Total Posts:535|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was Jesus son of God, or Sun of holy spirit?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 4:38:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is that such a silly question as it sounds?

Not really.

Many people claim that Jesus being called the only begotten son applies to his human birth rather than to his creation by his father.

But does it?

Matthew 1:18
KJV(i) 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

So who or what made Mary pregnant?

According to that Scripture which comes from the King James version, but is virtually identical in every translation I've checked it in, the human Jesus was the son not of God the holy spirit.

It's there, in black and white, in God's word, in just about any translation you care to name.

However, there is a way round it. If you believe, as I do, that holy spirit is neither more nor less than God's active force, the instrument he uses to do all his work, rather than a sentient being, a personality, then you can still say that Matthew 1:18 is still describing the human Jesus as the son of God, because holy spirit then becomes merely the instrument that God used to fertilise the egg in Mary's womb, and make it into the fetus of a perfect human child.

Surely that Scripture more than any other proves that holy spirit is not a person, but an instrument, God's active force, which God or anyone he chooses uses to do his work.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:44:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well Jesus is the Son of Mary, a descendant of David, he is the son of man.

If God created him he equally created Adam and All his progeny.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 6:44:22 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Well Jesus is the Son of Mary, a descendant of David, he is the son of man.

If God created him he equally created Adam and All his progeny.

Scripture describes it two ways.

It describes Christ is a master-worker, working alongside his father in creating everything else.

It also says everything else was created through Christ.

Taken together they described the situation perfectly. And they fit in with the fact that, according to Genesis, God turned to his son and said, "let us make man in our image".

This suggests that whilst God is the designer of all, and therefore the creator, he and his son worked together on creating the Angels the universe, and everything else.

It certainly doesn't negate God being the creator. He is the creator in the same sense that Edison invented the light bulb. The fact that it was workers in his laboratory was actually invented it does not change that fact. They did so on his instructions and on his time, if you like.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:35:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:38:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Is that such a silly question as it sounds?

Not really.

Many people claim that Jesus being called the only begotten son applies to his human birth rather than to his creation by his father.

But does it?

Matthew 1:18
KJV(i) 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

So who or what made Mary pregnant?

According to that Scripture which comes from the King James version, but is virtually identical in every translation I've checked it in, the human Jesus was the son not of God the holy spirit.

It's there, in black and white, in God's word, in just about any translation you care to name.

However, there is a way round it. If you believe, as I do, that holy spirit is neither more nor less than God's active force, the instrument he uses to do all his work, rather than a sentient being, a personality, then you can still say that Matthew 1:18 is still describing the human Jesus as the son of God, because holy spirit then becomes merely the instrument that God used to fertilise the egg in Mary's womb, and make it into the fetus of a perfect human child.

Surely that Scripture more than any other proves that holy spirit is not a person, but an instrument, God's active force, which God or anyone he chooses uses to do his work.

See what happens when you dismiss scripture? It's not really that difficult:

I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You still haven't explained this one.

John 4:
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God is a Spirit. So asking whether God or the Holy Spirit got Mary pregnant is pointless. God and the Holy Spirit are one and they are both spirit. God did.

As for Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, it speaks specifically to Psalm 2 and his position from God.

Psalm 2:
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Jesus is declared the only begotten Son in John 3, so He's the only person God could have been talking of.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. God spoke the world into existence. Why is it hard to understand that Jesus Christ was there if words are what one speaks?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:44:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
He was the Sun of the Holy Spirit. Tanning humans worldwide since 1066.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:06:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 7:24:25 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/13/2013 6:44:22 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Well Jesus is the Son of Mary, a descendant of David, he is the son of man.

If God created him he equally created Adam and All his progeny.

Scripture describes it two ways.

It describes Christ is a master-worker, working alongside his father in creating everything else.

It also says everything else was created through Christ.

What are you saying, Jesus didn't say that in the scripture, that is the author of John who said that as an introduction ,and you don't even know who he is! so how can you take what he says as a pillar in your religion when you don't even identify him.Jesus didn't do anything, even the works he did were the Works of God, just like he said and repeated. but you guys leave that is plain like light and follow that is uncertain!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You still haven't explained this one.

What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:06:22 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What are you saying, Jesus didn't say that in the scripture, that is the author of John who said that as an introduction ,and you don't even know who he is! so how can you take what he says as a pillar in your religion when you don't even identify him.Jesus didn't do anything, even the works he did were the Works of God, just like he said and repeated. but you guys leave that is plain like light and follow that is uncertain!

Using that logic, you can dismiss the entire Bible. If that's what you're saying, you should just be honest and say it and quietly exit the discussion.

John was an apostle of Christ that followed Christ around for three years and wrote his history. Paul, another apostle, although after the fact, reiterated the same claim that Jesus created all things in Hebrews.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:12:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 7:35:47 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:38:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Is that such a silly question as it sounds?

Not really.

Many people claim that Jesus being called the only begotten son applies to his human birth rather than to his creation by his father.

But does it?

Matthew 1:18
KJV(i) 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

So who or what made Mary pregnant?

According to that Scripture which comes from the King James version, but is virtually identical in every translation I've checked it in, the human Jesus was the son not of God the holy spirit.

It's there, in black and white, in God's word, in just about any translation you care to name.

However, there is a way round it. If you believe, as I do, that holy spirit is neither more nor less than God's active force, the instrument he uses to do all his work, rather than a sentient being, a personality, then you can still say that Matthew 1:18 is still describing the human Jesus as the son of God, because holy spirit then becomes merely the instrument that God used to fertilise the egg in Mary's womb, and make it into the fetus of a perfect human child.

Surely that Scripture more than any other proves that holy spirit is not a person, but an instrument, God's active force, which God or anyone he chooses uses to do his work.

See what happens when you dismiss scripture? It's not really that difficult:

I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You still haven't explained this one.

John 4:
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God is a Spirit. So asking whether God or the Holy Spirit got Mary pregnant is pointless. God and the Holy Spirit are one and they are both spirit. God did.

As for Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, it speaks specifically to Psalm 2 and his position from God.

Psalm 2:
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Jesus is declared the only begotten Son in John 3, so He's the only person God could have been talking of.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. God spoke the world into existence. Why is it hard to understand that Jesus Christ was there if words are what one speaks?

I'm not alone in dismissing 1 John 5:7. It is well known that to be a spurious verse which does not appear in the oldest manuscripts at.

Yes, Jesus is declared as the only begotten son of God in a number of places. Which actually proves that he is a created being, created by God, and the only thing God created purely on his own.

There really is no other way of understanding and scriptures, without twisting other Scriptures and relying on the mistranslation of John 1:1 that most people prefer.

No, neither God nor Jesus spoke the world into existence, they created it using God's active force, holy spirit. There is no magic in creation. It is the product of a meticulous engineer. Carefully, and brilliantly designed, to operate like the finest machine ever created. Which, of course, is exactly what the whole of creation is, one big fascinating, intricate, reliable, machine.

Jesus Christ is the word of God, because he transmitted his father's word to mankind, as his father's direction. The term word of God denotes Jesus role as God's, chief spokesman.

Yes, your understanding of Psalm 2 is not far from true. The only thing you are misunderstanding, is when the things listed either happened or will happen, when the Psalm was written.

However, misunderstandings over timing nothing unusual, they happened back then, they happened in Jesus day, and they are still happening now. Part of the problem there, is that God only releases understanding as and when he wants us to know, so it's all too easy for us to guess wrong, as so many have, even amongst God's chosen people.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:13:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Three that bear record: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. They are one. Therefore God the Father and God the Son are God, which Jesus claimed on several occasions.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:15:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:

I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You still haven't explained this one.

What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Don't worry, there's nothing to explain, it is very well known. The that verse does not belong in Scripture at all, remove it, and the passage flows much nicer. That would not be the case if avarice belonged.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:12:08 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I'm not alone in dismissing 1 John 5:7. It is well known that to be a spurious verse which does not appear in the oldest manuscripts at.

The oldest manuscripts don't agree with each other. They were written by a heretic Aryan at the order of Constantine who founded the Catholic church. Aryans deny the deity of Christ, which the true church accepted actively and threw them out over it. Old doesn't equate to reliable.

There's also the fact that I John 5:7 is quoted in texts that are within 100 years of Christ.

Yes, Jesus is declared as the only begotten son of God in a number of places. Which actually proves that he is a created being, created by God, and the only thing God created purely on his own.

Jesus was born as a man. He was the only Son of God that was born.

Philippians 2:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Jesus was in the form of God. He claimed to be the Son of God, which the Jews recognized as making him equal with God. They knew what He was saying. He also referred to himself as "I Am" in John 8, which is the eternal one or Jehovah.

The created part was his body, which was necessary to make him our high priest, our intercessor, our daysman that Job lamented over in Job 9. Our High Priest is now able to defend us to God and make intercession for us. He's able to lay his hands on us both because He is God. That was the purpose the him coming to earth. Not some bet between God and the devil.

There really is no other way of understanding and scriptures, without twisting other Scriptures and relying on the mistranslation of John 1:1 that most people prefer.

Mistranslation. Right. Which would you prefer?

No, neither God nor Jesus spoke the world into existence, they created it using God's active force, holy spirit. There is no magic in creation. It is the product of a meticulous engineer. Carefully, and brilliantly designed, to operate like the finest machine ever created. Which, of course, is exactly what the whole of creation is, one big fascinating, intricate, reliable, machine.

So you clearly deny the Bible as written and all of this is whatever your mind or your church's mind can concoct. Whatever seems right today, without regard to yesterday.

Jesus Christ is the word of God, because he transmitted his father's word to mankind, as his father's direction. The term word of God denotes Jesus role as God's, chief spokesman.

He is the Word of God, magnified above his own name, per Psalm 138.

God will not glorify any other. Isaiah 42:
8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

John 7:39 and 12:16 both say Jesus was glorified.

John 11:4, The death of Lazarus specifically happened so Jesus would be glorified. It also says it was for the glory of God.

God won't give his glory to another. He said so. If Jesus was glorified, He must be God.

Yes, your understanding of Psalm 2 is not far from true. The only thing you are misunderstanding, is when the things listed either happened or will happen, when the Psalm was written.

I'm a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion given that I never even spoke to timing.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:13:17 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Three that bear record: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. They are one. Therefore God the Father and God the Son are God, which Jesus claimed on several occasions.

I'm sorry, but there is not one occasion when Christ claimed to be God. He was accused of doing so by the Pharisees, but he never actually did he only ever referred to himself, Pat as either the son of God, or the son of man.

Not one single occasion did he likened himself to God, he always claimed, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 backs up, that he was submissive to his father.

At John 20:17 he told Mary to tell the Apostles that he was going back to his God and his father, to their God and their father, indicating that he had a God.

At 1 Peter 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and other places in the apostles confirmed that Jesus still had a God.

That means that John 1:1 can only truly be understood in the translation shown in the interlinear section of the Emphatic Diaglott as shown in the link below.

http://archive.org...

Or these alternative translations:

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:47:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I'm sorry, but there is not one occasion when Christ claimed to be God. He was accused of doing so by the Pharisees, but he never actually did he only ever referred to himself, Pat as either the son of God, or the son of man.

Not one single occasion did he likened himself to God, he always claimed, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 backs up, that he was submissive to his father.

John 8:
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Exodus 3:
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

I AM is God. It's what Jehovah means. The eternal one. No beginning, no end. Jesus definitely claimed to be God and the Jews knew it because they tried to stone him for it.

If you're going to discredit the records regarding Christ, how in the world can you argue for the statements Christ made in those same records? Basically what you've got is nothing. A big pile of old papers.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:52:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
That means that John 1:1 can only truly be understood in the translation shown in the interlinear section of the Emphatic Diaglott as shown in the link below.

I've already spoken to the validity of the Vaticanus.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:12:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:12:04 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:06:22 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What are you saying, Jesus didn't say that in the scripture, that is the author of John who said that as an introduction ,and you don't even know who he is! so how can you take what he says as a pillar in your religion when you don't even identify him.Jesus didn't do anything, even the works he did were the Works of God, just like he said and repeated. but you guys leave that is plain like light and follow that is uncertain!

Using that logic, you can dismiss the entire Bible. If that's what you're saying, you should just be honest and say it and quietly exit the discussion.

John was an apostle of Christ that followed Christ around for three years and wrote his history. Paul, another apostle, although after the fact, reiterated the same claim that Jesus created all things in Hebrews.

I know who John is, I ignore who the author is! I don't dismiss all the bible, for verses support one another from different Gospels, but I'm not going to include the unidentified authors doctrine to my creed when I do not know who they are.

The author is a man who lived after John and peter both were martyred, and he never met with Jesus. and this isn't so dramatic except that he is not one of those who received the good testimony of Jesus peace be upon him.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:16:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:13:17 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Three that bear record: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. They are one. Therefore God the Father and God the Son are God, which Jesus claimed on several occasions.

Jesus is saying 3 and you are saying one ?!!!The conclusion you went to is exaggerated and does not follow from this verse!Do you know that there are others too who bear record? you yourself will bear record on your own self and on others, your hand will bear record, this is not a proof of deity!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:16:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:12:00 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
I know who John is, I ignore who the author is! I don't dismiss all the bible, for verses support one another from different Gospels, but I'm not going to include the unidentified authors doctrine to my creed when I do not know who they are.

The author is a man who lived after John and peter both were martyred, and he never met with Jesus. and this isn't so dramatic except that he is not one of those who received the good testimony of Jesus peace be upon him.

Allow me to reiterate.

Naysayer wrote:
If you're going to discredit the records regarding Christ, how in the world can you argue for the statements Christ made in those same records? Basically what you've got is nothing. A big pile of old papers.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:16:07 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Jesus is saying 3 and you are saying one ?!!!The conclusion you went to is exaggerated and does not follow from this verse!Do you know that there are others too who bear record? you yourself will bear record on your own self and on others, your hand will bear record, this is not a proof of deity!

I John 5:7 says these three bear record and these three are one. What exactly are you arguing?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:37:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:52:19 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
That means that John 1:1 can only truly be understood in the translation shown in the interlinear section of the Emphatic Diaglott as shown in the link below.

I've already spoken to the validity of the Vaticanus.

Well,whatever you want think, it doesn't change the fact that the "standard" translation, of John 1:1, does not fit in with the rest of scripture.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:39:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:37:29 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Well,whatever you want think, it doesn't change the fact that the "standard" translation, of John 1:1, does not fit in with the rest of scripture.

Which one are we defining as "standard"?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:41:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:47:46 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I'm sorry, but there is not one occasion when Christ claimed to be God. He was accused of doing so by the Pharisees, but he never actually did he only ever referred to himself, Pat as either the son of God, or the son of man.

Not one single occasion did he likened himself to God, he always claimed, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 backs up, that he was submissive to his father.

John 8:
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Exodus 3:
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

I AM is God. It's what Jehovah means. The eternal one. No beginning, no end. Jesus definitely claimed to be God and the Jews knew it because they tried to stone him for it.

If you're going to discredit the records regarding Christ, how in the world can you argue for the statements Christ made in those same records? Basically what you've got is nothing. A big pile of old papers.

Wrong again. The name Jehovah is n the future tense,and means, I shall become what I hall become, not I Am.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:41:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Wrong again. The name Jehovah is n the future tense,and means, I shall become what I hall become, not I Am.

Uh...no. It means eternal one or self existent one.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:55:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:18:50 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 9:16:07 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Jesus is saying 3 and you are saying one ?!!!The conclusion you went to is exaggerated and does not follow from this verse!Do you know that there are others too who bear record? you yourself will bear record on your own self and on others, your hand will bear record, this is not a proof of deity!

I John 5:7 says these three bear record and these three are one. What exactly are you arguing?

Well I guess you do not speak any semantic language, when one says in a semantic language that a group are one, it means they are of the same party, not that they are one being! it's a ridiculous interpretation.And about bearing records, I said this is not a sign of deity, will bear record all beings and things that God allow, even disbelievers will bear record against their own, even the scripture itself will bear record, do you not know that ?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:59:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:48:02 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 9:41:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Wrong again. The name Jehovah is n the future tense,and means, I shall become what I hall become, not I Am.

Uh...no. It means eternal one or self existent one.

Sorry, wrong again.

I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Heb.('Eh yeh' 'Asher' 'Eh yeh'), God"s own self-designation;

Leeser, "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE";

Rotherham, "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Gr., Ego' eimi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One"; Lat., e'go sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." 'Eh yeh' comes from the Heb. verb ha yah', "become; prove to be." Here 'Eh yeh' is in the imperfect state, first person singular, meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The reference here is not to God"s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.

Compare Genesis 2:4 footnote, "Jehovah," where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha wah' appears in the divine name.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 10:01:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:55:09 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Well I guess you do not speak any semantic language, when one says in a semantic language that a group are one, it means they are of the same party, not that they are one being! it's a ridiculous interpretation.And about bearing records, I said this is not a sign of deity, will bear record all beings and things that God allow, even disbelievers will bear record against their own, even the scripture itself will bear record, do you not know that ?

They're all three of the same party and one is God the Father, what's that make the other two?

I'm not even commenting on the record portion. I was using the verse to discuss the three mentioned and their affiliation (which is clearly not a godhead, apparently.)

There's also another couple of inconvenient verses that help clarify how many gods there are.

Isaiah 45:
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

and I Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God...

So if Jesus is of one party with God and there's only one God, there must be a little more to it than Jesus just being a created being.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 10:05:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:59:50 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Sorry, wrong again.

I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Heb.('Eh yeh' 'Asher' 'Eh yeh'), God"s own self-designation;

Leeser, "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE";

Rotherham, "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Gr., Ego' eimi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One"; Lat., e'go sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." 'Eh yeh' comes from the Heb. verb ha yah', "become; prove to be." Here 'Eh yeh' is in the imperfect state, first person singular, meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." The reference here is not to God"s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.

Compare Genesis 2:4 footnote, "Jehovah," where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha wah' appears in the divine name.

Genesis 2, Scofield Reference Notes, 1917 Edition:
But Havah, from which Jehovah, or Yahwe, is formed, signifies also "to become," that is, to become known, thus pointing to a continuous and increasing self-revelation. Combining these meanings of Havah, we arrive at the meaning of the name Jehovah. He is "the self- existent One who reveals Himself."

Your translation is only partially right, not a full translation.
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 11:57:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:13:17 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Three that bear record: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. They are one. Therefore God the Father and God the Son are God, which Jesus claimed on several occasions.

I'm sorry, but there is not one occasion when Christ claimed to be God. He was accused of doing so by the Pharisees, but he never actually did he only ever referred to himself, Pat as either the son of God, or the son of man.

Not one single occasion did he likened himself to God, he always claimed, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 backs up, that he was submissive to his father.

At John 20:17 he told Mary to tell the Apostles that he was going back to his God and his father, to their God and their father, indicating that he had a God.

At 1 Peter 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and other places in the apostles confirmed that Jesus still had a God.

That means that John 1:1 can only truly be understood in the translation shown in the interlinear section of the Emphatic Diaglott as shown in the link below.


Jesus had a God you say. But his God he called him his father. And he is the "son" of that father. Logic follows that if the Father had a Son.....then that Son would also be a God. Hence this worshipping of the Son.

Hebrews 1:4-6
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him.

Why would the Father allow the angels to "worship" the Son?

For you will not have any other God before nor worship nor serve another.

Yet the Angels worship him.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 1:29:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 11:57:06 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:38:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:13:17 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:08:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What bear record means ? this has nothing to do with who we should worship , you should worship the God that Jesus worshipped alone.

Three that bear record: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. They are one. Therefore God the Father and God the Son are God, which Jesus claimed on several occasions.

I'm sorry, but there is not one occasion when Christ claimed to be God. He was accused of doing so by the Pharisees, but he never actually did he only ever referred to himself, Pat as either the son of God, or the son of man.

Not one single occasion did he likened himself to God, he always claimed, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 backs up, that he was submissive to his father.

At John 20:17 he told Mary to tell the Apostles that he was going back to his God and his father, to their God and their father, indicating that he had a God.

At 1 Peter 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and other places in the apostles confirmed that Jesus still had a God.

That means that John 1:1 can only truly be understood in the translation shown in the interlinear section of the Emphatic Diaglott as shown in the link below.


Jesus had a God you say. But his God he called him his father. And he is the "son" of that father. Logic follows that if the Father had a Son.....then that Son would also be a God. Hence this worshipping of the Son.

Hebrews 1:4-6
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him.

Why would the Father allow the angels to "worship" the Son?

For you will not have any other God before nor worship nor serve another.

Yet the Angels worship him.

The first and most important thing to clear up is that it's not me who says that Jesus has a God. Both Jesus and the Apostles said precisely that as the Scriptures. I quoted earlier show.

I the biggest problem a lot of people have understanding Scripture, is that they try to restrict words to a single meaning. We all know that many words in English have more than one meaning, sometimes even contradictory meanings.

In this case the word we are looking at is worship. Which in English has many meanings and many levels. Worship can mean anything from the sort of obedience that God demands and deserves, to simple respect.

Not only would there be no objection to people showing Jesus that kind of worship, the simple respect, but it would be obligatory after all that Jesus did for us remaining so faithful to his father.

Another problem people have in understanding Scripture is that they tend to approach it from completely the wrong angle. The first thing you have to do is work out what the word cannot mean.

In the case of Jesus worship cannot have the same meaning that it does when talking about his father. Since as Scripture plainly shows to those who are prepared to accept the witness of Scripture, Jesus not only is in submission to his father, 1 Corinthians 11:3, but also that he is a created being, begotten of his father.

Some say that Christ being God's only begotten son applies only to his human birth but that cannot be true because in that case, Jesus would not be either the only begotten, all the firstborn, so since not only is Adam called a son of God, the Angels are also called sons of God. Thus, anyone trying to claim that it applies to Jesus human birth immediately hit problems.

But one also has to remember that in Matthew, chapter 1 Mary is said to have been found pregnant by holy spirit, though some translations say of the holy spirit.

This means that either Christ is the son of holy spirit, as I point out in my opening post, or holy spirit is simply the implement God uses to do his work, and not a person that all.

Since Christ calls himself the son of God, I think I would believe him and go for the latter explanation.

That is one reason that no one will ever understand Scripture properly, without the aid of holy spirit. Because there is far too much comparing the Scriptures and remembering of Scriptures for a person to do without the aid of the holy spirit, helping you to make connections.

Otherwise you will, as so many do, miss the scriptures which qualify at the Scriptures.

A typical example is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man found at Luke 16. Taken on face value, it can appear to support the idea of hellfire and torment. However, since Scriptures, such as Ecclesiastes 9:5 show beyond any doubt that the dead are unconscious, such a meaning cannot be put on Luke 16.

Only holy spirit can guide you through the maze, which is Scripture.