independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
| Author | Message |
Forget Thomas... Doubting John the Baptist? Recall, Matthew chapter 3, John the Baptist declares before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Many Jews held the view that the Messiah would restore the political kingdom to the Jews at that time.
So...how's everybody doing?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Is Jesus the messiah? Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall
Love is no Good unless it's felt by All! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jesus is absolutely the Messiah. I believe John was having a period of uncertainty about Jesus because of being in prison. He was going through the normal doubt that we all have when things get tough. I believe he was questioning how could Jesus let him stay in prison if he was indeed the Messiah. Jesus was not at all what they expected, which is why most Jews did not accept him. Let that be a lesson to us all. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: Recall, Matthew chapter 3, John the Baptist declares before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'
John the Baptist deemed himself unworthy to baptize Jesus, saying instead it was himself who needed to be baptized by Jesus. We know in Luke, John said, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” It seems at this point, John the Baptist is convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. Fast forward from Matthew chapter 3 to Matthew chapter 11; John is imprisoned. He hears about the miracles that Jesus is performing, but is strangely uncertain. The once convinced John, now sends his disciples out to seek Jesus. They ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" Should they expect another??? So, what happened? John was convinced, but via the uncertainty expressed by his disciples, he no longer seems sure. Jesus didn’t seem to qualify for John’s expectation of the Messiah. John’s idea of the Messiah was a redeemer of Israel, a forceful warrior, who would redeem the Jews from the bondage of foreign powers. Jesus, instead, spoke of love, he did not fight. When miracles were performed, he initially told observers to be quiet as to what they had seen. Was Jesus the Messiah? Place yourself in the position of the disciples sent forth by John the Baptist. They asked Jesus explicitly, are you the Messiah, or should we expect another? They weren’t convinced. So, the logical thing for Jesus to do would be to say, “Yes, indeed, I am the Messiah!” But, he did not… He simply told the disciples to go back and tell John of the miracles they had seen and heard. Why? Those that have studied the Bible know that Jesus did proclaim to be the Messiah (Matt ch 26). But, why didn’t he say so to John’s disciples? Did Jesus have to say he was the Messiah before John’s disciples believed him? Why the ambiguity? Hmm.. good thoughts here. I think your right, Jesus did choose times to say things but he never withhelt the truth from them. In fact I think more truth was revieled, Jesus didn't say "yes," a black and white answer, he moreover said "well hmm.. do u think i'm the messiah? Well look at evidence look at the facts, test your faith, anyone who claims to a prophet must be a prophet, anyone who claims to be God must be God." Jesus was a storyteller, not a preacher. I mean just look at the OT!  I apologize personally for the Crusades, I personally apologize for televangelists, I personally apologize for neglecting the poor and the lonely, I ask you to forgive me, forgive us, for we have misrepresented Jesus. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
John was convinced, but via the uncertainty expressed by his disciples, he no longer seems sure.
As I see it, the main problem with your (very interesting) theory is that it imputes doubt to John through his disciples. My guess is that, upon the imprisonment of their leader, they were fearful and doubtful, just as they would be after Jesus' death. So, regardless of what John believed, they still were going to doubt. Remember, these cats saw Jesus work wonders and still didn't believe. He told them what was going to happen and they didn't grasp it until after the fact. They ultimately deserted Him. So their doubt, IMHO, should be attributable only to them, not to John.  Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: So their doubt, IMHO, should be attributable only to them, not to John.
Fair enough. However, I think some element of doubt existed in John... What was their purpose for visiting Jesus? Just to witness the miracles Christ was performing? Or, to see if Jesus would redeem John along w/ the rest of the Jews. I think doubt began to exist... IMHO, I have no doubt that Christ was/is the Messiah. Here's my reason for posting the question: Clearly, situations existed where Jesus didn't brag about being the Messiah. As stated perviously, when others witnessed some of the miracles Christ performed, Jesus himself said don't tell anyone. He knew the Jews and Gentiles wouldn't be able to comprehend who Jesus really was, the Messiah. So, if Jesus played down his roll as the Messiah, wouldn't it make even more sense that he'd play down his existance as God in the flesh? Surely, those around him wouldn't be able to comprehend such a concept...  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: So, if Jesus played down his roll as the Messiah, wouldn't it make even more sense that he'd play down his existance as God in the flesh? Surely, those around him wouldn't be able to comprehend such a concept..
So..... The LESS Jesus spoke of something, the MORE important, just too hard to understand, is was? If he didn't say ANYTHING on a topic, could it be the MOST important, just impossible for us to understand? Then maybe XxAxX is right. I don't see any scripture where Jesus says he's an alien from another dimension. Too important and too hard to understand? or..... Could it simply be that he really was what GOD SAID he was: Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved." (Matt. 3:17) Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: namepeace said: So their doubt, IMHO, should be attributable only to them, not to John.
Fair enough. However, I think some element of doubt existed in John... What was their purpose for visiting Jesus? Just to witness the miracles Christ was performing? Or, to see if Jesus would redeem John along w/ the rest of the Jews. I think doubt began to exist... IMHO, I have no doubt that Christ was/is the Messiah. Here's my reason for posting the question: Clearly, situations existed where Jesus didn't brag about being the Messiah. As stated perviously, when others witnessed some of the miracles Christ performed, Jesus himself said don't tell anyone. He knew the Jews and Gentiles wouldn't be able to comprehend who Jesus really was, the Messiah. So, if Jesus played down his roll as the Messiah, wouldn't it make even more sense that he'd play down his existance as God in the flesh? Surely, those around him wouldn't be able to comprehend such a concept... Well, it's a fair observation. John never purported to claim equality or full knowledge of Christ's existence. It was revealed to Him. If Jesus Himself expressed fear and doubt in his last hours, then certainly it's possible John doubted Jesus. Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: So..... The LESS Jesus spoke of something, the MORE important, just too hard to understand, is was? If he didn't say ANYTHING on a topic, could it be the MOST important, just impossible for us to understand? Then maybe XxAxX is right. I don't see any scripture where Jesus says he's an alien from another dimension. Too important and too hard to understand?
I’m sure you’d agree that any supposition of Jesus being an alien would render no scriptural support, whatsoever. There’s no need to patronize this viewpoint, and to assume that if Jesus didn’t speak it, it never was is eagerly too simplistic. The Old Testament prophecy that spoke of the coming of Jesus / the Messiah spoke of God dwelling with his own people, spoke of Jehovah God saying to Jesus, “O God, Your Throne is Forever”. We know that John the Baptist was prophesized as being the one to precede Christ (Prepare the way of the LORD). We know that the Old Testament says that only God is the Savior, while New Testament says it is Jesus. We know that God is the first and the last, and Jesus is the first and the last. We know that the Old Testament says to only worship God, while the New Testament speaks of multitudes worshipping Jesus (to which Christ doesn’t correct). We know that when Christ was born, he was referred to as “Mighty God.” We know that the OT speaks of only God forgiving sin, but Jesus was blasphemed because he himself forgave sin. Finally, we see that only God is glorified, and he will not give glory to another (Isaiah 42:8). Now, you may choose to ignore these, or dismiss them as translation errors or semantic issues (“what does it mean to dwell?”). In our past discussion, every scripture segment I’ve provided supporting the trinity has been dismissed as errors in the translation. Fine… And, if it were a verse here or there, then I'd be open to the concept. But, there are just too many versus that support the concept of the trinity. Does it make sense to read what is stated and then formulate an opinion, or to formulate an opinion, and then read it within a "framed context." What is comfortable vs. what is written. While you can quote Matt 3:17 and say that Jesus was just a man, just God’s son, I can quote one that supports Christ as God in the flesh. Namely: 1 John 3:16 – “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” OR Acts 20:28 – “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In the past, you’ve supported your argument that Jesus had to be just a man, to prove that man can perfectly serve God. How do we know that’s what God wants? Is God too demanding if a simple man cannot serve him? Or, maybe, God wants us to understand that without him, we are nothing. That he, himself, had to serve in the flesh as the redemption. Hmm… For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: NotDeaf said: So..... The LESS Jesus spoke of something, the MORE important, just too hard to understand, is was? If he didn't say ANYTHING on a topic, could it be the MOST important, just impossible for us to understand? Then maybe XxAxX is right. I don't see any scripture where Jesus says he's an alien from another dimension. Too important and too hard to understand?
In the past, you’ve supported your argument that Jesus had to be just a man, to prove that man can perfectly serve God. How do we know that’s what God wants? Is God too demanding if a simple man cannot serve him? Or, maybe, God wants us to understand that without him, we are nothing. That he, himself, had to serve in the flesh as the redemption. Hmm… The trinity must still answer to the issue of the ransom. Matthew 20:28 says that the "Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul as a ransom in exchange for many". 1 Corinthians 15:45 refers to Jesus as "the last Adam". The sacrifice of his human life had to make up for what Adam had lost. Jesus existed as a man on earth in order for this to happen. He lived and died as a faithful, perfect man. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: The trinity must still answer to the issue of the ransom. Matthew 20:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:45...
And how does it NOT answer the issue of the "ransom"?? Consider the verses that speak of Jesus as God. Consider the verses that speak of Jesus as man. Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man and the Son of God... Christ was divine and human in nature. I'm glad you quoted 1 Corinthians 15:45, but lets read further into verses 47-49: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." So, how can Jesus be just a perfect man, but come from heaven? No other mere man came from heaven. Just because he was divine AND human, does not mean that his human life cannot serve as a sacrifice for our sin? The trinity does indeed answer to the issue of the ransom. How does a non-trinitarian agenda answer to the OT prophecy that spoke of God dwelling with his people? It still has to answer to why God gave his creative glory to Jesus, when in Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah God Himself says, "I will not give my glory to another..." A perspective of Jesus as an angle still has to answer to Hebrews 1 which states Jesus is not an angle (he is higher), but "the exact representation of his (God's) being. I'd be curious to know how a non-trinitarian viewpoint addresses these issues / scripture. BTW Odyssey, I dig your signature...  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: The Old Testament prophecy that spoke of the coming of Jesus / the Messiah spoke of God dwelling with his own people, spoke of Jehovah God saying to Jesus, “O God, Your Throne is Forever”.
Hebrews 1:8, which is addressed to the Son of God, can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,”. It is also a quote from Psalm 45:6. - God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. Now, you may choose to ignore these, or dismiss them as translation errors or semantic issues (“what does it mean to dwell?”). In our past discussion, every scripture segment I’ve provided supporting the trinity has been dismissed as errors in the translation.
Is not a proper understanding the ultimate goal? If there are errors in translation, or in semantics, shouldn’t one investigate them? As far as the scripture segments you’ve provided, most of them have been debated for YEARS. It’s not just me.  These translation issues are STILL being debated by scholars at University and beyond. If these issues aren’t yet decided on by those who do the translating, shouldn’t we be open to the POSSIBLE renderings as well?
But, there are just too many versus that support the concept of the trinity. Does it make sense to read what is stated and then formulate an opinion, or to formulate an opinion, and then read it within a "framed context." What is comfortable vs. what is written.
Certainly. Shouldn’t this also be done when reading scriptures that DON’T support the trinity? While you can quote Matt 3:17 and say that Jesus was just a man, just God’s son, I can quote one that supports Christ as God in the flesh. Namely:
1 John 3:16 – “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” You won’t like my answer to this. I’ll just post from the online parallel Bible: ----- By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. John's Second Letter WEB Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. ASV In this we see what love is, because he gave his life for us; and it is right for us to give our lives for the brothers. BBE Hereby we have known love, because he has laid down his life for us; and we ought for the brethren to lay down our lives. DBY Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. KJV By this we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. WBS We know what love is--through Christ's having laid down His life on our behalf; and in the same way we ought to lay down our lives for our brother men. WEY in this we have known the love, because he for us his life did lay down, and we ought for the brethren the lives to lay down; YLT ----- Only 2 of the 8 use the words ‘of God’. Why don’t the others? This scripture does not say that God laid down his life. (And yes there are also semantics involved) In the past, you’ve supported your argument that Jesus had to be just a man, to prove that man can perfectly serve God. How do we know that’s what God wants? Is God too demanding if a simple man cannot serve him? Or, maybe, God wants us to understand that without him, we are nothing.
Again, that would put the blame for all suffering, sin and death at GOD’S feet. That this mess of a world we live in IS what God’s wants. He WANTS us to suffer. And sorry, regardless of trinity or non, I CANNOT accept that God WANTS us to live like this. Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: The trinity must still answer to the issue of the ransom. Matthew 20:28 says that the "Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul as a ransom in exchange for many". 1 Corinthians 15:45 refers to Jesus as "the last Adam". The sacrifice of his human life had to make up for what Adam had lost. Jesus existed as a man on earth in order for this to happen. He lived and died as a faithful, perfect man.
"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." The ransom was paid in full on the cross. Jesus and our Father are one, and have the full knowledge of the ransom that was paid, and accepted. We do not need to decipher the trinity, to understand the payment of our transgressions, but have comfort that it was paid in full. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Levithe Berean said "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
Here! Here! Truer words have never been spoken!!! God, being alive, raised Jesus from the dead.... the ransom is wonderful!!! So...how's everybody doing? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SensualMelody said: LevitheBerean said "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
Here! Here! Truer words have never been spoken!!! God, being alive, raised Jesus from the dead.... the ransom is wonderful!!! Don't misunderstand what I say... The Name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit, are indeed one and the same. If John the Baptist had any doubts... it was his flesh thinking for him. Any and all doubt is pointless. God is Spirit, and we must worship Him in Spirit. We must understand His oneness, in spirit. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LeviTheBerean said: OdysseyMiles said: The trinity must still answer to the issue of the ransom. Matthew 20:28 says that the "Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul as a ransom in exchange for many". 1 Corinthians 15:45 refers to Jesus as "the last Adam". The sacrifice of his human life had to make up for what Adam had lost. Jesus existed as a man on earth in order for this to happen. He lived and died as a faithful, perfect man.
"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." The ransom was paid in full on the cross. Jesus and our Father are one, and have the full knowledge of the ransom that was paid, and accepted. I agree that the ransom was paid in full. I also agree that Jehovah accepted it from his son, Christ Jesus. LeviTheBerean said: We do not need to decipher the trinity, to understand the payment of our transgressions, but have comfort that it was paid in full.
I also agree with this, in a way. I personally do not need the trinity in my worship at all. Everything that the bible says about Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, the holy spirit and the ransom still makes sense without the idea of the trinity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: Everything that the bible says about Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, the holy spirit and the ransom still makes sense without the idea of the trinity.
OM, I am staying away from doctrinal disputes these days, but please elaborate on this. Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are scripturally based under your analysis. So, and I'm really asking here, how does your acknowledgement of these entities coincide with your belief, or lack thereof, in the trinity? I ask genuinely because I believe you'll give an informative answer. Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are scripturally based under your analysis. So, and I'm really asking here, how does your acknowledgement of these entities coincide with your belief, or lack thereof, in the trinity?
My knowledge of God's oneness is completely evident from Scripture. Some people choose to believe while others do not. I wouldn't post anything that I couldn't back up with Scripture, but the trinity has been debated to death on these boards. We agree to disagree on the matter. _ [Edited 6/23/05 12:24pm] Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LeviTheBerean said:[quote] namepeace said: OdysseyMiles said: Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are scripturally based under your analysis. So, and I'm really asking here, how does your acknowledgement of these entities coincide with your belief, or lack thereof, in the trinity?
My knowledge of God's oneness is completely evident from Scripture. Some people choose to believe while others do not. I wouldn't post anything that I couldn't back up with Scripture, but the trinity has been debated to death on these boards. We agree to disagree on the matter. 
The quote you posted was from me, not OM. I wouldn't agree to disagree with anyone with whom I actually agree (I believe in the Triune God). I was just wanting my friend OM to give me more info, and not for the purposes of fueling the argument. [Edited 6/23/05 12:20pm] Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: The quote you posted was from me, not OM.
You're right... I accidentally deleted the wrong name. I guess I only replied, cause I know where the witnesses stand on the trinity. _ [Edited 6/23/05 12:26pm] Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: OdysseyMiles said: Everything that the bible says about Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, the holy spirit and the ransom still makes sense without the idea of the trinity.
OM, I am staying away from doctrinal disputes these days, but please elaborate on this. Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are scripturally based under your analysis. So, and I'm really asking here, how does your acknowledgement of these entities coincide with your belief, or lack thereof, in the trinity? I ask genuinely because I believe you'll give an informative answer. I appreciate you asking, and I also appreciate the way you asked.
Personally, I acknowledge the Father, Son and holy spirit. I simply do not worship them as a triune God. I actually do not view God's holy spirit as a person, but his active force. Many bible texts will refer to the holy spirit as a helper that "teaches", "bears witness", "speaks" and "hears". Then you have other bible texts that say people were "filled" with holy spirit, "baptized" with it or "anointed" with it. When I look at the bible as a whole and take into consideration that no personal name is applied to the holy spirit, I understand it to be God's active force and not a literal person. As for Jehovah God the Father, there are simply too many scriptures for me to mention here that tell us to give whole-souled worship to him and only him. A couple that stick out to me are: 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV) 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. John 17:3 (English-NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I don't believe that Jehovah and Jesus are equals. When Christ was on the earth, he was obedient to his Father, stressing that he “cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” (John 5:19) My understanding is that Jesus was not only obedient to his father, but lovingly submissive. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV) Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. John 20:17 (English-NIV) Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Basically, my personal study of the bible has taught me that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God. When on earth, he was a human being with freedom of choice, and he chose to fulfill the prophecies spoken about his life. He chose to trust and obey God and never sin. He was able to do the things he did because God was with him (Acts 10:38). He died for our sins as our one-time ransom redeemer. Jehovah God made Jesus’ sacrifice the acceptable payment for all of mankind’s sin and then promoted Jesus to his right hand, making him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So, based on my understanding of the scriptures, I simply don't see that the bible implicitly stresses a need to worship a triune God. Instead, I've always understood the need to worship one God, Jehovah. When I pray to him, I offer that prayer in Jesus' name. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: namepeace said: OM, I am staying away from doctrinal disputes these days, but please elaborate on this. Apparently, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are scripturally based under your analysis. So, and I'm really asking here, how does your acknowledgement of these entities coincide with your belief, or lack thereof, in the trinity? I ask genuinely because I believe you'll give an informative answer. I appreciate you asking, and I also appreciate the way you asked.
Personally, I acknowledge the Father, Son and holy spirit. I simply do not worship them as a triune God. I actually do not view God's holy spirit as a person, but his active force. Many bible texts will refer to the holy spirit as a helper that "teaches", "bears witness", "speaks" and "hears". Then you have other bible texts that say people were "filled" with holy spirit, "baptized" with it or "anointed" with it. When I look at the bible as a whole and take into consideration that no personal name is applied to the holy spirit, I understand it to be God's active force and not a literal person. As for Jehovah God the Father, there are simply too many scriptures for me to mention here that tell us to give whole-souled worship to him and only him. A couple that stick out to me are: 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV) 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. John 17:3 (English-NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I don't believe that Jehovah and Jesus are equals. When Christ was on the earth, he was obedient to his Father, stressing that he “cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” (John 5:19) My understanding is that Jesus was not only obedient to his father, but lovingly submissive. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV) Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. John 20:17 (English-NIV) Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Basically, my personal study of the bible has taught me that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God. When on earth, he was a human being with freedom of choice, and he chose to fulfill the prophecies spoken about his life. He chose to trust and obey God and never sin. He was able to do the things he did because God was with him (Acts 10:38). He died for our sins as our one-time ransom redeemer. Jehovah God made Jesus’ sacrifice the acceptable payment for all of mankind’s sin and then promoted Jesus to his right hand, making him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So, based on my understanding of the scriptures, I simply don't see that the bible implicitly stresses a need to worship a triune God. Instead, I've always understood the need to worship one God, Jehovah. When I pray to him, I offer that prayer in Jesus' name. Thanks for the cogent explanation, and I expected nothing less. Peace. Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: OdysseyMiles said: stuff.
Thanks for the cogent explanation, and I expected nothing less. Peace. You're welcome, my friend. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: stuff about 1John 3:16
That’s fine. We can go back and forth, and you can suggest that the KJV has an agenda or, at the very least, is riddled with translation errors. Care to address Acts 20:28? You know, the one that says God purchased the church with his OWN blood… NotDeaf said: Again, that would put the blame for all suffering, sin and death at GOD’S feet. That this mess of a world we live in IS what God’s wants. He WANTS us to suffer. And sorry, regardless of trinity or non, I CANNOT accept that God WANTS us to live like this.
He wants us to suffer?? I certainly don’t look at it that way. Consider this… You have a daughter, right? I myself have two (very young, 2 and 3 yrs old). When it’s dinner time, and she still wants to play with her toys, or play with her friends, but you need her to eat, do you take her away from her friends or toys because you want her to suffer? If she wants to ride her bike without a helmet, but you make her wear it, is it because you want her to be uncomfortable? Absolutely not! You do it because you have a higher understanding. She may not understand why you make her eat, do things to make her safe, make her avoid things that are dangerous, etc. The point is, you have wisdom that she has yet to gain. So, while you may view my argument that Jesus was more than a man as meaning God is unjust, I would argue that such a judgment cannot be made until we totally understand the master-plan. God needs us to depend on him for all things. Even the redemption… OdysseyMiles said: As for Jehovah God the Father, there are simply too many scriptures for me to mention here that tell us to give whole-souled worship to him and only him.
Fair enough. So, when the multitudes came to worship Jesus, why didn’t he correct them? He accepted the worship. Why would Jesus do that? Also, please address why God gave all his creative glory to Jesus, but in Isaiah 42:8 he says, “’I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another… “ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Can you imagine if Jesus were your cousin, for Pete's sake???
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: That’s fine. We can go back and forth, and you can suggest that the KJV has an agenda or, at the very least, is riddled with translation errors. Care to address Acts 20:28? You know, the one that says God purchased the church with his OWN blood…
If you insist. But again, you will not like the answer. di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou Is the phrase in question. What does it mean? Grammatically, this passage could be translated as “with his own blood.” But, the Greek words του ιδίου (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” So, the entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ιδιος [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ο ιδιος [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11 13:1, Ac 4:23 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” (I said you wouldn’t like it…..) He wants us to suffer?? I certainly don’t look at it that way. Consider this… You have a daughter, right? I myself have two (very young, 2 and 3 yrs old). When it’s dinner time, and she still wants to play with her toys, or play with her friends, but you need her to eat, do you take her away from her friends or toys because you want her to suffer? If she wants to ride her bike without a helmet, but you make her wear it, is it because you want her to be uncomfortable?
Absolutely not! You do it because you have a higher understanding. She may not understand why you make her eat, do things to make her safe, make her avoid things that are dangerous, etc. The point is, you have wisdom that she has yet to gain. Sorry, it’s not the same situation. To be the same I would have to set her up. I would have to invite her friends over, tell her to go play with them, WITH THE GOAL of making her stop playing. I would have to MAKE her ride the bike JUST SO I COULD make her wear the helmet. The difference is, that God made mankind with the purpose of living a wonderful life, in a wonderful world. Gen. 1:28 - Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” Nothing about ‘and suffer death, and sickness, to learn than I am God’. You hold that God wants us to suffer, in order to learn. I hold that we suffer due to Adam’s sin at the encouragement of Eve, who was deceived by Satan. And that God’s plan is to restore mankind to his ORIGINAL purpose. That is what the ransom is all about. So, while you may view my argument that Jesus was more than a man as meaning God is unjust, I would argue that such a judgment cannot be made until we totally understand the master-plan. God needs us to depend on him for all things. Even the redemption… Then neither should you view my argument that Jesus was ’only’ human as demeaning to him. After all, if we do not ’totally understand the master-plan’, a non-trinitarian view COULD be correct.Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotDeaf said: You hold that God wants us to suffer, in order to learn.
I hold that God allows us to suffer to learn. Does he want us to, no, but that is the byproduct of freewill. The common GOAL in both analogies (God with us, Dads with their daughters) is that we show our love for our children. A child needs to understand the value of a parent, and a sinner needs to understand the value of a relationship with God. Do you believe that God is all knowing? If so, God knew Adam and Eve would fall. He knew it would happen. So, if God is all knowing, he knowingly set them up! If God’s plan is to restore mankind to his ORIGINAL purpose, then the fall must have been part of his plan. Or, was God surprised that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge? NotDeaf said: If you insist. But again, you will not like the answer (RE: Acts 20:28).
di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou Is the phrase in question. What does it mean? Grammatically, this passage could be translated as “with his own blood.” But, the Greek words του ιδίου (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” So, the entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ιδιος [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ο ιδιος [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11 13:1, Ac 4:23 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Hold the food cart, cuz’ you just tossed me a doughnut! That’s all good how you say the expression “could be translated…” But, the NWT (for example) reads like this – “‘Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].’ NOWHERE in the original Greek does the addition of [Son] appear. Nowhere, nadda… The NAS, NIV, KJV, etc. all refer to “the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” It’s great that Moulton says that this “reordering” could occur, but what do the original Greek manuscripts say. That’s what’s most important. Let us remember what 2Peter 3:16 says… For someone who is a stickler for the proper Greek and Hebrew, I’m surprised that the additions and alterations contained in some Bibles don’t concern you (so it seems). I guess, at the end of the day I have three questions I’d like to run by you: 1. Why did Jesus allow people to worship him, if we are only to worship Jehovah God? Jesus never corrected those who worshiped him. Why is that? 2. Why did God give all his creative glory to Jesus, when in Isaiah Isaiah 42:8 God says he will not do this? 3. Who is Jesus? I mean, before he came into human form, who is he? Another god, an angel, what is he? I’ve offered scriptural support for who he is, to which you disagree, so can you enlighten me as to what you believe Jesus is beyond human? For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. – 2Timothy 4:3-4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: I hold that God allows us to suffer to learn. ….a sinner needs to understand the value of a relationship with God.
How was Jesus able to understand this, not being a sinner? If he is able to understand it, as well as the angels who remain faithful, why do we have to suffer to learn it? If Adam was perfect and failed, why couldn’t God just try again with another Adam? Knowing all things, he could keep making Adams until he made one that WOULD choose to be faithful. Then, no suffering would be needed. Is there a point to the suffering we see? Yes. You are correct that it proves that we must subject ourselves to God. Without his guidance, we cannot do anything right. Jeremiah 10:23 - I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. That Adam chose to reject this idea, and condemn us to sin and death, is not God’s fault. SoIDanced said: (RE: Acts 20:28) NOWHERE in the original Greek does the addition of [Son] appear. Nowhere, nadda… The NAS, NIV, KJV, etc. all refer to “the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” It’s great that Moulton says that this “reordering” could occur, but what do the original Greek manuscripts say. That’s what’s most important.
The Greek Grammar 1. The word "own" and its use in Koine Greek context Very often one can find Trinitarian commentators and apologists jumping up and down vehemently protesting against other commentators and translators who would translate this passage as "blood of his own son" instead of "his own blood." They claim that since the word "son" is not present in the original Greek, and it is not, then it is completely unfeasible to translate it as "blood of his own son. These Trinitarian apologists must be either very ignorant of the facts or they are quite dishonest. The RSV, a major translation that was translated by Trinitarian scholars does indeed translate it as "blood of his own son" and there is a very good reason they do so. Trinitarian apologists not only hide this valid reason from people but they also insinuate, and sometimes explicitly declare, that if the word "son" does not appear in Acts 20:28, it is not then implied either. However, this disingenuous claim is simply not true because the word "son" is indeed implied. It was indeed very common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" without an accompanying noun where the noun is unmentioned but it is also indeed implied and there are several examples in the New Testament and even right here in Luke's very own words in the book of Acts which we will henceforth review to reveal the truth of that matter. Concerning this passage, Trinitarian Greek scholar J.H. Moulton tells us that it is quite normal to use the Greek word for "own" without explicitly stating an accompanying noun. He writes: "Before leaving [idious] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: eg.[ho deina to idio khairein.] In Expositor... I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B.Weiss) who would translate Ac 20.28 'the blood of one who was his own.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.1, Prologomena, 2nd edition, 1906, p.90). Let us now review some New Testament examples where the word idos ("own") is used where the idea that is attached to it is unmentioned but implied and expected to be understood by the reader. (Format is scripture - Literal Text / Implied Meaning) John 1:11 - He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him. / He came unto his own [people] and his own [people] did not receive him. John 13:1 - having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them to the end / having loved his own [disciples] he loved them to the end John 19:27 - Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her to the own / Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her [to his own home]. 1 Timothy 5:8 - But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever / But if anyone does not provide for his own [family], and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Acts 4:23 - And being let go, they went to their own / And being let go, they went to their own [Christian brethren] Acts 21:6 - we went into the ship and they returned to their own / we went into the ship and they returned to their own [lives/families] Acts 24:23 - and to forbid none of his own from providing for him and coming to him / and to forbid none of his own [friends] from providing for him and coming to him Acts 28:20 - the church... he purchased with the blood of his own / the church... he purchased with the blood of his own [son] The literal word for word translations shown above imply a concept that is not explicitly mentioned in the original Greek text but is most certainly implied. It was common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" in this respect and leave the reader to understand what is implied but not stated. The Implied Meaning is what the writer expects the reader to understand. We can see plainly that there is nothing unusual about first century Greek writers using the word idios ("own") without an accompanying noun and that an idea was simply implied and expected to be understood by the reader. In fact, we can see from the above evidences in Acts that Luke has a habit of writing this way. He does the very same thing four times in this same book of Acts. In each and every case, we are are left to infer what the word "own" intends to imply to us. 2. Terms of Endearment There is yet another piece of evidence which cannot be ignored. Notice our above examples. In each and every case the possessive "own" refers to dear or loved ones. We happen to do the very same thing in English when we say we "take care of our own." Our own what? Our own loved ones and our own things which are dear to us. The idea is not stated explicitly but implied. The term ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. In the present sense idios is the equivalent of Hebrew YAHID, "only," "well-beloved," otherwise rendered beloved, chosen only-begotten (See F.F.Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed., p. 434. See J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90). Note how this is clearly presented by Jesus in the Gospel of John. If you were of the world, the world would love its own (ho idios) but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 3. Trinitarian Greek Scholars Due to the above evidence, there are numerous well known Trinitarian Greek scholars who believe the passage intends to imply "blood of his own son, including Bruce, Fitzmeyer, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser. This in itself reveals the passage does not support Trinitarian dogma as Trinitarian apologists wish it did. Fitzmeyer writes: "The mention of blood" must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood of Jesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God's own possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1:14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoing an OT motif (1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of God the Father and the Son as so closely related that his mode of speaking slips from one to the other; if so, it resembles the speech patterns of the Johannine Gospel." Krodel writes: "...he has 'purchased' or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translation of v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in the first edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads 'his own.' Like 'the Beloved'. (Eph. 1:6), so "his own" refers to the Son of God. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using a traditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through the atoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God's possession." 4. The Greek word dia The Greek word used at Acts 20:28 is not "with" but "through" (dia) and actually reads "through or "by" the blood of his own" where the word implies a "means." When it is translated as "by" it means "by means of." This is an extremely typical New Testament way of referring to the relationship of God and his Son. God is said to have created through Jesus Christ or by [means of] Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6) and did miracles through Jesus Christ or by means of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22). Relating God and Christ in this way is very, very common in the New Testament. Thus it is even more likely that Acts 20:28 is intended to convey, "he purchased through/by the blood of his own son." Conclusion If nothing else, Acts 20:28 is plagued with so many difficulties that it renders the passage as useless as evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. Luke may not have even wrote "Church of God" but instead had written "Church of the Lord" as Irenaeus' early quotation indicates. The reasonable person can also see that "God's blood" stands oddly in the Scriptures. And even if the passage was written by Luke to say "church of God", we can see clearly that it was common to use the term "the own" without an accompanying noun with the expectation the reader would understand the inference to God's son which was made. And when we add to this the fact that the church was purchased "through" the blood of his own, it really matters not if the passage says "Church of God" or not since this could easily mean and would likely mean "through the blood of his own son." No matter how you slice it and dice it, the Trinitarian essentially has absolutely nothing at Acts 20:28 but his own desire to promote a concept that the passage does not. ----- The above was originally posted by: K.N. Stovra Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoIDanced said: 1. Why did Jesus allow people to worship him, if we are only to worship Jehovah God? Jesus never corrected those who worshiped him. Why is that?
To what ‘worship’ are you referring? All the ‘worshiping’ that the King James renders from the Greek proskyne´ō? Here is a discussion on that topic. It is a direct answer to the question: Should we worship Jesus? The clergy of Christendom that believe in a trinity as the main doctrine of Christianity will answer with a positive Yes to this question. Quite to be expected, for they believe that worshiping Jesus is at the same time worshiping God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, for these three they believe to be Three Persons mysteriously making up one God. The King James Version of the English Bible was rendered by trinitarian translators, and doubtless for this reason the translators rendered the Greek word proskyne´ō by the word “worship,” when applying to Jesus. In fact, in every case of its occurrence in the Christian Greek Scriptures they consistently rendered this Greek verb by “worship.” So we read of the magi’s “worshiping” the babe Jesus, and of persons who approached Jesus or received healing from him or asked favors of him “worshiping” Jesus on earth. However, we note in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures that in all these cases of Jesus’ receiving such attention on earth as a man this Greek verb is rendered, not as “worship,” but as “do obeisance to.” This is in harmony with the fact that this Greek verb proskyne´ō occurs many times in the Greek Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures and there this verb is used toward men, such as Joseph the son of Jacob and Boaz the benefactor of Ruth. In these latter cases proskyne´ō could not mean “worship” but merely bowing or doing obeisance to a person out of deep respect. So it must have been such outward show of respect that was paid to Jesus on earth, because he was viewed as being God’s representative, servant and prophet, and as the Son of David who was to be the Messianic King. The kings of ancient Israel were regularly bowed down to in obeisance. The New World Translation is not detracting from Jesus the Son of God by thus rendering this Greek verb as meaning the doing of obeisance to Jesus while on earth. Be it noted, however, that there are other Greek words that the King James Version renders “worship,” but not a single one of these Greek verbs is directed to Jesus to show that such action was commanded to be performed or was performed toward him. Surely when Luke 14:10 (KJ) says, “Then shalt thou have worship [do´xa] in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee,” Jesus did not mean that a human guest who was given a higher place at a Jewish meal would be worshiped, but it meant he would merely “have honor,” as the New World Translation renders the word (do´xa). Thus we see that the Christian Greek Scriptures make a distinction between Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ, by reserving some words rendered “worship” for God, to the exclusion of Jesus. When Satan the Devil tempted Jesus to try to have him worship the adversary, Jesus did not say to the Tempter, ‘Worship me,’ but said, “It is Jehovah your God you must worship [proskyne´ō], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service [latreu´ō].” (Matt. 4:10, NW; Luke 4:8) Jesus, speaking and including himself, said to the Samaritan woman: “You worship [proskyne´ō] what you do not know; we worship [proskyne´ō] what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. . . . the genuine worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth. . . . God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:22-24, NW) Jesus, even after his glorification in heaven, did not change from directing worship to God his Father rather than to himself. In the Revelation, which God gave Jesus, the pure worship is shown as due to be given to the Most High God, Jehovah. (See Revelation 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10.) And when John fell down at the feet of the angel whom Jesus sent to deliver the revelation, the angel said to John: “Worship God.” (Rev. 19:10; 22:9) Thus the worship was to be rendered to Jehovah God, although blessing, glory and praise were to be ascribed to the glorified Jesus, the Lamb, as well as to God his Father. Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic
Printable
!
