JESUS is not god from bible verses
servant

Mérida, Mexico

#3187 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text> it is logically inconsistent to say Yeshua created all things and say Yeshua was created, unless he created himself and G-d too. I also pointed out to you that in the beginning the word already was. You have to change the tense to say "in the beginning word became".
.

<quoted text> Yeshua is the firstborn of many children of day and light.
.
Besides that you have not quoted a scripture, the term firstborn is not used of a creation. The term means preeminate as Col 1:15 tells us he is the beginning/chief (&#945;&#787;&#961 ;&#967;&#951;&#769 ;) the firstborn/rightful heir (&#960;&#961;&#969 ;&#964;&#959;&#964 ;&#959;&#769;&#954 ;&#959;&#962;) which any study of scripture will affirm that this term is not an indication of relative time (as in Ephraim and Mannassah) where the younger is given the preeminance over the older. Furthermore this definition is supported by the context of the passage itself which tells us it is so he will have the preeminance (Col 1:18). Being born first has no guarentee of G-d's favor as we can see from Ishmael, Esau and Mannassah.
.
<quoted text> Since when does Alpha (the beginning) and Omega (the end) mean Eternal or having no beginning and no end.
.
We have it from scripture that this is the meaning. Speaking of Melchizedek (my righteous King - The Messiah) he has no beginning of days or end of life (Heb 7:3)
.
<quoted text> God the Father has no beginning or end.
.
Since Melkizedek has no beginning or end then he must be G-d also.
Which is what historical X-tianity has always affirmed: That the Messiah (Melkizedek) is G-d.
.

I can't believe you're not addressing those passages I provided about the true light. Brother, please give up the doctrine you inherited from the Gentiles. Their god is not allowing you to see who the true light (John 1:1-14) of the gospel is in Genesis 1:3-4.

.

Shalom

.
servant

Mérida, Mexico

#3188 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text> it is logically inconsistent to say Yeshua created all things and say Yeshua was created, unless he created himself and G-d too. I also pointed out to you that in the beginning the word already was. You have to change the tense to say "in the beginning word became".
.
You can make "in the beginning" mean what ever you want but if you read the Scriptures carefully, you will see that God was the only being existent in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). Then God the Father decides to clothe Himself with light(Read Psalm 104:1-2 “God……Who covers yourself with light as with a garment”). The light God the Father covered Himself with was the same light God the Father created on the 1st day of creation.
.
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1-3.htm
.
If you don’t believe this take a look at the fourth day of creation, which tells us on that day the sun, moon, and stars were created.
.
http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1-14.htm
.
This means the light created on the 1st day was NOT the sun, moon or stars. This leaves us with one question? What was the light God the Father created on the first day of creation? Once we have these two pieces of information, it is easy to understand why Jesus told us He was the light of the gospel!(See John 8:12; John 9:5; John 12:46). It becomes quite clear that we are being taught that God the Father created Jesus on the 1st day and clothed Himself with Jesus, which means God surrounded Himself with Jesus. This made Jesus the only other living being that existed with God alone. This brings us to this to the Apostle John’s description of Jesus found in ( John 1 ).
.
http://kingjbible.com/john/1.htm
.
Since God the Father was the only Being existent alone for eternity, and Jesus is called the Word of God (see Rev 19:13) then “In the beginning” is referring to the beginning of the creation of God the Father (since God was alone). Since John the Apostle told us, Jesus was with God in the beginning of the creation, then God the Father chose to create Jesus as the first spirit of light. Remember, God the Father is called “the Father of lights” in James 1:17. Now add Luke’s comment in chapter 16 verse 8 about us being “the children of light”, and you can begin to see why the N.T. tells us that God created all things by Jesus.
.
http://kingjbible.com/ephesians/3-9.htm
.
Now back to John’s comments in John 1:1-5. They are simply saying, In the beginning of God the Father’s creation, God created Jesus (the light), and Jesus was with God the Father, and Jesus was God (the Son), and not God the Father, because Jesus did not create Himself, but did create all of us. This is exactly how the account of the creation describes it. First Jesus is created as the light, then Jesus takes over and creates everything else using the poser God the Father gave Jesus the Son of God, who is the first born of many spirits of light — known as the children of light. This is why the Bible seems to be telling us that God the Father created us, and then Jesus created us (see 1 Coritnhians 8:6 = Hebrews 1:10 ). This is also why after the light was created by the Father there seems to be a reference to more than one Being in Genesis 1:26.
.

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3189 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And John 1:14 says the Word (that is G-d according to verse one and two) became flesh and dwelt amoung us.
.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him (Yeshua), My Lord and my God.
.
Are you lobbing up softballs to prove the Trinity?
Being a messianic (which I assume from your name) you should be familiar with the concept of the shaliach/agency. Just as a fully empowered shaliach acted and was treated as the principal, so Christ comes in all his God's authority.
Just as angels of Yahweh had his name put in them and spoke and were spoken to as God himself who had sent them (Exodus 23:20, Exodus 6:2-6) more so, is it with Christ.
Thomas realized this, and with his well understood Hebrew concept of the law of agency, acknowledged God in Jesus his agent. In no way however, did he lose sight of the fact that this one is the emissary, the shaliach.
servant

Mérida, Mexico

#3190 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.

With that being said, I'll leave you with these passages. Read them carefully.

.

Ephesians 1:17-23-- http://niv.scripturetext.com/ephesians/1-17.h...

.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28-- http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-27.htm

.

Ephesians 4-- http://niv.scripturetext.com/ephesians/4.htm

.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3191 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
Since Melkizedek has no beginning or end then he must be G-d also.
Which is what historical X-tianity has always affirmed: That the Messiah (Melkizedek) is G-d.
Amen!

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3192 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
If Yeshua created all things he must have created himself. Secondly the verse in English says in the beginning the Word WAS with G-d, not the Word became G-d or the Word was created G-d. The tense indicates that in the beginning the Word already was. This is also why he is called the first and the last (Rev 22:13) This verse has no context of creation and indeed it makes no sense that he is the last of creation because you had already admitted he created things after his existance. The verse speaks of his eternal nature.
What is a logos? We might be getting ahead of ourselves by assuming that a logos is a kind of being.
What does the word 'logos' mean?

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3193 Jan 30, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen!
Okay, that gives us four, doesn't it? Father, son, spirit, melchizedek. Hmmm... Quadrinity?

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3194 Jan 30, 2013
By the way, since Jesus is a son, he HAS a beginning. A son does not exist until begotten by his father..

'eternal son' is another nonsense concept underpinning the trinity?

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3195 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, that gives us four, doesn't it? Father, son, spirit, melchizedek. Hmmm... Quadrinity?
I think your religion is your calculator.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3196 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
By the way, since Jesus is a son, he HAS a beginning. A son does not exist until begotten by his father..
'eternal son' is another nonsense concept underpinning the trinity?
Have you never read the NT? Jesus is equal with God. The only one equal with God is God.

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3197 Jan 30, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you never read the NT? Jesus is equal with God. The only one equal with God is God.
Jesus is subordinate to God. John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:28.

He also has a God. Almighty God doesn't have a God. Hebrews 1:9. Revelation 3:12.

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3198 Jan 30, 2013
Sorry, the Corinthians verse is 11:3.

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3199 Jan 30, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your religion is your calculator.
Lol, you're the one who said 'Amen' to messianic's idea that melchizedek is an eternal being, not me!

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#3200 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course Jesus is elevated to have authority over all Lords and Kings. His God has given him this position.
Ephesians 1:17-21
''That the God of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory... that he worked in Christ when he raised
him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power
and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but
also in the one to come.''
Thank Jesus' God that he has given him this immense authority.
.
So you believe a man can exalted higher than the ministering angels?
You believe a man can be given ALL authority?
You believe a man can be the Savior of humanity?
You believe a man can have a name above all names? Even G-d's name?

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3201 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you're the one who said 'Amen' to messianic's idea that melchizedek is an eternal being, not me!
No, the NT said Melchizedek has no beginning nor end. You err again.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3202 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus is subordinate to God. John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:28.
He also has a God. Almighty God doesn't have a God. Hebrews 1:9. Revelation 3:12.
Have you ever read the NT??? Please answer because you don't seem to know.

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3203 Jan 30, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the NT said Melchizedek has no beginning nor end. You err again.
agenealogetos. Study your Greek and dont swallow whatever is put before you.

Treat a figure as a figure. And the literal as literal.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#3204 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus is subordinate to God. John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:28.
He also has a God. Almighty God doesn't have a God. Hebrews 1:9. Revelation 3:12.
.
It doesn't logically follow that because G-d the Son is subordinate to G-d the Father that he is any less divine.
.
It doesn't logially follow that the incarnate Son (G-d) didn't have to set an example to us as human (as the incarnate Son is) to pray to the Father and call him your G-d, that this would necessitate him not being divine.
.
Lastly Is 9:6 tells us that the Son given is called G-d (El) and that his Father is everlasting (avi-ad).

Since: Jan 13

Europe

#3205 Jan 30, 2013
MESSIANIC114 wrote:
It doesn't logically follow that because G-d the Son is subordinate to G-d the Father that he is any less divine.
.
It doesn't logially follow that the incarnate Son (G-d) didn't have to set an example to us as human (as the incarnate Son is) to pray to the Father and call him your G-d, that this would necessitate him not being divine.
.
Lastly Is 9:6 tells us that the Son given is called G-d (El) and that his Father is everlasting (avi-ad).
I wasn't talking about 'God the son'. Such a being isn't in the bible.

I was talking about 'the son of God'.

And yes, it logically follows that if his God and father is greater than him, he is not 'most high'. How can you be 'most high' and be subordinate to another? Unless language has lost its meaning.

As for Isaiah 9:6 I've covered that 4 or 5 pages ago. Please look up my answer and give your response.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#3206 Jan 30, 2013
Steonaer wrote:
<quoted text>
agenealogetos. Study your Greek and dont swallow whatever is put before you.
Treat a figure as a figure. And the literal as literal.
Can someone please translate?

You are deceived by Satan.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Early Christianity 3 min Barmsweb 293
gen 49: 27 2 hr Taranis 836
Gods Who Disagree With The Data 2 hr Taranis 23
Jehovah Witnesses collect addresses and phone n... 2 hr Taranis 121
The Nativity Story 2 hr The Tongue 230
Hearing Voices (the supernatural world) (Feb '16) 2 hr par five 1,113
When did Satan ever tell "THE LIE?" (John 8:44) (Mar '10) 5 hr The Tongue 54
More from around the web