles that says, "the kingdom of heaven is within," is translated incorrectly. It should be translated, "the kingdom of heaven is among you," that's because Jesus was right there among those Pharisees when he said that, and he was the king of that kingdom.
It seems to me that when you said, "Point is one can apparently only ever tell a half-truth which equals a half-lie," you're saying the scriptures only give us half-truths therefore half-lies, is that what you"re saying, because I believe the scriptures at 2Timothy 3:16,17 to be true, and I don"t believe they give us half-truths or half-lies. What others choose to believe is their choice but I'm going to disagree with those who say, the the scriptures give us half-truths or half-lies.

 

[bbyrd009]

All the elders, the rulers, and scribes of the Jews hated Jesus and utterly rejected His claims as being the Son of God. They were jealous, and sought ways to destroy Him. They saw Jesus as a threat, not just to their positions as elders of Israel, but to the nation itself. They were very comfortable having Caesar as their king. They would eventually choose Barabus rather than have this upstart rule over them.
So when any of them came to challenge our question Jesus, He challenged them in return by going straight to the problem. "Hey good master...."
'Master? Good? Why callest thou Me good?" said Christ, "there is none good but One, that is, God." Jesus desired to test the ruler's sincerity, and to draw from him the way in which he regarded Him as good. Did he realize that the One to whom he was speaking was the Son of God? What was the true sentiment of his heart?

not ignoring this
just kinda marinating on how what was in his heart might have had any bearing on Jesus' statement there; which is possible i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

A person can deny the scriptures that say that those who will be in heaven with Jesus will be given immortality and inherit incorruption when they are resurrected, but all they're doing is denying scripture

well barn, you can say that, and it might be true, but it also might be that elements are being misinterpreted. No, i am not denying Scripture just bc i do not agree with you, and i could even accuse you of the same, for not understanding that the "death" often spoken of is allegory for "spiritual death," or for not addressing apparent direct statements in the Bible that contradict your perspective, or for any number of things, point being you dont see me telling you "that is absolutely not going to happen, and you are denying Scripture" (even though i could quite quickly demonstrate that, imo) precisely bc i am not sure, my pov might change, etc.
gl with these though,
you and your sons will be here with me
all go to the same place
no one has ever gone up to heaven
there is only One Immortal
the kingdom of heaven is within
I came that you might have life, more abundantly
.

The scripture that tells us, "no one has ever gone up to heaven" was true when it was written but the scriptures also tell us that the resurrection will begin at Jesus Christ's second presence, which we are in now, so those who have died and who will be with Jesus in heaven have already been resurrected and given immortality and inherited incorruption.

ill stick with the above Scripture vv for now, tks, but the q might be what will you do with them

Also the scripture in certain Bibles that says, "the kingdom of heaven is within," is translated incorrectly. It should be translated, "the kingdom of heaven is among you," that's because Jesus was right there among those Pharisees when he said that, and he was the king of that kingdom.

yes, i am fam with the possibility of more than one translation there, but that does not take into account the weight of other vv that might verify what was indeed meant, and having read the passage from the lexicon i am comfortable with the Quote, although i agree it might be better transated your way, that still does not alter the concept for me, since we have the other vv, No one has ever gone up to heaven etc

It seems to me that when you said, "Point is one can apparently only ever tell a half-truth which equals a half-lie," you're saying the scriptures only give us half-truths therefore half-lies

no, that is what yu are hearing, not what i am saying
gotta run, mo later, sorry

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The anointed Christians, who are the ones who are born again are those called to reign with Christ in heaven, This is shown to us in 1 Peter 1:3,4.
The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 15:52,53, The trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality.
These scriptures seem very clear to me. Nobody who reads these scriptures is misinterpreting anything because this is scripture not an interpretation of scripture and no allegory death is spoken about in these scriptures.

 

[bbyrd009]

The anointed Christians, who are the ones who are born again are those called to reign with Christ in heaven, This is shown to us in 1 Peter 1:3,4.
The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 15:52,53, The trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality.
These scriptures seem very clear to me. Nobody who reads these scriptures is misinterpreting anything because this is scripture not an interpretation of scripture and no allegory death is spoken about in these scriptures.

then pls, with my blessing, do not address the Scriptures i quoted, and continue to believe "to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord" if you like barn, i got no objection whatsoever to that ok. Yes, you are almost surely misinterpreting there, and your assurance only makes that more possible imo, but again i do not know for sure, and i am not here to change your beliefs--even the ones about tomorrow that you believe you have divined from Scripture--even a little bit, ok?

Now i might interpret that v for you if you asked, or i might point out that you are reading quite flowery language very literally, but see idrc about any of that ok; i care about when you say stuff like "Nobody who reads these scriptures is misinterpreting anything" when quite obviously, even got Scripture vv about this ezack subject, ppl mos def are misinterpreting, on the reg, happens every day, alla time, not saying that you are in this specific case but that is irrelevant, see? You said "nobody," and inferred "ever," and so wadr just like the rest of your statements, i am confident that some misunderstanding is going on, somewhere

 

[bbyrd009]

Nobody who reads these scriptures is misinterpreting anything

of course i understand that you meant “nobody” allegorically, ok, but see the point

 

[Pierac]

Iv started reading my holy bible, and I've got the impression that Jesus is God. Is that right or wrong?

The Beginning
(Genesis 1:1–2; Hebrews 11:1–3)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

Really... You must be special? Because One of the major Founders/Fathers of the Trinity never got that impression... Let me just let Him tell you where he got it from....

AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "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. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.
14. Similarly, I read there that God the Word was born "not of flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God."[189] But, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"[190]--I found this nowhere there. And I discovered in those books, expressed in many and various ways, that "the Son was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal in God,"[191] for he was naturally of the same substance. But, that "he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him" from the dead, "and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"[192]--this those books have not.

Book 7 CHAPTER XIX
25. But I thought otherwise. I saw in our Lord Christ only a man of eminent wisdom to whom no other man could be compared--especially because he was miraculously born of a virgin--sent to set us an example of despising worldly things for the attainment of immortality, and thus exhibiting his divine care for us. Because of this, I held that he had merited his great authority as leader. But concerning the mystery contained in "the Word was made flesh," I could not even form a notion. From what I learned from what has been handed down to us in the books about him--that he ate, drank, slept, walked, rejoiced in spirit, was sad, and discoursed with his fellows--I realized that his flesh alone was not bound unto thy Word, but also that there was a bond with the human soul and body. Everyone knows this who knows the unchangeableness of thy Word, and this I knew by now, as far as I was able, and I had no doubts at all about it. For at one time to move the limbs by an act of will, at another time not; at one time to feel some emotion, at another time not; at one time to speak intelligibly through verbal signs, at another, not--these are all properties of a soul and mind subject to change.

Therefore, because they were written truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ--not the body of a man only, nor, in the body, an animal soul without a rational one as well, but a true man. And this man I held to be superior to all others, not only because he was a form of the Truth, but also because of the great excellence and perfection of his human nature, due to his participation in wisdom.

Alypius, on the other hand, supposed the Catholics to believe that God was so clothed with flesh that besides God and the flesh there was no soul in Christ, and he did not think that a human mind was ascribed to him.[218] And because he was fully persuaded that the actions recorded of him could not have been performed except by a living rational creature, he moved the more slowly toward Christian faith.[219] But when he later learned that this was the error of the Apollinarian heretics, he rejoiced in the Catholic faith and accepted it. For myself, I must confess that it was even later that I learned how in the sentence, "The Word was made flesh," the Catholic truth can be distinguished from the falsehood of Photinus. For the refutation of heretics[220] makes the tenets of thy Church and sound doctrine to stand out boldly. "For there must also be heresies [factions] that those who are approved may be made manifest among the weak."[221]

Book 7 CHAPTER XX
26. By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist....
For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures, and if thou hadst grown sweet to me through my familiar use of them, and if then I had afterward fallen on those volumes, they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness--or if I had stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had there acquired, I might have thought that wisdom could be attained by the study of those [Platonist] books alone.

Book 8 CHAPTER II
3. I went, therefore, to Simplicianus, the spiritual father of Ambrose (then a bishop), whom Ambrose truly loved as a father. I recounted to him all the mazes of my wanderings, but when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists which Victorinus--formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome, who died a Christian, as I had been told--had translated into Latin, Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, "after the beggarly elements of this world,"[240] whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word.

Maybe you just heard it in some Church... pretty sure you don't read Plato....
Paul

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Iv started reading my holy bible, and I've got the impression that Jesus is God. Is that right or wrong?

The Beginning
(Genesis 1:1–2; Hebrews 11:1–3)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

It is written, 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

It is also written, 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Jesus did not correct them. Why are they not corrected for worshiping the Lamb on earth?

It is also written, 13And I heard every creature in heaven andon earth and under the earth and in the sea,and all that is in them, saying: “To Him whosits on the throne and to the Lamb be praiseand honor and glory and power forever andever!” 14And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Why are they not corrected for worshiping the Lamb in heaven? And why does God say He will not share His glory with another and then allow this to happen in heaven?

 

[Pierac]

It is written, 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

It is also written, 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Jesus did not correct them. Why are they not corrected for worshiping the Lamb on earth? ....

Why are they not corrected for worshiping the Lamb in heaven? And why does God say He will not share His glory with another and then allow this to happen in heaven?

If we may let our Lord and King have the final word. Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father…" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus’ own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.

This is the biblical pattern throughout. The so-called Lord's prayer, the model prayer, teaches us to "pray in this way: our Father who art in heaven…"(Matt. 6:9). This pattern of prayer and worship prescribed by our Lord Jesus is followed and sanctioned by every example given in Scripture. See the following:

“Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:5-6).

" For this reason I bow my knees before the Father," (Eph 3:14)

" giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, " (Eph 5:20)

" We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, "( Col 1:3 )

"giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light." (Col 1:12)

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father "through" him." (Col 3:17)

This list is by no means exhaustive. But it is sufficient to show that we are, with our Lord Jesus, to worship and pray to the Father. This is the usual pattern of prayer and worship in the New Testament. They prayed to the one God through the name or authority of Jesus Christ. They evidently were not aware that the Holy Spirit was God (a third person), for wherein all the pages of the Bible to the Saints pray to the Holy Spirit? And where in all the pages of Scripture do the worshipers of God sing to the Holy Spirit as is the general custom within Christendom today?
What about those passages where the Lord Jesus is worship? Or where the Lord Jesus is pray to? Surely this is proof positive that Jesus is God because only God is to be worshiped? (The words of Jesus are often used to substantiate this belief: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4:10), as though Jesus meant: "I am the Lord your God, worship only me." But this meaning is totally incongruous and has no parallel in the New Testament record.) Then, of course, there is God the Father's own directive to the Angels concerning Jesus the son of God:
"and let all the Angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:6). The fact that Jesus is worship by Thomas as he falls at his feet and honors him with the confession, "My Lord and my God!" Too many presents the final proof that Jesus is God (John 20:28).
To all of this there is a very simple solution. Once again it comes back to a failure to understand biblical culture; a failure to read the Bible through Hebrew eyes. In the Old Testament in main Hebrew word for worship is shachah. It occurs about 170 times but the surprising thing is that only about half of this number relate to the worship of God as God. This fact is hidden in our English translations. The translators prefer to say "bow down to" or "revere" when shachah refers to homage paid to noble persons, whether Angels or men, but say "worship" when God is the object. This is a false distinction the original texts does not support. Here are just a view examples: Lot "worshiped" the two strangers who looked like normal travelers as they entered Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

Abraham "worshipped" the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23:7).

Jacob "worshipped" his older brother Esau (Gen. 33:3).

Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).

Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).

David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).

David "worshipped" King Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

Mephibosheth fell on his face and "worshipped" David (2 Sam. 9:6).

The whole congregation "worshipped" the King (1 Chron. 9:20).

These are just a few instances of the many that could be cited to show the reluctance of the translators to consistently translate shachah as "worship" when worship of important persons was obviously a common feature of Hebrew culture. In Scripture worship is offered to God and to
men. There is no special word and the Old Testament for "worship" reserved exclusively for God. But there is a reluctance to translate this one-word consistently. If you looked up your English translations of the above verses you will find that you do not use the "w" word. They prefer to say
"bowed down" or "revered" or "pay homage to" instead of "worshiped." This inconsistency of translation has created the false impression that only God can be worshiped.

So then, how do we explain this in light of the clear command that we are to worship God the Father alone as both the first commandment and Jesus himself command? Is this a contradiction after all? No way. The answer is that whenever men "worshiped" other men it was a relative worship. In most of the examples above it is clear that the ones worshiped were God's representatives. Once again we are back to the principle of Jewish agency. The Israelites had no difficulty in offering this proportional or relative worship to the ones who came in Gods Name, with God's message. It is obvious that the first commandment "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them" is not a prohibition against a relative worship of those worthy of it. If this was the case then obviously all these Old Testament godly men and women sinned greatly. God even promises a coming day when He will make our enemies "to come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Rev. 3:9). Such worship of the Saints at God's degree is clearly a relative and proportional worship. It is perfectly legitimate to give honor to whom honor is due. This is why many Jews felt no impropriety in "worshiping" Jesus in the Gospels because they recognized him as a prophet of God, or the Messiah sent from God. But it is preposterous to think these good people believe Jesus was Jehovah God just because they worshiped him. When they saw and heard the mighty works of Jesus they glorified God through him (Matt. 9:8; 11:27; 28:18; Luke 7:16; 9:11; 10:22). This fits the whole will of the New Testament teaching that it is God the Father who is to receive glory through His son Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:3; Heb. 13:15, etc.). Christ’s exaltation is the means to a higher end. For through him all worship is ultimately directed to God and Father.

To worship him (Jesus) as Lord Messiah is thus a divinely pleasing but subordinate or relative worship. It is instructive to read that in the coming Kingdom the Lord Jesus will orchestrate the worship of his brethren in the ultimate praise of his Father. He will "proclaim" the Name of God to his "brothers" and he will "in the mist of the congregation singing your praise" (Heb. 2:12). There, in that glorious Kingdom, Jesus Christ will continue to be a joyful worshiper of God his Father. Thus, the one God and Father he is alone worshiped absolutely. All other divinely appointed worship is homage to persons who are not God himself. Jesus is among those worthy of such worship for he is worshiped as the one Messiah, God's supreme son and agent.

Jesus knew the prophecy: "Worship the Lord with reverence, and… do homage to the Son" (Ps.2: 11-12). Jesus knew God his Father had decreed "Let all the Angels of God worship him" (Psalms 97:7). Jesus knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past received
relative worship from God-pleasing men and women. Jesus knew that of the one true God could be addressed as though they were God. And Jesus knew he was the Son and ultimately agent of God, so how much greater his destiny! As the "only begotten Son" whom the father had "sealed" and commissioned he knew that whoever honored him honored the Father also. This was his Father's decree (Psalms 2:11-12; 97:7).

 

[Lambano]

 

[Lambano]

I posted the above Twain quote not in the spirit in which he said it (Twain was a noted atheist/agnostic), but in the sense that I DON'T understand how the λόγος, the creative and ordering principle of God's creation could "become flesh and pitch its tent among us". I don't understand why, if Jesus is God Almighty incarnate, why He related to His Father as a separate entity. And if He is a separate entity worthy of worship, I don't understand how Jesus could be "the very image of the invisible God", how the "fullness of Deity could dwell" in Jesus without breaking some non-negotiable tenets of Judaism's aniconic monotheism.

The biblical writers have tried their best to put into words something for which there are no words.

I don't understand it.

I don't have to understand it.

This I DO understand: I am to trust the God and the Christ to whom these words-for-which-there-are-no-words point.

I'm going to bother with the parts of the Bible I DO understand.

 

[Pierac]

I posted the above Twain quote not in the spirit in which he said it (Twain was a noted atheist/agnostic), but in the sense that I DON'T understand how the λόγος, the creative and ordering principle of God's creation could "become flesh and pitch its tent among us". I don't understand why, if Jesus is God Almighty incarnate, why He related to His Father as a separate entity. And if He is a separate entity worthy of worship, I don't understand how Jesus could be "the very image of the invisible God", how the "fullness of Deity could dwell" in Jesus without breaking some non-negotiable tenets of Judaism's aniconic monotheism.

The biblical writers have tried their best to put into words something for which there are no words.

I don't understand it.

I don't have to understand it.

This I DO understand: I am to trust the God and the Christ to whom these words-for-which-there-are-no-words point.

I'm going to bother with the parts of the Bible I DO understand.

Of course you don't understand... Everything you just said was not... something you read from scripture... But what you were told about scripture!

Even Church leaders had their moments like you... They followed the teachings of men.... Just read how Augustine came to his understanding of God!!!

AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "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. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.

14. Similarly, I read there that God the Word was born "not of flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God."[189] But, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"[190]--I found this nowhere there. And I discovered in those books, expressed in many and various ways, that "the Son was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal in God,"[191] for he was naturally of the same substance. But, that "he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him" from the dead, "and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"[192]--this those books have not. I read further in them that before all times and beyond all times, thy only Son remaineth unchangeably coeternal with thee, and that of his fullness all souls receive that they may be blessed, and that by participation in that wisdom which abides in them, they are renewed that they may be wise. But, that "in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" and that thou "sparedst not thy only Son, but deliveredst him up for us all"[193]--this is not there. "For thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes"[194]; that they "that labor and are heavy laden" might "come unto him and he might refresh them" because he is "meek and lowly in heart."[195]...

Book 7 CHAPTER XIX
25. But I thought otherwise. I saw in our Lord Christ only a man of eminent wisdom to whom no other man could be compared--especially because he was miraculously born of a virgin--sent to set us an example of despising worldly things for the attainment of immortality, and thus exhibiting his divine care for us. Because of this, I held that he had merited his great authority as leader. But concerning the mystery contained in "the Word was made flesh," I could not even form a notion. From what I learned from what has been handed down to us in the books about him--that he ate, drank, slept, walked, rejoiced in spirit, was sad, and discoursed with his fellows--I realized that his flesh alone was not bound unto thy Word, but also that there was a bond with the human soul and body. Everyone knows this who knows the unchangeableness of thy Word, and this I knew by now, as far as I was able, and I had no doubts at all about it...

Therefore, because they were written truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ--not the body of a man only, nor, in the body, an animal soul without a rational one as well, but a true man. And this man I held to be superior to all others, not only because he was a form of the Truth, but also because of the great excellence and perfection of his human nature, due to his participation in wisdom.

Book 7 CHAPTER XX
26. By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist.

Of all this I was convinced, yet I was too weak to enjoy thee. I chattered away as if I were an expert; but if I had not sought thy Way in Christ our Saviour, my knowledge would have turned out to be not instruction but destruction.[222] For now full of what was in fact my punishment, I had begun to desire to seem wise. I did not mourn my ignorance, but rather was puffed up with knowledge. For where was that love which builds upon the foundation of humility, which is Jesus Christ?[223] Or, when would these books teach me this? ... For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures, and if thou hadst grown sweet to me through my familiar use of them, and if then I had afterward fallen on those volumes, they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness--or if I had stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had there acquired, I might have thought that wisdom could be attained by the study of those [Platonist] books alone.

Book 8 CHAPTER II
3. I went, therefore, to Simplicianus, the spiritual father of Ambrose (then a bishop), whom Ambrose truly loved as a father. I recounted to him all the mazes of my wanderings, but when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists which Victorinus--formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome, who died a Christian, as I had been told--had translated into Latin, Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, "after the beggarly elements of this world,"[240] whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word.

Yep, I actually read what AUGUSTINE wrote... Not what I was told he wrote.... BIG difference!!!

Really, do you see AUGUSTINE following the Hebrew writers or just going straight to his world view.... of Plato? The ultimate teachings of men!!!
Hope this helps you...
Paul