Posted on 12/19/2011 4:02:26 PM PST by rhema
Now Jesus could not have been "just an angel" because of John 1 - "In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God."
The term “indifferently” means just what I said, with interchangeability, like six and half a dozen.
“Now Jesus could not have been “just an angel” because of John 1 - “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God.”
Now that we have established that Jesus was not “just an angel” perhaps you can analyze the rest of John 1:1,2.
God is used three times in these two verses, can you identify who is being spoken about from these verses?
That's not correct -- John 10:30 I and my Father are one and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." -John 1:1
And "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." John 1:5 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
and 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
===========
but thank you for sharing your opinion on this.
Because the Word was God.
It would be useful if I understood who you understand the term “God” in the three cases in John 1:1,2 is speaking about. “God from God” isn't found there.
“Because the Word was God.”
Then the Word was “the Godhead”?
“just a man” is not how anyone should describe Jesus. That would trivialize him, I think.
Jesus as just a man does not work, Jesus as a created angelic being, a semi-divine being does not work either.
MHG's post 231 explains it better that
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Synonymous terms - the Godhead is God the Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Jesus is who we read of in John 1 -- the Word WAS God. in John 1:2-3 God is One, the Word is God, the Word was with God. The only way you can reconcile those three sentences is in the Triune nature of God
Jesus as just a man does not work, Jesus as a created angelic being, a semi-divine being does not work either.
MHG's post 231 explains it better that
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
“In the beginning the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was and the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was with Father/Son/Holy Spirit and the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was Father/Son/Holy Spirit.”
Remember...you said the terms were synonymous and that word indicates alike in meaning.
On the other hand, the Scriptures says Jesus called his father “my God” at John 20:17. Was Jesus talking about himself as “my God”? Was Jesus referring to the “Godhead..Father/Son/Holy Spirit” as “my God”?
“The only way you can reconcile those three sentences is in the Triune nature of God”.
But it cannot be reconciled with Scripture and that is the point. And saying that the Word was Father/Son/Holy Spirit cannot be found in John's words.
cronos: Synonymous terms - the Godhead is God the Father-Son-Holy Spirit.
cyc: If Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Word are as you said, “synoymous terms”
hold on there -- read this, I never said that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are synonomous terms, neither did I say that any of these were synonomous terms with the Word.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God -- and as clearly stated in John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.
a simple argument to understand why we edify one another rather than argue.
When we are in fellowship with Him, He performs the work and our will is part of the body, humble to His Will, thereby fulfilling His Plan.
Joh 6:28-29
(28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
(29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
There is One God, not three, here is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
To say Jesus Christ is not God cannot be reconciled with scripture -- He was either God or a demonic faker, nothing in-between.
So, who do you say Jesus was if not God? who else could He be?
cronos: -- so we agree on that bit at least, right? That Jesus was more than just a man and not "just an angel", correct? I believe He was God. You have said you don't, now we can discuss this difference in opinion
Just for the point of clarification, for the sake of the lurkers who don't know the players, could you kindly point out to everyone just where c-y-c made the statement that he said that he didn't believe Jesus was God? I went back through the posted conversation that you two had and didn't see that in there.
Or is that just another unsubstantiated claim thrown out there in an effort to discredit anything else he has to say?
Because you know, that's how it all comes across. Spurious claims based on delusion of some kind are thrown out about various posters, Catholic in general, about the purported beliefs of non-Catholics and then the implication is made that nothing they have to say about God or Christ or the Bible is trustworthy because if they can't get the basics correct, then everything else they say must be suspect. It's extremely disingenuous.
IBTWH.
There is only ONE YHvH, Peter told us that Yah'shua said so in Mark 12:29. (see Deu 6:4)
It is closest to Sabellianism
Clear reading of the Tanach Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:47; 1 Chr. 16:23; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Ps. 3:8; 14:7; 18:2, 46; 21:1; 24:5; 27:1; 35:9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:16; 68:19; 85:7; 88:1; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f; 119:41, 166, 174; 140:7; 149:4; Isa. 12:2; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 49:8; 52:10; 56:1; 61:10; 62:11; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 18
YHvH is my salvation.
Yah'shua NAME means "YHvH is/be my salvation"
See Numbers 13:16 Where Moses changes the son on nun's name from Salvation to YHvH is Salvation
So far we seem to be in agreement, as there's not really any thing to dispute yet, but then you added the reference to the Holy Spirit in Psalms and Isaiah which seemed to indicate that the Holy Spirit is not an individual but rather the breath of YHVH.
If that's so, then how could Paul write in Ephesians 4:30 that we are not to grieve the Holy Spirit? You can grieve a person, but not a thing, so Paul seems to be teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person. Furthermore, Jesus Himself spoke in John 14:16 of the Holy Spirit as an eternal Helper and not just as the breath of YHVH.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12:11, Paul notes that the fruits of the Spirit are given to each Believer according to the will of the Holy Spirit. How can the breath of YHVH have an independent will, such as the text of that passage indicates?
Please don't see this as an antagonistic post, that's not the spirit in which I write this, but I can't see how the stance you're taking is correct. If there's something else that I'm missing, point it out to me but please understand that I don't accept doctrinal authority outside of the Scriptures. Church doctrine, Roman or otherwise, doesn't have any authority unless it has Holy Scripture to back it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.