QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[nothead]

What else is it translated as then? elohim means God in its basic form, other words are added to it give more information. however Its unmistakable in the Greek as theos, what else can elohim be translated as if with out those words?

Well now this is an interesting question and when I found the answer, all things became clear and new, regarding my 3 yrs ago beginning investigation into the deity of Jesus.

"Elohim" means something OTHER than the OT God almighty some 10% or so of the time, over 2000 times the One True God, but about one out of ten times NOT the One True God.

A good starting point is Michael Heiser's "What is an elohim?" free PDF online. Just google it.

This guy is even trin. So you don't have to worry about lack of Holy Spirit bias or whatever Floyd keeps referring to Purity about.

And so then we have about a ninety percent chance Thomas is saying the One True God, by simple statistical method. Except for some rude little problems which also seem to keep propping up and sticking out:

1) Thomas' revelation quote unquote that Jesus is God was EITHER already known by the others or then subsequently known by the other disciples. But the formulation of Thomas is not even MENTIONED by the other synoptics which also quizzically do not mention Jesus is God at all.
2) This formulation never catches on in any epistle either although it would naturally be THE MOST OFT USED formula of all, considering, "Jesus our Lord and God."

3) In fact 71 times Jesus is called LORD in PLACE of GOD, in the same verse that God is. Some OF these formulaic.
4) In context of the event, Thomas doubted Jesus was RESURRECTED and that he lived as a HEAVENLY BEING come back to earth.

This last above is ironically exactly what 'elohim' means in general, in the good sense (of not being false gods). A HEAVENLY BEING.

Thomas is calling Jesus both HIS lord and heavenly elohim or being. This completely jibes with what he doubted before.

5) Why would TOUCHING Jesus' side give revelation he was GOD?? RATHER touching his side indicated this apparition before Thomas was the same Jesus that he knew before, the one whose side was speared on the Cross.

6) The statistical perception changes when we consider Jn 10 "ye are gods," a nonsensical translation which I struggled with or never understood for 20 yrs plus. This is Jesus' response to the claim of the naysayers who would stone him, "You have made yourself God."

Coming as a response to his claim that "I and the Father are one." This is AS CLOSE to saying he is diety that Jesus ever came arguably. Now that I know Elohim Theology, this whole passage suddenly makes sense.

1) Jesus was saying he is 'elohim' IN THE SAME MANNER that the Judges of Torah, men who were originally promised eternal life were. My personal opinion was this was the switching of Levitical High Priesthood between the sons of Aaron, between Eleazar and Ithamar.

2) these men being "sons of the most high" Jesus as Messiah is high priest in the order of Melchizedek, and Son of God.
3) being SUPERIOR to the precedented "sons" Jesus is eventually known to be over even angels who are also 'elohim.'

4) by the way NOT claiming same ontology as God Almighty who is YHWH Elohim. Rather claiming the precedent was already set, that a man could in fact BE MADE 'elohim.'

 

[Purity]

I don't know WHAT translator you are referring to but none I read have a problem with it.

This is called confirmation bias...even if there were you would run a mile - its called denial.

I posted one from the NET and clearly your vague approach is why you learned nothing from those professing truth in monotheism.

Would you like me to post more commentaries Stan?

True Christology from Hebrews.

The author of Hebrews speaks of Christ as “Son” (Heb 1:2; 7:28) and “Son of God” (Heb 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29).

In Hebrews, the Father address Christ as “Son” in the language of Scripture (Heb 1:5, 8).

Other designations include “Jesus” (Heb 2:9; 3:1, 3; Heb 5:7; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:2, 24; 13:12), “Jesus, the Son of God” (Heb 4:14), “Jesus Christ” (Heb 10:10; 13:8, 21), and “Lord Jesus” (13:20). When “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) is used of God or Jesus, he is Lord in reference to an address in Scripture (Heb 1:10 i.e New Creation), in reference to his earthly ministry (Heb 2:3), and in reference to his tribal descent (Heb 7:14). And he is also “our Lord Jesus” (Heb 13:20). Additionally, the is “apostle” (ἀπόστολος, apostolos) and “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς, archiereus) of the community’s confession (Heb 3:1). In addition to the exalted Christ, the author of Hebrews also shows interest in the historical Jesus (Heb 2:3–4, 9–10, 14, 17–18; 4:14–15; 5:7–9; 7:14; 9:28; 10:10; 12:2; 13:12–13).

But never is he God or Father or is there any Trinitarian dogma or context given for such discussion on the Godhead.

Both the book of Hebrews and Romans open with God who alone Has Spoken Fully and Finally in His Son.

Christ’s exalted status is grounded in his unique obedience to the Father.

Of all the passages in Hebrews it chapter 1:10-12 which Trinitarians make the most fuss over.

Hebrews 1:10-12
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

The writer to the Hebrews quotes from Psalm 102:25-27. It is argued by Trinaterians that the Father is the creator of heaven and earth in this Psalm. Since the writer to the Hebrews applies this Psalm to Christ to show that he has a more excellent name than the angels, therefore, it is argued, he must be the creator of the universe, and hence "Very God".

The Psalm does not refer to the literal heavens and earth since these will not perish. Many Bible passages either state or imply the continued existence of the earth. (Isa. 45:18, cf. Isa. 11:9, Num. 14:21, Hab. 2:14; Ecc. 1:4; 1 Chron. 16:30; Psa. 93:1; 104:5). The "heavens and earth" are used figuratively elsewhere in Scripture. (e.g. 2 Peter 3:12, 13 cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22 where it is apparent that the literal earth is still in existence.)


Psalm 102 is Messianic. It was written for the "generation to come: and the people which shall be created". (vs. 18 cf. vs. 13-16). The Messiah is now making new men and women for his kingdom. In the New Testament, "create" is frequently used in reference to this regenerative work of the Lord. (Eph. 2:10, 15; 4:23, 24; Gal. 6:15,1 2 Cor. 5:17; James 1:18).


The heavens and earth which were to pass away, rolled up like a garment, are the Mosaic "heavens and earth". This is indicated by the following:

The writer to the Hebrews elsewhere in his epistle alludes to the language of Psalm 102:26 in describing the termination of the Mosaic order: "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13).

The people "that shall be created" (Psalm 102:18) refers to those in the new covenant. It was prophesied of Christ: "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first {old covenant}, that he may establish the second. By the which will we {believers} are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:9). Again, the context indicates the termination of the Mosaic order.

The argument in Hebrews 1 is that the Son hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the angels. (Hebrews 1:4). The reference to the Mosaic "heavens and earth" is an effective argument since angels administered this constitution. (Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). This was the constitution to be folded up as a garment by the Son - therefore the Son must have a more excellent name than the angels.

P.

 

[JonD]

Statements like Jesus isn't God, upcoming music festival, imperial president of the festival (comparing God to earthly things there in the last 2, total lack of reverence) is clear evidence of ...
Luke 6 vs 43 to 45

 

[Purity]

Statements like Jesus isn't God, upcoming music festival, imperial president of the festival (comparing God to earthly things there in the last 2, total lack of reverence) is clear evidence of ...
Luke 6 vs 43 to 45

Correct Jesus isn't God but he manifested Him perfectly - worthy of great praise

 

[StanJ]

Not at all, the reason for 4 different meanings was to show the separation--bowing in obeisance to our king Jesus.( mortal kings required bowing, why wouldn't the king of kings?) But at the conclusion of Jesus' millennial reign, He hands back the kingdom to his God and Father and becomes a subject like we will be( except still 2nd in command. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

They're called connotations, not meanings, and the one you use here is wrong. I gave you the proper one based on the context.
1 Cor 15:24-28 is about the Son as the Son, not the Son as God. You fail to properly understand the different roles fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
Although Paul’s argument in this section is difficult in its details, its thrust is clear and powerful. The Corinthians must understand that the Resurrection is not an isolated event with limited repercussions. It is rather an integrating and culminating event in God’s sovereign rule over history. Redemption is not complete “until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (v. 25, a clear reference to Ps. 110:1), and since death is “the last enemy” (v. 26), Christ’s work is not done until death is destroyed. Paul’s statement that the Son “will also be subjected” to the Father (v. 28) does not mean that the Son is inferior in dignity and being. Rather, in His messianic work the Son subjects Himself to the will of the Father “when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (v. 24). The climax of Christ’s submissive, messianic work is this total conquest over His enemies, “that God may be all in all,” when His absolute rule is universally acknowledged.

 

[shturt678]

Yes--God can easily get his true points past the wisest of minds, He used symbolism in many teachings as so so did his son--- most likely the reasoning behind 33,000 religions all claiming to be lead by HS, but clearly a disunified mass of confusion in reality-1 Corinthians 1:10)
Its more likely God spoke through--The angel of the Lord.

Thank you again for your response!

Check out the 1st appearance of the Godman "Angel of the Lord," Gen.16:7-12: Hagar called Him "El Roi" (God of seeing).

Old Jack

Sparred you the other 40 O.T. examples of the "Angel of the Lord" = God for now anyway.

 

[nothead]

1 Cor 15:24-28 is about the Son as the Son, not the Son as God. You fail to properly understand the different roles fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
Although Paul’s argument in this section is difficult in its details, its thrust is clear and powerful. The Corinthians must understand that the Resurrection is not an isolated event with limited repercussions. It is rather an integrating and culminating event in God’s sovereign rule over history. Redemption is not complete “until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (v. 25, a clear reference to Ps. 110:1), and since death is “the last enemy” (v. 26), Christ’s work is not done until death is destroyed. Paul’s statement that the Son “will also be subjected” to the Father (v. 28) does not mean that the Son is inferior in dignity and being. Rather, in His messianic work the Son subjects Himself to the will of the Father “when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (v. 24). The climax of Christ’s submissive, messianic work is this total conquest over His enemies, “that God may be all in all,” when His absolute rule is universally acknowledged.

You mean THEIR rule is absolutely acknowledged. But the Bible don't SAY THEIR RULE. And oddly enough you don't say it either. HIS rule. Do you even know basic language, sir?

HIS is singular, sir. THEIR rule would be accurate to trinitarian dogma. You slip back and forth even equivocating from Jesus as flesh and Jesus as God. Jesus as flesh delivers the kingdom to the Father, but Jesus as God rules with him in equal authority.

The right hand of Jesus is equal to HIM then, Stan. The left hand of Jesus em, uh well, maybe not. No left hand of the Father, that we know of. Maybe it's the Holy Spirit, huh?

NOPE. The Holy Spirit IS the Father's own spirit. His Spirit is too busy breathing or blowing around to sit down much. Selah?

Statements like Jesus isn't God, upcoming music festival, imperial president of the festival (comparing God to earthly things there in the last 2, total lack of reverence) is clear evidence of ...
Luke 6 vs 43 to 45

Heh you got me to look it up. Aspersions of ill will, sir? Jesus never SAID he was God. How could it be irreverent to say what the canon does say?

1 tim 2

[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;



Like to ADD to scripture, do you? Then cast aspersions of ill will?

 

[StanJ]

This is called confirmation bias...even if there were you would run a mile - its called denial.

I posted one from the NET and clearly your vague approach is why you learned nothing from those professing truth in monotheism.

Would you like me to post more commentaries Stan?

True Christology from Hebrews.

The author of Hebrews speaks of Christ as “Son” (Heb 1:2; 7:28) and “Son of God” (Heb 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29).

In Hebrews, the Father address Christ as “Son” in the language of Scripture (Heb 1:5, 8).

Other designations include “Jesus” (Heb 2:9; 3:1, 3; Heb 5:7; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:2, 24; 13:12), “Jesus, the Son of God” (Heb 4:14), “Jesus Christ” (Heb 10:10; 13:8, 21), and “Lord Jesus” (13:20). When “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) is used of God or Jesus, he is Lord in reference to an address in Scripture (Heb 1:10 i.e New Creation), in reference to his earthly ministry (Heb 2:3), and in reference to his tribal descent (Heb 7:14). And he is also “our Lord Jesus” (Heb 13:20). Additionally, the is “apostle” (ἀπόστολος, apostolos) and “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς, archiereus) of the community’s confession (Heb 3:1). In addition to the exalted Christ, the author of Hebrews also shows interest in the historical Jesus (Heb 2:3–4, 9–10, 14, 17–18; 4:14–15; 5:7–9; 7:14; 9:28; 10:10; 12:2; 13:12–13).

But never is he God or Father or is there any Trinitarian dogma or context given for such discussion on the Godhead.

Both the book of Hebrews and Romans open with God who alone Has Spoken Fully and Finally in His Son.

Christ’s exalted status is grounded in his unique obedience to the Father.

Of all the passages in Hebrews it chapter 1:10-12 which Trinitarians make the most fuss over.

Hebrews 1:10-12
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

The writer to the Hebrews quotes from Psalm 102:25-27. It is argued by Trinaterians that the Father is the creator of heaven and earth in this Psalm. Since the writer to the Hebrews applies this Psalm to Christ to show that he has a more excellent name than the angels, therefore, it is argued, he must be the creator of the universe, and hence "Very God".

The Psalm does not refer to the literal heavens and earth since these will not perish. Many Bible passages either state or imply the continued existence of the earth. (Isa. 45:18, cf. Isa. 11:9, Num. 14:21, Hab. 2:14; Ecc. 1:4; 1 Chron. 16:30; Psa. 93:1; 104:5). The "heavens and earth" are used figuratively elsewhere in Scripture. (e.g. 2 Peter 3:12, 13 cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22 where it is apparent that the literal earth is still in existence.)


Psalm 102 is Messianic. It was written for the "generation to come: and the people which shall be created". (vs. 18 cf. vs. 13-16). The Messiah is now making new men and women for his kingdom. In the New Testament, "create" is frequently used in reference to this regenerative work of the Lord. (Eph. 2:10, 15; 4:23, 24; Gal. 6:15,1 2 Cor. 5:17; James 1:18).


The heavens and earth which were to pass away, rolled up like a garment, are the Mosaic "heavens and earth". This is indicated by the following:

The writer to the Hebrews elsewhere in his epistle alludes to the language of Psalm 102:26 in describing the termination of the Mosaic order: "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13).

The people "that shall be created" (Psalm 102:18) refers to those in the new covenant. It was prophesied of Christ: "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first {old covenant}, that he may establish the second. By the which will we {believers} are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:9). Again, the context indicates the termination of the Mosaic order.

The argument in Hebrews 1 is that the Son hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the angels. (Hebrews 1:4). The reference to the Mosaic "heavens and earth" is an effective argument since angels administered this constitution. (Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). This was the constitution to be folded up as a garment by the Son - therefore the Son must have a more excellent name than the angels.

P.

You seem to have your own vernacular, and obviously could find fault in nothing else I posted.
You seem to have a comprehension problem with what you quoted from the NET Bible. It said very clearly, "This translation is quite doubtful,"
I'm not interested in what OTHER Arians have to say, I'm only interested in what the Bible says. I can easily flood this thread with all kinds of Trinitarian support but that wouldn't indicate what I know, just as your quotes don't really indicate what you know, especially when you quote something you think supports your view when it does NOT.
Deal with the Bible, I don't really care about what anti-Trinitarian copy & paste jobs you can come up with.
For those who ARE interested in learning about the Triadic Scriptures in the Bible, they can be found HERE.

 

[ironmonk]

Why do you believe Jesus is God, when you can read
word for word in the Book of Numbers,

Chapter 23, 19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,
and shall he not make it good?

Do you believe this or is this a lie?
1. Jesus was a man.
2. Jesus was a son of man.

Is everything in this verse from the Bible...TRUE?
Yes or no?

Chapter 23, 19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,
and shall he not make it good?

Please do not write me back giving me your theories or doctrine
or explanations of your opinions or theories of your explanations.

Just answer the questions
I presented to you as they are written.

The bible is a book written by many people who walked in faith, faith is walking in hope without knowing everything. You will find that this is the case with all disciplines.

 

[nothead]

You seem to have your own vernacular, and obviously could find fault in nothing else I posted.
You seem to have a comprehension problem with what you quoted from the NET Bible. It said very clearly, "This translation is quite doubtful,"
I'm not interested in what OTHER Arians have to say, I'm only interested in what the Bible says. I can easily flood this thread with all kinds of Trinitarian support but that wouldn't indicate what I know, just as your quotes don't really indicate what you know, especially when you quote something you think supports your view when it does NOT.
Deal with the Bible, I don't really care about what anti-Trinitarian copy & paste jobs you can come up with.
For those who ARE interested in learning about the Triadic Scriptures in the Bible, they can be found HERE.

HAW, the word TRIADIC only means that in close proximity are the Son, Holy Spirit and Father together...NOT:

1) That these are EQUAL entities...God's Spirit is derived from God, the Son is absolutely SUBORDINATE to the Father just as R.C Hanson says all ECF'S knew BEFORE 355 A. D.

According to R.P.C. Hanson, "with the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordianationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy. -- subordinationism, wiki

2) that these are three separate hypostasis (Holy Spirit is spirit come in the name of different referents: Elijah, Jesus)

3) that these are three separate hypostasis of the Godhead: no SUCH THING as Godhead, sir.

 

[Purity]

You seem to have your own vernacular, and obviously could find fault in nothing else I posted.
You seem to have a comprehension problem with what you quoted from the NET Bible. It said very clearly, "This translation is quite doubtful,"
I'm not interested in what OTHER Arians have to say, I'm only interested in what the Bible says. I can easily flood this thread with all kinds of Trinitarian support but that wouldn't indicate what I know, just as your quotes don't really indicate what you know, especially when you quote something you think supports your view when it does NOT.
Deal with the Bible, I don't really care about what anti-Trinitarian copy & paste jobs you can come up with.
For those who ARE interested in learning about the Triadic Scriptures in the Bible, they can be found HERE.

The issue is realised when Trinitarians ( that is honest ones) acknowledge difficult text. If your irrefutable doctrine relies on questionable text then you may as well throw your creeds in the bin - they are worthless Stan!

 

[StanJ]

You mean THEIR rule is absolutely acknowledged. But the Bible don't SAY THEIR RULE. And oddly enough you don't say it either. HIS rule. Do you even know basic language, sir?

HIS is singular, sir. THEIR rule would be accurate to trinitarian dogma. You slip back and forth even equivocating from Jesus as flesh and Jesus as God. Jesus as flesh delivers the kingdom to the Father, but Jesus as God rules with him in equal authority.

The right hand of Jesus is equal to HIM then, Stan. The left hand of Jesus em, uh well, maybe not. No left hand of the Father, that we know of. Maybe it's the Holy Spirit, huh?

NOPE. The Holy Spirit IS the Father's own spirit. His Spirit is too busy breathing or blowing around to sit down much. Selah?

I wrote what I meant. If you didn't understand it the fault lies with your comprehension level not my writing skills.

The right hand of God signifies power and authority as Jesus confirmed in Matthew 28:18

The Holy Spirit is who Jesus promised in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5. The same Holy Spirit He instructed His disciples to baptize in the name of in Matthew 28:19.
Paul knew and saw that Jesus was God and Savior as he stated in Titus 2:13. Acts 5:3-4 also shows the Holy Spirit was God not just His spirit.
Sorry but there are just too many verses to show the Father/Son/Holy Spirit are The Triune God.

HAW, the word TRIADIC only means that in close proximity are the Son, Holy Spirit and Father together...NOT:

1) That these are EQUAL entities...God's Spirit is derived from God, the Son is absolutely SUBORDINATE to the Father just as R.C Hanson says all ECF'S knew BEFORE 355 A. D.

According to R.P.C. Hanson, "with the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordianationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy. -- subordinationism, wiki

2) that these are three separate hypostasis (Holy Spirit is spirit come in the name of different referents: Elijah, Jesus)

3) that these are three separate hypostasis of the Godhead: no SUCH THING as Godhead, sir.

The term IN context of the Bible refers to God as Tripartite. Using a dictionary to understand God's word only means you don't know it or it's creator. The Holy Spirit is who teaches us God's Word and if you have no received/been baptised by Him you have no idea how to assimilate God's word.
Is this the same Richard Hanson that said he never trusted anything written about history prior to 600 AD?
There is no doubt Jesus the Son is subordinate to God the Father, that is the order of God's plan of salvation. They are not three independent beings, they are three in ONE. Maybe you should stop thinking one dimensionally and think three dimensionally seeing as we live in three dimensions. According to your understanding there is no such thing as a cube, and the world is flat.
The Godhead is clearly spelled out in the NT, despite your denials.

The issue is realised when Trinitarians ( that is honest ones) acknowledge difficult text. If your irrefutable doctrine relies on questionable text then you may as well throw your creeds in the bin - they are worthless Stan!

I have no problem with different translations of the Greek. When I want to see what the connotations of the Greek are, I look them up. I'm not writing about doctrines, I'm writing about RIGHTLY dividing the Word of Truth, unlike you are doing.
Here's what John 1 in the NET Bible says about God, seeing as you are so keen on it.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.
6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children 13 —children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 15 John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” 16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Now pay attention to God's Word and not your dogma.

 

[Purity]

Paul knew and saw that Jesus was God and Savior as he stated in Titus 2:13.

O did he Stan?

Down through the ages this verse has been rigorously debated because Trinitarians & Arians have struggled to correctly interpret the phrase great God and Savior. But Stan, you have entered the mind of a man now dead for almost 2000 years to inform us here today that "this is what he meant!"

No mention of how he might have written this and in what sense it was given. No honesty on your part to say 1. This could mean both the Father (great God) and to Jesus (Savior). Or that Greek scholars have wrestled over this verse because there is only one article, which precedes both names. They acknowledge the writer could have multiple ideas going on here but no Stan knows Pauls mind!

What we know is there is not a single person in God and Jesus and that they are given distinctly different names, responsibilities and hierarchy.

God manifestation demands a Father making Himself known through a Son.

[SIZE=80%]1:1 [/SIZE]From Paul, a slave[SIZE=80%]2[/SIZE] of God and apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith[SIZE=80%]3[/SIZE] of God’s chosen ones and the knowledge of the truth that is in keeping with godliness, [SIZE=80%]1:2 [/SIZE]in hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the ages began.[SIZE=80%]4[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]1:3 [/SIZE]But now in his own time[SIZE=80%]5[/SIZE] he has made his message evident through the preaching I was entrusted with according to the command of God our Savior. [SIZE=80%]1:4 [/SIZE]To Titus, my genuine son in a common faith. Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior!

When Jesus said He who has seen (character) me has seen the Father we can see how his appearing will be likened to God appearing because the Son always does the will of his Father.

P.

By the way Stan a triad requires 3 not 2

 

[Madad21]

Well now this is an interesting question and when I found the answer, all things became clear and new, regarding my 3 yrs ago beginning investigation into the deity of Jesus.

"Elohim" means something OTHER than the OT God almighty some 10% or so of the time, over 2000 times the One True God, but about one out of ten times NOT the One True God.

A good starting point is Michael Heiser's "What is an elohim?" free PDF online. Just google it.

This guy is even trin. So you don't have to worry about lack of Holy Spirit bias or whatever Floyd keeps referring to Purity about.

And so then we have about a ninety percent chance Thomas is saying the One True God, by simple statistical method. Except for some rude little problems which also seem to keep propping up and sticking out:

1) Thomas' revelation quote unquote that Jesus is God was EITHER already known by the others or then subsequently known by the other disciples. But the formulation of Thomas is not even MENTIONED by the other synoptics which also quizzically do not mention Jesus is God at all.
2) This formulation never catches on in any epistle either although it would naturally be THE MOST OFT USED formula of all, considering, "Jesus our Lord and God."

3) In fact 71 times Jesus is called LORD in PLACE of GOD, in the same verse that God is. Some OF these formulaic.
4) In context of the event, Thomas doubted Jesus was RESURRECTED and that he lived as a HEAVENLY BEING come back to earth.

This last above is ironically exactly what 'elohim' means in general, in the good sense (of not being false gods). A HEAVENLY BEING.

Thomas is calling Jesus both HIS lord and heavenly elohim or being. This completely jibes with what he doubted before.

5) Why would TOUCHING Jesus' side give revelation he was GOD?? RATHER touching his side indicated this apparition before Thomas was the same Jesus that he knew before, the one whose side was speared on the Cross.

6) The statistical perception changes when we consider Jn 10 "ye are gods," a nonsensical translation which I struggled with or never understood for 20 yrs plus. This is Jesus' response to the claim of the naysayers who would stone him, "You have made yourself God."

Coming as a response to his claim that "I and the Father are one." This is AS CLOSE to saying he is diety that Jesus ever came arguably. Now that I know Elohim Theology, this whole passage suddenly makes sense.

1) Jesus was saying he is 'elohim' IN THE SAME MANNER that the Judges of Torah, men who were originally promised eternal life were. My personal opinion was this was the switching of Levitical High Priesthood between the sons of Aaron, between Eleazar and Ithamar.

2) these men being "sons of the most high" Jesus as Messiah is high priest in the order of Melchizedek, and Son of God.
3) being SUPERIOR to the precedented "sons" Jesus is eventually known to be over even angels who are also 'elohim.'

4) by the way NOT claiming same ontology as God Almighty who is YHWH Elohim. Rather claiming the precedent was already set, that a man could in fact BE MADE 'elohim.'

I like this,as you say it interesting.
mate can you give me time to get back to you with this, im in the middle of a Joseph assignment which is demanding my full attention and is due in 2 days. It looks as though yourve done some homework on it so I will likewise oblige, just give me a couple of days. sorry man.

 

[Pelaides]

If Jesus was in fact God like some of you say,Then why would he say the following.

Mark12:29 "And Jesus answered him.The first of all the commandments is,Hear.o israel;The lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind,and with all thy strenght:this is the first commandment."

 

[RANDOR]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...have ya ever cooked anything.......I mean.....an extraordinary dish...
It usually aquires a recipe.

The way you guys use scriptures......are usually on there own.

A tomatoe sits alone on a plate............now that one tomatoe can be used for hundreds of great quaility eatings.

Heck. I'll just get to the point.....The ingredients in the bible when all put together, stirred up and poured out onto the plate is called....
Jesus is God and vise versa.

Now you may eat....and drink the living water

 

[Pelaides]

Titus 2:13
waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith that through the justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ is of equal privilege with ours:

Proper hermeneutical exegesis of the NT clearly show Jesus IS God.



You are definitely on the right track....God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Milk
Butter
cheese

They come from the same source yet they are different,Because Jesus came from God it does not make him God.

 

[RANDOR]

Ya know....it's not so much if people think Jesus is not God........it's all the other cult thinking which comes with that thinking that is the problem.
Just sayin

 

[Madad21]

Milk
Butter
cheese

They come from the same source yet they are different,Because Jesus came from God it does not make him God.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

John 8:58
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 18:6
When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

I mean come on....really guys...Jesus was not God?

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

Have I wondered in to the Arian section of Christian Forums?

 

[nothead]

If Jesus was in fact God like some of you say,Then why would he say the following.

Mark12:29 "And Jesus answered him.The first of all the commandments is,Hear.o israel;The lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind,and with all thy strenght:this is the first commandment."

A most basic and obvious post. One which no trin ever considers. Shema negates both deity of Jesus and Trinity from the git-go. And Mk 12 proves this to be the very paradigm of the Christ as well as that of all Jews in general then.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

John 8:58
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 18:6
When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

I mean come on....really guys...Jesus was not God?

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

Have I wondered in to the Arian section of Christian Forums?

Hey you cannot quote Jn 10 until you refute my interpretation of Jn 10 up the tree. You said you would, sir. I am holding you to it.

I AM theology, well. Lettuce consider this one:

In general, starting out, as an outline lets roll, as a famous hero of our past once died:

From both ends of language this theology cannot hold up. From the HEBREW side, Exodus 3 is NOT saying "I am" since the tense is imperfect. "I will be that which I will be, tell them the Being (or being one) sent you.

False translation. From the Koine, "ego eimi" without the complement explicit still has by convention an IMPLICIT complement, specifically [he] in all other verses of John. But NOT Jn 8:58. WHY is this, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman "ego eimi" without any complement....the blind man in chpt 9 says "ego eimi" without a complement, and it is translated the usual "I am [he]." No one thought HE was saying "I am."

But 8:58 is a KJV and trin analomy...oddly and it turns out THEOLOGICALLY determined. Not translated the conventional way, rather the way I AM THEOLOGIANS would do.

Jesus is saying "before Abraham was born, I was determined to be." He say it in the PRESENT TENSE instead of the past tense why?

Em since he is? Isn't this the revelation of the ages? I AM HE, the Messiah, foretold since the foundation of the world?

And at least two probably more of us are not ARIAN per se. Arius said too some oddball thing like Jesus was not created. Of course Jesus was created. Jn v.14 the word "Jesus" was spoken in em 'round about 0 A.D. give or take and THERE HE WAS.