M
mee
Guest
mee likes to stick to what THE BIBLE TEACHES LUKE 9;35
And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."
The term son denotes a being sharing the same nature as its father.mee likes to stick to what THE BIBLE TEACHES LUKE 9;35
And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."
If the Father is God, the Son is God. If Jesus was not God, then God would not have called Him "my son" — no other prophet of Israel was called such.
Angels are not sons of God, and nowhere in Scripture does it say they are.
You see? You stick to what YOUR PEOPLE TELL YOU the Bible teaches.
Thomas
N
Nick_A
Guest
Seems there have been sons of God around from the beginning. Who is to say who is or who isn't.
Genesis 6
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
Genesis 6
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
M
mee
Guest
Hi Mee —
I said:
"If the Father is God, the Son is God."
That's the whole point, Mee, you misunderstand the meaning of Scripture ... You and your father are two different people, but you are both human beings, you share the same nature.
As it is with fathers and sons, so it is with the Father and the Son.
And that is just what Catholic doctrine says: The Father is greater than the Son, in that the Son proceeds from the Father, but the Son and the Father are one, in that they are one nature.
Two Persons (and with the Holy Spirit, three) one (Divine) nature ... the whole human race is billiopns of persons, but one human nature.
Created, no. Begotten does not mean created. Nowhere does Scripture say created.
"first-born of creation" — to understand this phrase, you have to inquire of 1st century thinking, not 19th century thinking — you have to find out what the authors meant, not what translators assume it means.
I shall deal with it separately.
Thomas
I said:
"If the Father is God, the Son is God."
That's the whole point, Mee, you misunderstand the meaning of Scripture ... You and your father are two different people, but you are both human beings, you share the same nature.
As it is with fathers and sons, so it is with the Father and the Son.
And that is just what Catholic doctrine says: The Father is greater than the Son, in that the Son proceeds from the Father, but the Son and the Father are one, in that they are one nature.
Again, the same misunderstanding. We are not saying that the Son and the Father are one and the same Person.
Two Persons (and with the Holy Spirit, three) one (Divine) nature ... the whole human race is billiopns of persons, but one human nature.
Jesus is the only begotten, yes.
Created, no. Begotten does not mean created. Nowhere does Scripture say created.
"first-born of creation" — to understand this phrase, you have to inquire of 1st century thinking, not 19th century thinking — you have to find out what the authors meant, not what translators assume it means.
I shall deal with it separately.
Thomas
M
mee
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
that's a lot of copy and pasting.
Jesus being God emptied himself, physically died for our sins, and spiritually rose again in a new resurrected and glorified body. No angel can be salvation, just God.
Jesus being God emptied himself, physically died for our sins, and spiritually rose again in a new resurrected and glorified body. No angel can be salvation, just God.
OK Mee, here the author of the Letter to the Hebrews argues against the very error you promote! What better source than Scripture with which to refute your man-made traditions!
Why Jesus is not an angel.
Hebrews Chapter 1:
3
"(The Son) Who being the brightness of (His — the Father's) glory, and the express image of His (the Father's) person, and upholding all things by the word of his power ... "
So the Glory of God shines through the Son (who therefore must be divine to be equal to the task), He is the image of the person of the Father (cf 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' — no angel can make such a claim).
4
"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
He is made better than angels by virtue of the fact that He inherits the nature of the Father who begat Him. A more excellent name being 'Son' which indicates the Divine paternity and thus the Son's own divinity.
5
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Angels do not worship angels, not even archangels. The only thing worthy of worship is God alone.
13-14
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
Spooky, eh, it's just as if Scripture was Itself refuting you!
Thomas
Why Jesus is not an angel.
Hebrews Chapter 1:
3
"(The Son) Who being the brightness of (His — the Father's) glory, and the express image of His (the Father's) person, and upholding all things by the word of his power ... "
So the Glory of God shines through the Son (who therefore must be divine to be equal to the task), He is the image of the person of the Father (cf 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' — no angel can make such a claim).
4
"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
He is made better than angels by virtue of the fact that He inherits the nature of the Father who begat Him. A more excellent name being 'Son' which indicates the Divine paternity and thus the Son's own divinity.
5
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Angels do not worship angels, not even archangels. The only thing worthy of worship is God alone.
13-14
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
Spooky, eh, it's just as if Scripture was Itself refuting you!
Thomas
Dream
Well-Known Member
Seconded. It is a remarkably clarifying post. Who knows where I might be if someone had said that to me a long time ago? It actually makes some sense in my language. You know, not everyone who says they're not trinitarian means the same thing or necessarily denies everything related to the concept.
Thomas said:
But not your copyright infringement, nor your points as noted above.
No, that's what your teachers find ... that's not what the Apostles taught.
Not at all. If you're going to do the job properly, you have to look at every case.
If we look at the other references in Revelations however (1:8, 21:6 and 22:13), arkhe is used in direct reference to God. In each case, the Lord is "the beginning and the end." As God has no beginning and no end, this must be understood in reference to creation, but we would not assume that God begins with creation, or ends when creation ends ... so your conclusion seems to be an erroneous one, suggesting just that.
As the term arkhe is used of God the Father, who has no beginning, then we have Scriptural evidence to suggest that arkhe should be understood in the qualitative rather than the quantitative sense.
I would argue that it is this reading that is the more correct Scriptural interpretation. John, for example, in the Prologue of his gospel says 'In the beginning' as a direct reference to 'In the beginning' of Gesesis 1:1.
However, John is not discussing the beginning of time, but the relationship of the Word to God.
Remember that the beginning in principle is there before the beginning in time, and as Scripture is Scripture, and not a science or history book, we should be sensitive to and aware of the more spiritual and profound reading of the text.
Remember also that the scribes, following Hebrew Tradition, would read four senses into Scripture, the literal, the allegorical, the typological and the anagogical. Any modern interpretation which 'closes down' the deeper, spiritual meanings must therefore be suspect. In effect, you are rendering Scripture subject to human reason — not looking to what God is trying to express, but what one assumes God means according to one's own human limitations.
That's why Scripture does not 'teach' of itself: Contained in Scripture are Mysteries (epistemologies), and their Keys (hermeneutics). As the translators of the NW version would not have been aware of that, they missed it. As they had rejected the teaching of Tradition, they were obliged to come up with another meaning. So you end up with a very literal translation, for the most part stripped of its spiritual savour.
+++
And so do you.
If you're happy to say that JW's are the inheritors of Arianism, so be it, but do realise the Arian error was to interpret Scripture according to Platonic principle.
+++
OK. So what you're saying is that according to other Revelation references, Jehovah is also a created being. Or are we allowed to misread those?
Or perhaps there's a reading of the word 'origin'
Not really, not if you use Arkhe as they understood it, not as origin (which is imprecise in this case) but as Principle.
Oh Mee, oh my! How wrong can you be? The term 'arkhe' derives from Greek philosophy, as does the term 'Logos' (Stoic philosophy, actually) — without Greek philosophy the term would be meaningless, and the reader would be looking at a words he'd never seen and has no idea what it means.
What the Sacred Scribe does is illuminate those truths which transcend philosophy, and are unattainable to it ... thus Scripture is a work of Revelation, not of reason.
+++
You've tripped over your own logic there. Adam is one with all men, in that all men share Adam's (fallen) human nature. If there was no link between adam and all men, Paul wouldn't have bothered mentioning it, would he?
You do twist scripture to make your point, don't you?
OK — so what you're saying is because a word appears in Scripture, you have the freedom to insert it wherever you like?
And change the whole context of the text in so doing?
To make your version 'more intelligible', I suppose?
Thanks Mee, you've just admitted you rewrite Scripture to make it say what you want it to say.
Thomas
N
Nick_A
Guest
Thomas
If you're happy to say that JW's are the inheritors of Arianism, so be it, but do realise the Arian error was to interpret Scripture according to Platonic principle.
You have this impression that your ideas are right. What Arian error? I guess there is nothing wrong with this if you are content. However I'm convinced of the value of esoteric Christianity and the Platonic influence within it. I'm more concerned with understanding the incredible depths of Christianity rather than attempting to prove another wrong. It is a difference between us.
If you're happy to say that JW's are the inheritors of Arianism, so be it, but do realise the Arian error was to interpret Scripture according to Platonic principle.
You have this impression that your ideas are right. What Arian error? I guess there is nothing wrong with this if you are content. However I'm convinced of the value of esoteric Christianity and the Platonic influence within it. I'm more concerned with understanding the incredible depths of Christianity rather than attempting to prove another wrong. It is a difference between us.
And why pray tell did you follow Thomas here? Sudden Christian?...
M
mee
Guest
and there we have it, the truth of what the bible really teaches always gets taken off the thread and posts get taken out the way . nothing changes
nothing changes
M
mee
Guest
That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements.
He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, "I live because of the Father." According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.
He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, "I live because of the Father." According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.
M
mee
Guest
yes the translators of the NWT were not after manmade tradition ,because it clouds the pure word of God . they were after what the bible REALLY teaches .
its much better
and it pleases the most high God JEHOVAH Its good to get back to what the bible really teaches .
(Jehovah causes to become)
M
mee
Guest
its good how the truth can be made know by even mee