Word Twisting By Theologians
Read also:
Is Jesus Christ also the Father? Part 2
If, at the end of reading this you do not agree with me, fine! I will appreciate it though if you care to reason against me, scripturally. If I am wrong, I am ready to stand corrected.
I have been labeled a heretic for raising this matter once, and not by just one person. So, am I really a heretic? All I know of myself is this: I am a bible-believing Christian. Therefore, what does the bible say about the matter is what matters. But then, do Christians really believe the bible, or do Christians believe the theologians and their acrobatical word-twisting? Actually, you will find that Christians choose to believe more in falliable man then our infalliable God. Christians believe theologians know better than God. It is the theologians who interpret God to them since God is incapable of revealing Himself.
Now, theologians have firmly established their limited (not God's ) and inviolable doctrine of the Trinity as depicted in the diagram below :
This is summarized ( in my own untrained and simple way ) as : “There is ONE God. This God has shown Himself in 3 separate forms, i.e. as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All 3 are distinct persons, and one is not the other, yet all three are that ONE God”. This, I too believe. And therefore, am I not a believer in the concept of the Trinity? Yes, I am.
Now, to the theologians, to say that the Son is actually also the Father, or the Holy Spirit is the Son and also the Father is blasphemy. Some theologians even say that if we do not accept their interpretation of the Trinity, then we will go to hell. Well, the bible did not say that. The theologians did, and they have made themselves god. As far as I know, the bible tells me that the way to heaven is to believe in Jesus and to obey Him. It does not say that to disbelieve the theologians, one can go to hell.
Now, why was I called a heretic? It is all because I showed them this verse in the bible, viz:-
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
WHAT ???? The bible says the son ( which everybody agrees is Jesus ) shall be called the everlasting Father? So, what have the great theologians with their beautifully framed certificates to say? What do the bible college -trained pastors and teachers have to say to that? Well, some just go silent and hmm and hum their way around. Others immediately go into a mild hysteria, snarl and accuse me of heresy ( Hey! Explain the verse! I did not put that verse into Isaiah’s mouth. God did!) And the more gracious ones do the acrobatic semantics with me. “ Ah …my friend, you fail to understand ( hidden meaning "you are stupid"). You must read the Hebrew word ( hidden meaning "I am trained, and you are not, that's why you are stupid" ). The original word does not mean father as in the case of father. It means something else. You see, Abraham was also called the father of faith. That’s the father meant. Jesus is the father of eternity, not God the Father. Do you understand?”. Well, so says one white-man pastor in his email reply to my question.
No. I don't see. No, I don’t understand.. I only know that the Hebrew dictionary says that “awb” (refer to H1 in the Strong’s dictionary, since you want to play the word game ) is the word for father, in the literal sense. It appears 644 times in the King James Version, and it is the only word used to mean father. So don’t you go round telling me your cock-and-bull invention and twisting of the word father. Father is father. Period. The bible says so.
You see, the theologians have made God into something lesser than the omnipotent Being that He is. In their conceited logic, the Father can only be the Father, the Son can only be the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. And trinity is to be in this form only in their inviolable mighty opinion. Their form of trinity is a limited form. One cannot be the other, and yet they are all the same God. But in their effort to protect their teaching, they deny the simple and obvious meaning of the word father in Isa 9:6, and go on to declare everybody who chooses to believe God and not them to be heretics. They gave themselves the power to send dissenters to hell. To make themselves look academic, they even invented a word “Modalism” for describing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being the one and the same.
But you are wrong. The bible does say the son shall be called the everlasting Father, with a capitalized F. My God is an omnipotent God. He can do all things ( except to be unholy and unrighteous ). The Father can be separate from the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet He can be the all three at the same time. He can do ALL things. This is the true Trinity - 3 separate persons, and one single person at the same time. He can be modalistic and He can be separate. That’s is how incomprehensible His essence is, to my puny brain. Can I understand how He can do that. Of course I can’t.
And of course your less-than-omnipotent god cannot do what my Almighty God can do. My Almighty God is almighty. Call me a heretic if you want. I choose to believe the bible, in the word of God. I choose not to believe you.
Over to you.
Jesus says, in John 8:32 “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
Yes. You are a heretic. But the word "heresy" simply means one who holds to another opinion. Paul was a heretic. I am a heretic also. However, some heresies are far more devestating than others. The teaching that Jesus is the Father has led to Doceticism and a denial of Christ as I have come to find. "Everlasting Father" indicates that through Jesus, we will have everlasting life (John 3:16). This does not make Jesus the Father though. :(
ReplyDeleteThe teaching that Jesus is the Father comes right out of the bible in Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is also the Father. The bible says so.
DeleteTo be consistent in your interpretation, you cannot deny the Everlasting Father is Jesus exactly as it means, otherwise you can also say "the Mighty God" does not mean what it means. You wouldn't do that,would you?
Understanding and accepting this fact does not necessarily mean one automatically believes that Jesus did not have a physical body ( doceticism). People who hold that "Everlasting Father" has a meaning like what you propose can only have learned it from reading theologians' views, never if the person reads the bible alone.
That was actually my own interpretation on it. As for "Mighty God" - not ALMIGHTY God. Psalm 82:6 - "I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High."
Delete"god" is a delegated title given to one holding authority or sent by Jehovah Himself (Satan, the god of this world 2 Cor. 4:4, Jesus reiterates Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-36, angels are called gods in Psalm 8:4-5 and Hebrews 2:7.) Thus, it is a double-standard you point out that which Trinitarians use against me when they convince me Jesus is the Mighty God since they certainly don't think He's the Father...odd.
1. You are right about "gods" but famous TV evangelists like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and company do not. They preach that we are little gods and their believers clap their hands at that.
Delete2. Mighty ( gibbor ) God with a capital G is applied to Jesus and YHWH. No question that Jesus is YHWH.
3. As I said, Trinitarians contradict themselves when they they teach that God is omnipotent but limiting the power of God in teaching that the Son cannot be the Father. They also contradict the scriptures in order to push their version of uniqueness of God. Unitarians similar contradict themselves when they preach that God cannot be 3 at the same time, when H20 created by God can be. Odd? Nah ... they are blinded.
No. You are. Mighty El is also used of Gideon. BTW, Oneness does NOT believe that the Father is the Son. They treat the Son as the flesh.
DeleteFurther, I personally think that it is those who use Isaih 9:6 to prove things regarding the pre-existence of the Messiah who are the mistaken ones.
I do believe you highlight in red "his name SHALL be CALLED" (added emphasis on 'shall' and 'called'). If you notice - "his name shall be called" is NOT the same as "his name IS" indicating Isaiah foresaw something about what the Messiah would be likened unto or what the Messiah would eventually become.
To insist that this is stating anything other than what the Messiah would become goes beyond stretching scriptures, and, thus, both Trinitarian and Oneness interpretations fail here.
Additionally, when I was a Oneness who believed Jesus was the Father, I showed this verse to a friend I was studying with and when I heard their interpretation and explanation on it and looked at additional details closer myself, I realized that their interpretation (something more grand that the Messiah would BE not was), I realized they were correct!
And yes, Trinitarians contradict themselves on a LOT of things. As for the "little g" gods...no...I would NOT imply that Christians are gods (not yet anyway). The title "god" is specifically reserved for someone whom God gives right to exercise authority. Barack Obama would be a god in that sense.
As for more on Isaiah 9:6 - here's a great link:
http://responses.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/messiahnames/
You err in stating Mighty El is used for Gideon. Gibbor was used to describe Gideon, no El.
ReplyDeleteWell,the bible clearly says Jesus shall be called the Everlasting Father. If you say He is not, then He is not to you; for then to you neither does the verse mean Jesus is God nor the Prince of Peace. Consistency of interpretation goes out the window.
I will have to leave you to what you choose to believe. Not all Christians accept the bible for what its says, neither do all Christians accept God for what He is. They prefer a God molded to their desires, to fit into their sizes.
He shall be CALLED! Not He will BE! Major difference! Of course, let's go one step forward with your eisegesis:
ReplyDeleteDaniel 12:1
“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.
Do you believe Michael the Archangel is therefore God the Father?
And you are absolutely correct that not all Christians accept the Bible for what it says! For instance...those who believe Jesus is God the Father!
As I said, out of this verse " ... his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace ....", you have picked out "the everlasting Father" alone to mean something else; you are definitely being inconsistent. Anybody can see who does not want to believe the bible. Again as I said, I will have to leave you to believe what you learn from others, not the bible.
DeleteIncidentally, the Daniel 12:1 illustration is inappropriate as an illustration and totally out of point.
NIV -
DeleteFor to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
These are definitely titles and not names. Like I said, the Trinitarian, Oneness, AND Arian connection to the identity of Christ in his PRE-EXISTENCE is NOT supported by this verse.
Thus, we MUST render it as to the roles that the Messiah would ful-fill. As the last Adam He gave life to us and became an Everlasting Father. He became a Prince of Peace by His love of justice. A Mighty God in that He was appointed judge. A Wonderful Counselor as His role as a mediator. The titles reveal the roles that the coming Messiah was to FULFILL! There is absolutely NO implication that He was ANY of these things in His pre-existence!
Also, Daniel 12:1 was thrown in to demonstrate how if we go with your interpretation, then the Michael, the great prince, must be the Messiah in His pre-existence. While I hold to the disposition that the Messiah is Michael the Archangel in His pre-existence I would NEVER use Isaiah 9:6 to prove ANYTHING about the Messiah's pre-existence! NEVER! Absolutely NEVER!
Michael is the Messiah????? He is????? That is the teaching of cultists!
DeleteThe bible speaks against that:
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
So, Michael never heard the above from God. Is he the Messiah??
You misunderstand what the term "angel" means. Michael is the ONLY Archangel out there. Arch means "chief" and "angel" means "messenger". Thus, Jesus is not in the class of beings known as "angels". Like the "angels" in Revelation 2-3 are humans who are not the class of being known as "angels". Hebrews 1:13 is talking about the class of beings. "Chief of messengers". Jesus is a created being (Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15).
DeleteBesides, you and the Trinitarians (I am an Arian BTW) need to explain why an almighty being needs to receive revelation from someone other than Himself (Revelation 1:1), needs to be given all authority (Matthew 28:18), died (Revelation 1:17-18 compare with 1 Timothy 6:15-17), does not do His own miracles (John 10:32 and Acts 10:38), and refers to someone whom He is not as greater than Himself (John 14:28).
Additionally, one should not take the Bible literally too frequently. I learned that when I used to debate Socinians who believe Jesus to be a deified man (the deified Messiah-Lord specifically). You should check out Sir Anthony F. Buzzard's work on "The Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound".
As regards to whether Michael is the Messiah - Jesus is the Messiah-Lord. Michael assumed the name Jesus when He became flesh. Of course, this is only a theory, but as for cults -
John Gill (on Daniel 10:13):
but, lo, Michael one of the chief Princes, came to help me; called in the New Testament an Archangel, the Prince of angels, the Head of all principality and power; and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel;
John Gill was a Trinitarian Baptist. He also believed Michael was God the Almighty!
Jehovah bless you in the name of His annointed one!
1) No one reading the scriptures alone can ever come up with that idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. You have definitely learnt that idea from some person of cultic background.
ReplyDelete2) Also, it is pretty lame to try that twisting that an Archangel is not a angel. If you insist you are right in doing, you make a joke of yourself.
3) A person who writes as well you you should also be analytical enough to know that there is no bible verse that says Jesus is an "uncreated angel". He is the creator of all things. Try not to slip "other" between All and things.
4) Learning scriptures through books and skipping verses here and there leads you to miss out the full picture. In the book of Philippians we are told that Jesus emptied Himself to come as a man, and in that form He depended on the Father thru the Holy Spirit.
5) Yes, one must not take the bible literally in all areas, but there are verses which are literal and verses which are not. Reading with understanding of the context of a passage will tell you what is literal and what is not. Cults often treat literal passages as allegorical in order to squeeze support for their strange ideas.
5) Forget about Gill, Buzzard, Scofield or whoever. What matters is rightly dividing the word. Are you saying a Baptist Trinitarian makes no mistakes? In which case why are you not believing in the Trinity?
6) And I do not know what an Arian is, but what you have proposed comes right out of the theology of Watchtower and Jehovah Witnesses cult. Either Watchtower learned that from the Arians or the other way around. They are definitely cultic and prone to making false prophecies about doomsday. Why follow a proven false prophet organization?
May you open your heart to the Holy Spirit to light it up for you.
1) Amen to everything you just said!
Delete2) BUT...the teaching that Jesus is God the Father does NOT come from the Bible!
John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has testified about me himself. You have never heard his voice or seen him face to face,
How can Jesus be the Father if His disciples had not seen the Father face to face?!?
3) An Arian is someone who believes that God the Father created Jesus Christ, His Son as the first of all of His creations.
4) No...Jesus is NOT the creator!
1 Corinthians 8:6
But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
Revelation 4:11
"You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power. For you created all things, and they exist because you created what you pleased."
God the Father made everything! Not Jesus! Jesus is the agency...not the speaker Himself! Now 1 Corinthians 8:6 may say everything was made through Christ but we need to understand that the word "pas" does not mean ABSOLUTELY everything! It can refer to a collective sense. But regardless, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Revelation 4:11 describe the Father ALONE as the creator!
Now...if doing things through or by the means of another makes that one whom God is doing those things through God then we have a problem...
Hebrews 1:1
Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets.
This would make the prophets God the Almighty!
As for Gill...yes! People DO make mistakes! Like I said...Michael as Jesus is an IMPLIED concept!
Both, in fact all 3 are One and the same. All your (mis)understanding is demolished these 2 two verses:
DeleteHe is the Lord of Lords. He is YHWH (Deu 10:17 ) and He is also Jesus ( Rev 17:14).
Either both are one or the bible made a mistake. Is your bible wrong? Mine is not.
That is the mystery of the Godhead, and the omnipotence of God to be separate yang still the same one. Puny human minds cannot grasp that power of God make Him out to be unable to come as His own son, yet remain in heaven.
There are more verses proving both are the same. Isa does say that the son is the everlasting Father. Remember consistency in bible interpretation. Like I said:
1) You have told me what you learned from the cults, not from reading the bible for yourself.
2) I am not here to convince you to stop believing in cultic beliefs. I am here to rebut wrongful teachings.
I leave you to your choice of what you choose to believe.
You asked in regards to the Lord of lords being both Jehovah and His Annointed and Highly Exalted Servant and how that does not make them one person.
DeletePhilippians 2:9
Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names,
(Note: He was given the name indicating He could not have been the Most High God before incarnation!)
1 Corinthians 15:25-28
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Lord of lords just means overlord or lord over lords. God established Christ as Lord of lords so Jesus is Lord of all lesser lords and His Father is the Lord of all lords.
Ezra 7:12
"From Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the teacher of the law of the God of heaven. Greetings.
Artaxerxes was also the "king of kings" therefore making him God? No. King of kings means "king over kings" and God established Christ as a king over kings. Thus, Jesus is King of all lesser kings and God is King of all kings. Kind of like how the President and his superior general are both styled General of generals.
And I have explained what "Everlasting Father" means countless times. There are many verses proving Jesus and His Father to be distinct beings...how about that weight of evidence?
Atarxerxes was the king of kings in his lifetime on earth. YHWH is the King of kings in eternity. You are not doing the right comparisons. Your argument fails in the light of Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else" and by that we all know He is talking of the eternal Lord and not the lords of the earth. That is the distinction.
ReplyDeleteJesus is eternal Lord of lords as YHWH is. YHWH made it clear that He is the Lord and there is no other, and therefore He is the Lord of Lords and there can be no other. If Jesus is another Lord of Lord, then the bible speaks falsely or Jehovah is a liar. No, both are one.
See also : Jehovah is the First and The Last. So too, Jesus. Are there 2 firsts and lasts? If so, the bible lies or Jehovah lies. I think not. The error is yours.
Countless times you deny the Isa 9:6 verse. You will notice that the only support for your verses comes from you imposing your thoughts into the scriptures. And verses you quote show that you failed to grasps the omnipotence of God. The god that you have is only able to be and do that things you think he should be able to be and do. That is not the God of the bible.
You worship a god who is neither omnipotent and you know another Jesus, not the Jesus of the bible. Do research everything you believe and open your mind as you read all material on both sides of the fence. You are definitely under cultic influence.
Unfortunately, you take Isaiah 45:5 out of context. Isaiah 45 has Jehovah separating Himself from PAGAN deities! I'm sure you heard "no savior"...well...Othniel and Moses would be God then!
DeleteOnto "First and Last". How MANY Firsts and Lasts can we make? Let's see...hm...Adam is the First and the Last to be created directly from the dust. Eve is the First and the Last to be directly created from the rib of man. Saul is the First and the Last in his family to hold monarchy over Israel. God is the First and the Last in the order of eternity. Jesus is the First and the Last to be directly created by God and to be directly raised from the dead by God.
That is a grand total of...not one...not two...not three...not four...but FIVE Firsts and Lasts! The title "First and Last" applies, once again, to CLASS! You also miss the part where it says Jesus's reign will last UNTIL all enemies are a footstool.
And I have explained already that Isaiah 9:6 is foreshadowing roles that the Messiah would fulfill not describing who the Messiah is.
So, you are losing your grasp over the debate by deliberately twisting the specific meaning of the First and the Last declaration of Jehovah to include the general first and the last. Good. That should convict you of scripture twisting, unless you have hardened your heart against the truth of God.
DeleteNow, back Proverbs 8:22 which you quoted to prove that Jesus is a created being. Just want to point out to you that the full context starts with verse 1; when you quote Pro 8:22 you mechanistically parroted something the cults push to you without consideration the context, because you choose to believe them without checking.
Note that the context talks of wisdom in female gender. That wisdom is not of the same context of wisdom in 1cor 1:24. Your Jesus is female in origin?
Therefore, do be careful to check what you learn. You still cannot properly explain Isa 9:6 in any consistent way. You are just denying it without substance.
And no, I did not miss the part where Jesus will reign until all things are put under His feet. Jesus will return the Kingdom to God the Father when His the restoration of the Kingdom is completed and become ONE again with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. God is three in one, remember? God is omnipotent, remember? God as ONE will be with His people again in the eternal Kingdom.
DeleteFor the lack of better illustration due to my puny mind not being able to understand the awesome substance of an eternal God, if out of the moisture of the atmosphere a drop of water is condensed to drip onto the earth, is not that drop of water of the same substance and being of the moisture in the atmosphere, yet it is not the moisture itself. The one and the same, yet different.
Go figure.
I did NOT twist the "First and the Last" analogy! That is a FALSE accusation! Jesus says He is "First and Last...the one who was DEAD!" God cannot die! Jesus is the First and the Last to be directly raised from the dead by God the Almighty!
DeleteAs for Proverbs 8:22 - God is GENDERLESS! We call God a - what? - a HE! This means God is male? NO! Thus, Wisdom is styled as "she" to address that Wisdom is a FEMININE noun! Not a female person!
So you believe the Son will "disappear"? You really are a lost soul.
So, you admit that the Pro 22 pasage is about a female wisdom. That's a good admission since you also recognize that God is not female. And to you God is neither male nor female ... a "heshe" even though the bible distinctly calls God a HE. Good for you for claiming that is not bible twisting. See how many people with commonsense can agree with you.
DeleteYes, you did twist that analogy, and it is written up aboe. I am not editing what you wrote nor am I going to delete it. And Jesus the First and the Last was dead ... correct and yet He became alive ( which you slyly refuse to state though you know ). That is the wonder of God, who can die yet conquers death by coming back alive. It is only your tiny god who is powerless to do that. Not the awesome God of the bible. Note that Jesus said "destroy this temple and I ( repeat "I" ) will raise it up in 3 days. The bible also says Holy Spirit raise Him up. So who raised Jesus up? Himself, and God and Holy Spirit, or Himself, or God, or Holy Spirit? Maybe you miss out the great meystery of the Godhead ... all 3 are the ONE and SAME!
Wonderful of you to keep revealing the futility of your own arguments. Look forward for more from you. Not that I think you will see light, but for the readers of this blog to read and see for themselves how people can twist bible verses to suit their own desires.
But I will pray that the Lord will grant you mercy and let you know the truth that the truth may set you free and be saved, if you are willing. God desires every man to be saved, but man more often than not is not willing.
Oh, by the way the scriptures say "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD WAS GOD." Then the bible goes on to say "and the WORD WAS MADE FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US. So, again scriptures clearly point out that the WORD WHICH WAS GOD came to dwell among us. Kind of hard to deny which severe semantical acrobatics, isn't it?
Deletewhich also reminds me that one corrupted bible added "a" between WAS and GOD to suit the blasphemous doctrine of that organization.
Wonder if you use that bible....just wondering.
Um...actually, I do use that Bible (somewhat as I am pre-dominantly NLT). However, in the original Greek, it reads "the Word was with ho theon and the Word was theos." The first is an accusatory. The Word was with THE God! The Word was NOT THE God! So ha! You lose again! "a god" IS a grammatically correct rendition! Thus, John refutes the heresy of Jesus being God the Father.
DeleteOnto John 2:19. John 5:26, John 10:17-18, and John 17:2. It was BECAUSE of His obedience that God raised Him from the dead! Thus, in a metaphorical sense...Jesus raised Himself from the dead. And I am NOT a Jehovah's Witness!
Thus...the Bible refutes your heresies more than it refutes my heresies!
As usual, you find yourself having to make uncomfortable maneuvers with the scriptures to make it say what you want it to say. Jesus used the temple in a metaphorical sense to represent His body. He did not use the pronoun I in a metaphorical sense! Else, you can also say the word "raise" is also metaphorical and "3 days" is also metaphorical as you like. No, you cannot do that.
DeleteSince you raise the issue of Greek grammar, I must confess that I am not Greek scholar. I do not know if you are. Even if you are, I do not suppose your grasp of Greek grammar is near the vicinity of Dr Julius Mantey, who confirms that the Watchtower twisted the construction of that phrase to add in the letter "a" in John 1:1, and admonished them for using fraudulently using his name lend support to their deliberate misconstruction of that phrase. I do not suppose you know of the matter. Just google for Dr. Mantey and Watchtower. There are plenty of documentary evidence against this fraudulent translation.
Like I said, I wish for you to come back to the Lord's truth and know the Lord as He is; and not see Him in the smallness as the eyes of wicked men has portrayed Him to be.
To All Readers:
DeleteCults have always been using all forms of devious methods and contortionist interpretation to support their portrayal of Jesus as a created object of God, contradicting bible revelation. These moves include using technicalities of the Greek language to intimidate and confuse the ordinary believer who knows little or no Greek, even misusing expert references to achieve their purpose. Dr Julius Mantey was the foremost Greek language expert in the world in his time, whose name was misused for such a purpose. And he make public his admonishment of the Watchtower cult for doing so.
I reproduce 1st parts of his 2 page letter to the Watchtower, which should be clear enough that he is furious with them for their misuse of his name ....
THE LETTER OF DR. JULIUS MANTEY TO THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY
In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS
On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar
(An excerpt from the letter to CARIS may be found here)
July 11, 1974
Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
The rest of the letter can be read at any of these sites :
http://mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm
And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
"He did not use the pronoun I"
DeleteI never said He did! I said He METAPHORICALLY, by His OBEDIENCE, raised Himself from the dead!
As for Dr. Julius Mantey...I have never heard of him. I think Jason David Beduhn is a better scholar. You may want to check out his book entitled "Truth in Translation" where he covers that "a god" is the more accurate interpretation.
Here is the Greek translation:
http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm
And early church father Origen:
Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."[
Kind regards.
For a a start, you will notice that Jason Beduhn is NOT A GREEK LANGUAGE expert. Dr Julius Mantey is. Here is Jason BeDuhn's Biodata taken from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jdb8/jason-cv1.htm
DeleteYou will find no credentials to qualify him to speak against Dr Mantey. Do your own research on Mantey. Your references continue to be duds.
Ph.D. Comparative Study of Religions, Indiana University, 1995
Religions of Late Antiquity, Biblical Studies, Theory & Method, World Religions; Minor: History
M.T.S New Testament and Early Christianity, Harvard Divinity School, 1988
B.A. Religious Studies, University of Illinois, 1985
HONORS/GRANTS
2004-5 John Simon Guggenheim Fellow
2001 Best First Book Award (History of Religions category), American Academy of Religion
2000 Northern Arizona University Organized Research Grant
1999 Northern Arizona University Organized Research Grant
1996 American Academy of Religions Research Grant
1995 Ph.D. with distinguished dissertation
1994-95 National Endowment for the Humanities Dissertation Fellow
1993-94 J. Stewart and Dagmar K. Riley Dissertation Fellow
1989-90 Indiana University Fellow
1985 B.A. magna cum laude, with departmental distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, Omicron Delta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi
PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS
2001-present Associate Professor, Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University
2000-2004 Chairperson, Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University
1998-2000 Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University
As for one Origen, there are numerous Ante Nicene Fathers who speak against him and testify for God being born in the flesh into this world, names like Polycarp, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria or Justin Martyr which must be familiar to you, and less familiar names like Tatian or Machetes.
DeleteAs I said, read the word guided by the Holy Spirit and you will know the truth. I will add more to Origen later.
In fact, Origen never spoke against the Trinity nor the deity of Jesus. Origen in most of his known writings had stood for the deity of Jesus, e.g. Origen wrote:
Delete" the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fullness of His deity"
So, I find it strange you found that Origen wrote in favour of the Watchtower's New World Translation of John 1:1. If you had quoted the Origen passage from any Watchtower source, I would suggest you do a thorough research on the original passage quoted by Watchtower, which is famous for deliberately misquoting authors to support their cause. Is the Jason BeDuhn reference also from Watchtower,too? Oh dear.
Jesus says, Ye shall know the trutha and the truth shall make you free.
I am familiar with all of those men. Let me show you some of their quotes:
DeletePolycarp:
""Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ... give you a lot and portion with his saints, and to us along with you, and to all men who are under heaven who will believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead."
This is bullet holes in Oneness and Trinity!
Irenaeus:
"...the Father himself is alone called God...the Scriptures acknowledge him alone as God; and yet again...the Lord confesses him alone as his own Father, and knows no other." " . . this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except him who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who receive the spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else God, or name no other as Lord; and, what is much more important, since it is true that our Lord acted likewise, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except he who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father." Irenaeus also refers to John "...proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made." Also he taught that Jesus was inferior to the Father in divine knowledge"
Justin Martyr:
" "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things" "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has as his elder the person who gives him the name."
Trinity doctrine does not teach Jesus is "another God and Lord". Trinity doctrine teaches Jesus IS God and Lord.
Wikipedia Justin Martyr:
"Justin very clearly distinguishes the Son, or Logos, as being an Angel and an Apostle of God, but not the one true God himself, the Maker of all things, as Justin calls him. Justin confers the title of Creator only to the Father in all of his writings. There is no indication of the trinitarian doctrine, or of Christ being the "one true God", as Justin gives this title only to the Father."
Apparently, you don't know your church fathers because Irenaeus and Polycarp would have NEVER fallen for the dual nature of Jesus heresy.
Additionally, going back to John 1:1
Wikipedia John 1:1
"At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness. Rodney J. Decker stated, "it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.""
"Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic common noun "noute" (ΝΟΥΤЄ) in the Coptic New Testament at John 1:1 suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god.""
Hmmmm...do I win yet?
As for Origen's "Trinitarian" theology...this pro-Trinitarian site here entitled WatchmanExpositor has the following to say:
Delete"Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen’s teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism."
OK. Now I see your mindset. You want to win. You really do not want to know the truth since your mind is set out to prove that the men who (mis) taught you are right. I am sad for you; but then as I said, I am not here to convince you to change your mind anyway.
DeleteLet us first do away with your use of Origen. By your own admission Origen is unreliable ( do not think church fathers are anywhere close to apostles. This is where you err ) and was guilty of deviant teachings. I raise the names of Irenaeus not to use his sayings to support my arguments, but to show you that there are so many church fathers who say different things. We do not learn from church fathers. We learn from Jesus and the Holy Spirit who guided what the apostles wrote. Any writer or preacher ( including these church leaders of the old ) are to be tested by their adherence to bible teachings, not the other way around.
Now thus far, you could not explain the following properly and oftentimes, had to resort to denying the clear meaning of the verses.
1) The subject of this article is not whether Jesus is God, but whether Jesus is the Father as well. But the discussion has somewhat digressed to other issues because you cannot disprove what Isa 9:6 means, other than to deny it.
2) The denial against Isa 9:6 causes you to be inconsistent of interpretation. You cannot explain away this inconsistency, so this denial has no basis.
3) The claim Jesus is Michael has been disproved by the Hebrew verse that God never told any angel to sit at his right hand.
4) The claim that Michael the archangel is not an angel is a claim without logic and is baseless.
5) The claim that Prov 8:22 by saying the wisdom mentioned therein is Jesus, in an attempt to prove Jesus is a created being is made baseless when the full context of Prov 8 starting with verse 1 is taken into consideration.
6) The attempt to use Jason Beduhn to discredit the expertise of Dr Julius Mantey’s in the Greek language fails because Jason Beduhn does not happen to be trained in the Greek language at all whereas the late Dr Julius Mantey was the leading world expert of that language, and he has denounced the act of putting the letter “a” between Was and God in John 1:1.
7) You failed to explain the application of titles for Jehovah and Jesus, as Lord of Lords and the First and the Last. In fact, there is one more …. Jehovah calls Himself the shepherd just as Jesus later did.
Delete8) You failed to explain why God calls Jesus “God” and says His throne is forever and ever ( hey, remember you also know that Jesus will hand the throne back to the Father. If that handing over becomes the end of his throne, then it is not forever anymore, isn’t it? And Jehovah would have lied. But on the other hand, if both are actually the one and same Being, then the throne still remains for ever.
9) You have thus far, failed in using scriptures to support your doctrines. And, failing to use scriptures to disprove the deity of Jesus, you are resorting the the arguments of men over the ages to disprove Jesus. I have always maintained this discussion is to be scripture-based. The positions of men who are not apostles has never been reliable. As much as you have tried to use Origen, I too, have been able to quote Origen who speaks for the Trinity. And your last comment is very telling when you recognized that Origen himself developed deviant teachings: yet you use people like him for your reference! For this reason, I do not like to quote other authors, neither do I like to quote church fathers like you do. They are too inconsistent.
And so, similarly whatever you quote Irenaeus or Polycarp to support what you have decided, I can similarly find for you proof that they actually say things that contradict what you quoted them to say. Therefore, stick to scriptures.
10) And is Jesus a created being or uncreated being? You have taken both stands. On the one hand you say that “God the Father created Jesus Christ, His Son as the first of all of His creations”, and next moment you say that he is Michael the archangel, “an uncreated Angel”. This clearly shows your confused understanding. No, neither is correct. Jesus is the creator God.
Nope. This is not an issue about winning or losing; it is about what the Truth is. Up till now, the truth escapes you because you choose to rely on the teachings of men with predetermined views of God, and not of God. The scriptures you have quoted do not support what you have tried to present. And you have no choice but to lean turn to quoting fallible opinions of man. So far you are totally unconvincing.
Try not to think about winning. Pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth. Furthermore, you should research all the verses where Jesus lays claim to deity. I will not point them out to you here. You do the research.
I repeat again, I leave you to your beliefs since your mind is already made up.
1) I HAVE explained King of kings and Lord of lords as WELL as First and Last! Would you like me to also explain "Alpha and Omega"?
Delete2) I HAVE studied Jesus's alleged claims of deity. Those who make it sound like Jesus claimed to be Jehovah in these passages ignore the fact where the Jews accused Him of being demon-possessed and Jesus called them out as LIARS! So should we trust the claims of Jews who made it SEEM like Jesus claimed to be Jehovah? See 1 Corinthians 12!
3) No...Jesus is NOT the Creator! He is the AGENCY of creation! To be the Creator, would make Him God the Father which He is NOT!
4) Good shepherd...we redirect you to Ezekiel 34.
5) JOHN GILL believes Micheal to be uncreated...NOT ME!
6) No. Hebrews 1 does NOT mean that Michael cannot be Jesus! The fact that God LET angels worship Him means that Jesus is NOT Jehovah who was allowing the HOMAGE to take place!
7) Finally, Michael is NOT an ORDINARY ANGEL! He is the ONLY Archangel who EXISTS! Therefore, God gave the privelege to NOT one of the angels...He gave it to the ARCHANGEL!
8) You are deceiving people by telling them Jesus is God the Father. You can't go to Heaven if you believe this.
Additionally, I did NOT claim Origen was UNRELIABLE! That was a TRINITARIAN site that said Origen was EVIL!
DeleteNow...you say "my God is Almighty". Well...tell me why your "Almighty God" has MULTI-PERSONALITY disorder and does NOT even know that He is GOD!
Revelation 3:12 - Jesus says He HAS a GOD! At least you're not a Oneness Pentecostal who accuses Arians and Trinitarians of breaking the rules of Biblical Monotheism.
You responded with 8 points. Let me counter you:
Delete1) Your explanation of King of kings was nothing short of desperate twisting with an inappropriate illustration.
2) You have studied the deity of Jesus with a predetermined mind to disprove, not with an open mind. Yes, the Jews also accused Him of being demon-possessed; so how does that disprove the fact that the Jews did understand Him to be "making himself equal with God?
3) God make man in His image. Rom 8:29 tells us we are predestined to be in the image of the son. Clear enough for me, but not for you.
4) God and Jesus being the shepherd is only one of various revelations; these are easily understood when read in the context of the passage. You do not do this.
5) Doesn't matter it was Gill who said it and not you. But you are in agreement with him, and for that reason you used him as your reference. Strange point to raise on your part.
6) Angels resist worship! Jesus don't. This Heb passage is so simple to understand, yet you still don't ( want to ). Do meditate over it *prayerfully*. I doubt you do that much, and pardon me if I am wrong.
7) An Archangel is an angel of higher rank. Still an angel.
8) Get your doctrine right. Going to heaven is believing in Jesus and obeying the will of the Father ( Be ye perfect ). By itself, not understanding the substance of God does not cause a person to be in hell. Else, I would have said that you are not going to heaven either.
You fail to understand what I write about Origen. I can why you fail to understand bible verses and have to rely on the teachings of men of poor scholarship. I said ( not you ) that Origen is unreliable, just as church fathers as a whole can be unreliable. There may reliable church fathers, but not all the big names are.
DeleteGod has shown ( what people may also say manifested ) Himself in 3 ways to us, and thereby the term "Trinity" and yet at the same time, all 3 are one ( whether you term it as Father, Son or Holy Spirit ). It is the form of manifestation that is being termed in 3 ways. God is only ONE. If the substance of God is so easy to understand, vain men would not have argued over it over the centuries, and still do.
Trinitarians got it half right and the Unitarians got the other half right. And that is the narrow-mindedness of theologians.
Read carefully the last limb of Rev 3:12. Jesus will write His name on the believers and mark him as God's people. Strange? Jesus speaks of my God from a positional perspective, depending on what he wishes to emphasize, for Jesus is both man and God at the same time. He calls Himself "son of man"; yet He lays claim to equality with God, for which reason the Jews wanted to stone Him. Hard to fathom? That's the carnal mind is in enmity with God.
( Further to Point 4 above: add also; bible also reveals God and Jesus share the same roles and titles in various others forms ).
You declared that Jesus was man and God at the same time. Dual Nature? If Jesus has two natures, this gives Him MULTIPERSONALITY disorder! I'm thinking you and the Trinitarians DO believe the Jews when they say He's demon-possessed!
DeleteAlso...YES! Belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven. However, IF we deliberately ignore the PLAIN truths that Jesus is NOT God the Father, we will NOT make it to Heaven!
Now there are a LOT of people who believe Jesus to be God the Father and have (as you would say) TWISTED the scriptures to prove it. Anyone who dies knowing that Jesus is NOT God the Father but believing it anyway, will NEVER enter into Heaven! Since you have probably read Matthew 3:16-17, then don't expect to make it to Heaven.
1) My explanation of King of kings was NOT desperate word twisting.
2) Philippians 2:6
Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
- There you go. A verse that demonstrates Jesus NEVER claimed to be GOD!
3) We are to be in BOTH of their image!
4) Ezekiel 34:20-24
“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken.
Matthew 28:18 explains why Jesus enacts as God a lot of times. Because God gave Him AUTHORITY to do so. But God still GAVE Jesus that authority meaning Jesus is NOT omnipotent!
6) Proskuneo worship is what Jesus gets. As God's Christ, He is worthy to receive such Proskuneo homage and honour in order to bring GLORY to God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11). Jesus NEVER accepts sacred services! These are given to God the FATHER ONLY!
Additionally, if you want to study this topic more, I am giving a list of books that compare and analyze arguments that will bring one to truth. You need arguments compared and analyzed before you decide. I have seen arguments compared and analyzed and have reachhed a VERY firm conclusion that worship of Jesus Christ as God is outright blatant IDOLATRY and the belief that Jesus is God the Father is a definite sign of SPIRITUAL CANCER!
http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Biblical-Christ-Jesus-God/dp/1432703692
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Son-God-Comparison-Arguments/dp/0971376085/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327115259&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Truth-Human-Tradition-Catholic-Protestant/dp/1425948324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327155118&sr=8-1
As I said, you desperately look to the teachings of man and you keep having to refer to the websites rather the scriptures.
DeleteYou deny that you deny. What else can I say to that?
And to the duality of Jesus's nature you add the label "multiple personality", not I to make it sound like a bit cuckoo. That's your privilege to do so.
Show me a verse that says that a person is not saved if he does not truly understand the substance of God. I am sure you cannot. You create your own doctrine of salvation.
Jesus as a man is not omnipotent. He relies on the Holy Spirit. Philippian says He emptied Himself. You quote Phi 2:6 alone but left out 2:7. Hmmmm, why? Because your doctrine cannot fit into the context of the entire passage! Your understanding of the "kenosis" is inadequate. You quote that verse in vain.
And you deny the meaning of Isa 9:6 and tries to twist "the everlasting father" into something like "the father of everlasting". Your attempt fails.
Jesus accepts worship, angels don't. Thomas addressed Jesus in awe "My Lord and My God". Jesus did not say, "Oh no, I am not". Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if Thomas had uttered blasphemy.
You clearly do not honor the Son as you honor the Father ( Joh 5:23 ). You honour the Son in a way less than you honour the Father.
So, you failed on all counts.
Philippians 2:9
DeleteWe shall declare Jesus as Lord to the GLORY of God the Father who made Him Lord (Acts 2:36).
By acknowledging Jesus as my God-ordained Sovereign I have honored Jesus just as I honor God the Father! =0
So making the foolish accusation that I do NOT honor Jesus as I honor the Father is a blatant LIE! God hates liars.
Further, 1 John 2:22 says those who deny the Father and Son are ANTICHRISTOS! It is speaking of the PROPER relationship between the two!
1. That they are DISTINCT! (You deny this making you Antichrist!)
2. That the Father is GREATER than Christ! (Trinitarians deny this as they falsely teach that BOTH are CO-EQUAL! Therefore, Trinitarians are also Antichrist!)
Any teaching that Jesus is God is a false infernal teaching created by Satan the Devil. Any worship of Jesus Christ as God is idolatry.
Onto John 20:28 - There are a couple ways to interpret this:
1) Thomas is making a shocked statement of astonishment after realizing that Jesus WAS alive (noting he had just touched the wound).
2) Thomas is declaring Jesus's authority over Thomas. Remember the "little g" gods who exercise dominion. Note also that Thomas does NOT call Jesus "the God of the Universe" and the same Greek grammar is used when Satan is called "the god of this world".
So you have been refuted again.
Also...you might find Jason Kerrigan's book entitled "Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God?" which refutes the worship questions very helpful.
Your failure to grasp the awesomeness of God's omnipotence is clear as crystal. You have made your god very small in order to fit into the smallness of the mind of man. Scriptures says "his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father". However you deny, the scripture is still there. Since you cannot erase it, you can only continue to deny it. But for this wrongful belief alone on your part, the scriptures do not say you are going into hell and I would not wish that upon you, nor anybody else for that matter.
DeleteAs for your explanation of the Thomas passage of John 20:28, I happen to recognize that it comes right out of the pages of Watchtower material! As I have said, you need to analyze what you have been taught and ask questions. You apparently don't. For Thomas to utter that in astonishment amounts to using the Lord's name in vain. It would have been blasphemy and Jesus would have rebuked him. Yet Jesus didn't because Jesus knew that Thomas was *answered* calling Him "Mou Kurios Mou Theos" or My Lord and My YHWH.
With your explanation, you are saying Thomas committed blasphemy and Jesus kept quiet! Would Jesus keep quiet if his disciple blaspheme God? I would think not because any Jew knows the consequences of blasphemy. Thomas would know too and would not have done that. It is alien in Jewish culture to do that. Unlike the American society that does that to the name of Jesus zillions of times daily.
Indeed, your explanation is plain parroting a Jehovah Witness joke, a desperate attempt to explain away a difficult piece of scripture. So, you refute nothing but have further demonstrated the weakness of your reliance on scriptures.
The fact that you keep recommending me to read books and not the bible is very telling on your reliance on the teachings of man.
It's getting a bit tiresome, but it will be worth the while in the hope that a blinded soul can see some light. Only the Holy Spirit can do that though, not me. I can only put up a signboard, but the blind cannot see the signboard unless the Holy Spirit opens his eyes. I will continue to pray for you on this matter.
But you pray to a FALSE GOD! LOL! Your god is CONFUSED! LOL! You are going to HELL! Why do you deny when Jesus says He has a Father and the WEIGHT of EVIDENCE which shows God the Father AND Jesus to be TWO BEINGS! There is a PLACE for people who believe Jesus is God the Father - HELL!
DeleteActs 2:36 - according to YOUR interpretation on this verse it reads:
"This Jesus whom you have crucified, has made himself Lord!"
THAT'S the EPITOME of scripture twisting! So...WHO'S twisting scriptures? To be saved, you MUST believe God the Father and Jesus are TWO beings! The BIBLE says SO!
1 John 2:22!
Don't die believing this or when Jesus raises you up, it will be AFTER the first resurrection! To throw you into FIRE!
Please reject your belief.
I am now posting you a list of videos I MYSELF have made and posted to YouTube DESTROYING your heresies! Watch them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FneYVNwECEs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrrEOzpd5yQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1PGfhwTGQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzibZ746Eag&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
All of these have verses PROVING you are DENYING truth. Again, do NOT believe Jesus is God the Father! You will end up in HELL!
I have no doubt you are a person who reads widely, something to be appreciated. Too bad that you do not read with an open and analytical mind, for you read through colored lenses, determined to see only things in a way to prove preconceived ideas. I feels sorry for you and will continue to pray for you.
DeleteBy the tone of your postings on this blog, I can now sense you are losing your self control. You display an ungodly temperament when you fail to be convincing. By that I must assume you do not believe in the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, for if He dwells in you, you would not have such negative outbursts. I can also guess that a person in that position does not live a joyful life filled with the peace of the Lord. But whether I am correct or not is for you to reflect. Forgive me if I am wrong on this count.
Once more, I will reiterate your failures
1) you deny Isa 9:6 by trying to misrepresent "everlasting Father" to become "father of the everlasting" and it cannot hold because it is inconsistent with the way you accept the other titles in the same verse.
2) You tried to explain away John 20:28 by saying that what Thomas declared was something like "OH My God!" type of exclamation. That would be using the Lord's name in vain! You failed to recognize that any Jew would go to great lengths to avoid using the name of the Lord in vain. Thomas was a Jew, so too Jesus. You have no answer to this.
3) You tried to misrepresent Michael the archangel as NOT a angel.
4) One moment you said that Jesus is a created being, next moment you said that Jesus is an uncreated angel. You cannot explain this contradictory stand. You quoted Gill to support the latter position, then tried to deny it by blaming Gill for it.
I could list more of your inconsistencies. But that would be repetitive and this 4 should suffice for this retort to you. Most of the time you quote verses that disprove what you stand for - own goal!
Finally, for the 3rd time failure to grasp the true substance of God is not a determinant of salvation. It is your own doctrine not found int he gospel. But understanding the true substance of God leads us to hold Him in even greater awe and worship.
God bless you, and may the good Lord open your veiled mind to know Him even more.
Okay...now I know you are going to Hell. You are deliberately TWISTING the Bible by saying that Jesus Christ gave His human side authority and made His human flesh Lord. This is the EPITOME of scripture twisting! I don't care what you think of me and how "I have denied the truth"...you are DENYING Christ as your only God-ordained SAVIOUR! Antichrist! John and the apostles and Jesus would NEVER have tolerated your FALSE TEACHINGS! Forgive me if I outburst at you but your god is scizophrenic, cannot make up its mind, and cannot decide whether he gave authority to itself or not. And for the record, I only used the John Gill quote to prove Jesus IS Michael the Archangel...NOT to demonstrate that Michael was UNCREATED!
DeleteOh, and as for me telling you that you are going to Hell...
DeleteHmmmmm! Think!
"We work hard at bringing in the unsaved souls. But we cannot care less about the "already saved" who are being led back to hell by false teachings!"
That's what you said! Who's doing the damning? Oh! It's you!
Dear Danielezerable ( that's your name I suppose ),
DeleteI also thank you for the time you spent on this blog, and for your inputs.
I do not mean to hurt or demean you in any way or at any time. In the course of a debate, certain remarks may be viewed as personal attacks, and I apologize for that.
I sincerely feel that you have been lead away by teachings in the way of the wisdom of man and not of God. If you do not think so, then we must agree to disagree.
Thank you for your kind words. It is clear that you have made up your mind on this subject. I hope that you will at least consider an alternative interpretation. Remember, there are people smarter than the both of us who have already spent time studying these things. I will say this though...I believe the Trinity is idolatry because it denies the inferiority of Jesus Christ to God the Father. I consider any doctrine that denies this inferiority of Christ to God the Father as a Satan-inspired attack on Jehovah and His Son which is why I yell at those who deny this. Sorry if I upset you. Additionally, I honor Christ in the same way I honor the Father by acknowledging God has made Him Lord (Acts 2:36) for this is what is meant when Christ says that. He who honors Christ as Lord honors God the Ffather Almighty who made Him Lord. I trust no system of religion to save me. I believe God has given the authority to save to no Methodist, Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Oneness Pentecostal, or Baptist. Only JESUS! Acts 4:12.
DeleteYou cannot be more wrong in your beliefs. God sees no Methodists, Baptist or what brand names you have. God only sees His flock, and saves those who do the will of Father, through the blood of Jesus Christ.
DeleteMou Kurios Mou Theos - That's my Jesus.
You just said "Father through the blood of Jesus Christ". So do you or do you not believe the Son is the Father? And if the Son is not the Father or just a man...then was the Son just a body? This is what Modalists teach. For God so loved the world that he gave a body to torture and kill. Not himself or his Son. That's Doceticism! 2 John 1:7.
DeleteAdditionally, according to this website I found - http://www.learnthebible.org/oneness-pentecostal.html
"This teaching is so bizarre that I am not sure where to begin in refutation. However, it is clear that they are the ones who believe in three different gods: one for creation, one for incarnation, and one for speaking in tongues. To deny that these three operate at the same time is amazing. It is easier to understand someone who denies the deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. But, according to this teaching, Jesus Christ (who is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" Hebrews 13:8) used to be the Father and then became the Holy Ghost. This is infinitely removed from scripture."
And further...
"Their salvation is not God's salvation as revealed in the Bible."
YOUR salvation is not God's salvation.
Oh...and the Greek phrase is "ho theos me theos" (the Lord of me, the God of me) and it is used when identifying TWO not one.
Deletehttp://biblos.com/john/20-28.htm
You are so driven by the teachings of the unbelieving man that you cannot break away from quoting websites and books. That is why you cannot answer the inconsistencies I pointed out to you. Scripture proves scripture. Not twist scripture to suit personal doctrines. The Son shall be called .... the everlasting Father. Scripture does not call the son the Father of the everlasting. However you twist, this verse stays in your bible. Therefore, for your arguments to be relevant, you have to use scriptures .... not the interpretations of unbelieving theologians. Try doing that. If you can't, you are speaking as an unbelieving theologian. Period. You still have not shown scriptural basis for your arguments so far.
DeleteAh ... it is still not "Oh My Lord and Oh My God!" exclamation as you tried to make it sound like. It is still "My Lord and My God" in simple language.
Do you believe Christ lives in you? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in you? Is your new life a testimony of transformation by the Holy Spirit that dwells in you? Salvation gained thru Jesus Christ can be proven to oneself; you will know whether you are saved or not.
I know I am. And the peace of God is always upon me. Praise the Lord! Is it in you too? It would be good news to me too, if you affirm it! Is it?
Indeed the proper Greek rendition would be "ho kurios mou and ho theos mou" as you pointed out. So, how about Psalm 35:23 which says of YHWH “ ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou”;
DeleteYes, it is The God of me, the Lord of me" which echos what Thomas calls Jesus!! Wow! Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture proves scripture ... something which you are unable to do. You keep quoting websites and authors! Again, you fail!
Both of those scriptures indicate that the one being addressed holds authority over the one speaking. Thus, Jesus is a god over Thomas as Jehovah is a god over David. Of course, Jehovah is always the big "g" God.
DeleteNow I want to clear up some confusion on Isaiah 9:6. I did not intend it to mean that Jesus was the "Father of the Everlasting" I meant that "Everlasting Father" is a title indicating that Jesus would be a father who grants life-everlasting.
You seem to have made up your mind to have the truth. You cannot explain the obvious implications of verses like Philippians 2:5-11, Revelation 4-5, Revelation 3:12, Acts 2:36, etc. without twisting the scriptures so I would say that scriptures are stacked against you 20 to 1. Don't make up your mind so fast. Additionally, yes, I am well-trained because the Bible calls us to be spiritually discerned about false doctrines like the "Jesus is God the Father" doctrine.
God bless and may the Living Water (Holy Spirit John 7:38-39) guide you to the truth (which is not necessarily my truth).
Your response to "My God and My Lord" says "Both of those scriptures indicate that the one being addressed holds authority over the one speaking. Thus, Jesus is a god over Thomas as Jehovah is a god over David. Of course, Jehovah is always the big "g" God." Now, that's a really desperate attempt to explain away John 20:28.
DeleteYou really have no answer to Ps 35:23 because you never noticed this verse before. And neither did your teachers, and so you have no ready answer in your inventory.
Indeed, Jesus grants life-everlasting!! Only God can do that! You are getting nearer to the truth now, but you still cannot see it. I hope you will see it soon.
As for Phi 2:5-11, I did explain it at the Jan 26, 2012 01:41 AM comment above. God did create heaven and earth and elders are praising God, and at the same time, did you notice that they also address Him as Lord?
As for Rev 3.12, it is easily understood when you look at the scriptures as a whole. Jesus addresses the Father as God, and note also that God addresses the Son as God! Yet there is only ONE God. No twisting. Yes, God has made Jesus into flesh and a part of God came in the flesh.
I am not well-trained as you as I have never attended bible college. Neither do I read christian books widely and cannot name authors. I can see that you are well-trained ... which also translates well-molded. You have hardformed into the preconceived ideas. Being well-trained also requires that the training be correct. If the training is wrong, being well-trained serves nothing.
It is not that I have made up my mind against you, rather that so far you have not argued your points well enough. You only parrot standard answers very very similar to the answers of Jehovah Witnesses who come into my house. Even those from Korea say exactly the same things and now I am reading the same things from you. Are you sure you are not of them?
Also, I note with appreciation that your tone has become more positive ever since I reminded you of the indwelling effect of the Holy Spirit. I hope this is not due to my reminder to you ( which effect would then be temporary ) but comes out of the Holy Spirit ( which then would be a permanent transformation ) Cheers.
I guess you could call it desperate but I see more evidence that Thomas is making a statement of shocked belief. And even if he is calling Jesus "the god of me", it doesn't prove that Jesus is God the Almighty but rather, that He is a god over Thomas.
DeleteNow you asked about how Jesus can grant life-everlasting if only God can do that. Bible answer (from the New Living Translation):
John 17:2
"For you have given him authority over everyone. He gives eternal life to each one you have given him."
If Jesus can only give eternal life to those He has been given, how then can He be the Almighty God?
Matthew 28:18
"Jesus came and told his disciples, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth."
Thus, we see that God has delegated and allowed Jesus to enact on His (God's) behalf.
As for the JW's, I agree with a LOT of their theologies because there is a LOT of truth to be found in them...but God cannot be found in a denomination. They have no clue that Original Sin is utter heresy.
Additionally, you say "a part of God came in the flesh". So is Jesus only "part God" according to you?
BTW, I am 19.
Good that you admit that your attempt is a desperate one.
DeleteThe Word is a part of God and the Word became flesh. The Word that became flesh emptied himself ( kenosis ) and depended on the power of the Holy Spirit to work miracles and do things, an example set by God in human form for all humans to depend on the power of the Holy Spirit.
Good too that you admit you agree with the theologies of JWs. Yes, JWs are right among many things, else how can they deceive? Would you believe someone who is wrong on everything? Of course not! But you get deceived on the essentials!
You are 19, meaning your age? Age can have nothing to do with wisdom. Some young people are very wise and mature and old people very immature.
If you are wrong, you are wrong. If you are right, you are right. It is all in the scriptures. Again, are you a praying person? Or do you only pray in meetings as an activity?
Trying going into deep prayers and ask God for wisdom ( Book of James ). Experience the reality of God. Remember, it is not about winning. It is all about the truth.
Yes. This is why I reject Trinity and Oneness. Because I pray and I ask God to just let me see the plain words and teachings of Christ. If Christ only "seems" to have a God or "appears" to have a relationship with His Father then we can only "seem" and "appear" to have a God whom we relate to. This is why God gave Christ authority (Matthew 28:18).
DeleteYou did? Good. I will have to take your word for it. It is not normal for people associated with JW pray in the spirit. But I will to take your word for it. And, remember that there are many contradictory stands you have not been able to explain. Pray about those too.
DeleteLike I said much earlier on, I will have to leave you to believe what you want to believe.
I am now closing discussions with you on this post. Thank you.
15. Did the prophet Isaiah say that Jesus would be the Father? Yes. Isaiah 9:6; 63:16.
ReplyDelete“The Septuagint (LXX) renders Isaiah 9:6 as reading the Angel of Great Counsel. Brenton’s translation is:
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
…
The Peshitta (Lamsa’s translation) has:
For whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.
Thus, the concept of Isaiah 9:6 is the allocation by delegation of the rulership function expressed in terms of fatherhood.
…
This is more or less consistent with the above. The words are a name which denotes the relationship of the person given the name with the being associated with it. The Soncino holds the words to mean:
Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace. The child will bear these significant names in order to recall to the people the message which they embody (Arbarbanel) (Soncino Isaiah fn. to 9:5[6]).”
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p224.html
Isaiah 63 - Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winevat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the peoples there was no man with me: yea, I trod them in mine anger, and trampled them in my wrath; and their lifeblood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my raiment. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my wrath, it upheld me. And I trod down the peoples in mine anger, and made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth. I will make mention of the loving kindnesses of Jehovah, [and] the praises of Jehovah, according to all that Jehovah hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses. For he said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses [and] his people, [saying], Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit in the midst of them? that caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses? that divided the waters before them, to make himself an everlasting name? that led them through the depths, as a horse in the wilderness, so that they stumbled not? As the cattle that go down into the valley, the Spirit of Jehovah caused them to rest; so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name. Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where are thy zeal and thy mighty acts? the yearning of thy heart and thy compassions are restrained toward me. For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name. O Jehovah, why dost thou make us to err from thy ways, and hardenest our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance. Thy holy people possessed [it] but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary. We are become as they over whom thou never barest rule, as they that were not called by thy name. (ASV)
ReplyDeleteCan you say “representation”?
ReplyDeleteJeremiah 1:9-10 - Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant. (ASV)
Lamentations 2:2 - The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob, and hath not pitied: He hath thrown down in his wrath the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He hath brought them down to the ground; he hath profaned the kingdom and the princes thereof. (ASV)
Did Jeremiah or Yahweh destroy the kingdoms? Is Jeremiah Yahweh?
Exodus 20:2 - I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (ASV)
Acts 7:35 - This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? him hath God sent [to be] both a ruler and a deliverer with the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush. (ASV)
Did Moses bring the people out of Egypt or did Yahweh?
In truth, we find no such evidence that the Messiah is identified as the Father in either of the passages presented.
BTW, what you believe on God has no bearing on your salvation whatsoever. However, the Bible makes it clear that we are to look for SOUND doctrine. Seeing as neither Trinity or Modalism are both full of hokey pokey, I reject both.
Titus 1:9 - He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (NIV)
God is not defined by your limited vocabulary. God is greater than what you can imagine. He can be THREE or 10,000 all at once and still remain ONE at the same time! What does your vocabulary matter to Him?
DeleteGod is not defined by your limited vocabulary. God is greater than what you can imagine. He can be THREE or 10,000 all at once and still remain ONE at the same time! What does your vocabulary matter to Him?
Delete