0
   

Who resurrected Jesus?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 05:02 pm
meanwhile, getting off topic, sorry

the Ayatollah wrote

Quote:
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. ...Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists (1942)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 07:52 am
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
Having an apparent contradiction which can be explained by Jesus faith in his relationship with his father is quite different than the cataclysmic gulf between the one who sends and the one who is sent forth, the one who prays and the one who is prayed to, the one obedient and the one obeyed, the image and the exact reflection. . . .

The one called father and the one called son


To whom does this refer, Neo?

Is 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.



God is our father and Jesus was a product of God acting as a father so as a son of the father he is an extension of the father in that way. Jesus is Jehovah in the sense that he is a product specifically of Jehovah.

So also God is the Word and when we speak "God's" word, we are the word of God and we father this word in others.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:07 am
Mostly right, Rex. Jesus is the only direct creation of Jehovah. So nearly all the titles belonging to Jehovah are shared to an extent with Jesus. So Jesus and Jehovah may both rightly be called father and savior.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:10 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
ew i know that one RL........It was Jesus.....the same Almighty God described all throughout the bible...THe bible is clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Although arianism has been around for almost 2000 yrs, thankfully few believe it.
Arianism was not a heresy until the Council of Nicaea when many pagan ideas were adopted by nominal christianity.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:21 am
it is a heresy according to scripture. the bible is clear that Jesus is God, not one of many Gods, and not a lesser God. if you are ever interested in looking up greek, you will see that the nwt purposefully takes out words that show Christ is God.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:29 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
it is a heresy according to scripture. the bible is clear that Jesus is God, not one of many Gods, and not a lesser God. if you are ever interested in looking up greek, you will see that the nwt purposefully takes out words that show Christ is God.
Or correctly translates Greek manuscripts.

You realize that one of Satan's major challenges against Jehovah was that his creations, one and all, would not be loyal to him under test. Who better to disprove Satan's lie than God's foremost creation? Certainly not the very person of God, but his son, a distinct individual.

Trinitarians take away this important concept of Jesus' sacrifice.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:42 am
no its not a better translation, go check it out. and Christ wasnt a created being. the verse in colossians, where Christ is called firstborn is very interesting. There are two hebrew words for firstborn. One means created first ie the eldest son and one means Heir or most prominent. Paul used the latter to describe Christ. Christ is heir to all but he was never created. He was always with God. John 1 and genesis shows this.
In the beginning was the Word. Was in greek denotes a time period that has no beginning, its continual.
CHrist has always been with God because he is God.
let me ask this neo, if Christ isn't God then were the apostles lying when they called him God and were they sinning when they worshipped him as only Jehovah is to be worship? and was Christ blasphemous to allow this reverance and worship?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:45 am
kate4christ03 wrote:
no its not a better translation, go check it out. and Christ wasnt a created being. the verse in colossians, where Christ is called firstborn is very interesting. There are two hebrew words for firstborn. One means created first ie the eldest son and one means Heir or most prominent. Paul used the latter to describe Christ. Christ is heir to all but he was never created. He was always with God. John 1 and genesis shows this.
In the beginning was the Word. Was in greek denotes a time period that has no beginning, its continual.
CHrist has always been with God because he is God.
let me ask this neo, if Christ isn't God then were the apostles lying when they called him God and were they sinning when they worshipped him as only Jehovah is to be worship? and was Christ blasphemous to allow this reverance and worship?
Christ was worshipped?
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:49 am
yes neo i gave you the verses a few weeks back. In the gospels, after he walked on water, when thomas fell to his knees and called him MY God, and in revelation it says the angels and the saints worship him.


any response to what i have written about colossians and john?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:04 am
neologist wrote:
Mostly right, Rex. Jesus is the only direct creation of Jehovah. So nearly all the titles belonging to Jehovah are shared to an extent with Jesus. So Jesus and Jehovah may both rightly be called father and savior.


I humbly must differ slightly,

Jesus won the throne over the "creation" of God, but the throne of Jehovah on the earth has been occupied by various other entities prior to Christ.

He was the first "born" of ever creature but he was not necessarily the first creature.

The Hebrew transliterated word "shilo" means, he in whom the scepter belongs...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:14 am
I'll have to come back because it's time to go to work, but as far as the walking on water goes. The KJV states in Matt 14:33:
"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

Was that what you meant?

As for Thomas, have you never exclaimed "My God" over a momentous event?

Now I see Rex has chimed in, but I must retire for now.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:22 am
neologist wrote:
nearly all the titles belonging to Jehovah are shared to an extent with Jesus. So Jesus and Jehovah may both rightly be called father and savior.


Not if you are looking at the Bible.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
-----------------

Is 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

-------------------------

Is 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.
-------------------------

Also, as we saw previously from the Book of the Unveiling (Revelation) of Jesus Christ, the title 'First and Last' is applied to Jesus.

Compare with:

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Here we see it is Jehovah God (the LORD) that is the First and the Last.

How can it be said that there are 'two First and Lasts' ? C'mon.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 02:24 pm
real life wrote:
. . .
Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man. After their death, both were conscious and spoke of their situation (one in paradise, one in torment). His idea of death apparently doesn't mesh with yours, Neo.
. . .
You can't simply discount Solomon and the entire OT with an illustration. There is, after all, a condition of spiritual death. (Luke 9:60)

A good look at all the Pagan beliefs of trinity, immortal soul, etc. Would reveal much about the source of those beliefs.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 03:09 pm
neologist wrote:
real life wrote:
. . .
Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man. After their death, both were conscious and spoke of their situation (one in paradise, one in torment). His idea of death apparently doesn't mesh with yours, Neo.
. . .
You can't simply discount Solomon and the entire OT with an illustration. There is, after all, a condition of spiritual death. (Luke 9:60)

A good look at all the Pagan beliefs of trinity, immortal soul, etc. Would reveal much about the source of those beliefs.


And you cannot discount Paul's concise statement that to be 'absent from the body would mean that he was present with the Lord' with a misapplication of Ecclesiastes.

btw Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus is notable because He did NOT indicate it to be a parable. He told the story WITHOUT this important qualifier, which was used in nearly all His other stories/illustrations.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 03:40 pm
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
real life wrote:
. . .
Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man. After their death, both were conscious and spoke of their situation (one in paradise, one in torment). His idea of death apparently doesn't mesh with yours, Neo.
. . .
You can't simply discount Solomon and the entire OT with an illustration. There is, after all, a condition of spiritual death. (Luke 9:60)

A good look at all the Pagan beliefs of trinity, immortal soul, etc. Would reveal much about the source of those beliefs.


And you cannot discount Paul's concise statement that to be 'absent from the body would mean that he was present with the Lord' with a misapplication of Ecclesiastes.
I can't find your exact quote. Was this it? "For though I am absent in the flesh, all the same I am with YOU in the spirit." (Colossians 2:5)
real life wrote:

btw Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus is notable because He did NOT indicate it to be a parable. He told the story WITHOUT this important qualifier, which was used in nearly all His other stories/illustrations.
Really? And if it were not a parable, how is it possible for a conversation to take place between Hades and Abraham? Or, for that matter, what relief can a person in torment receive from a single drop of water?
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 07:37 pm
neo the verse rl is talking about is 2cor 5:8 . another good one is phil 1:23.

also, CHrist told the thief in luke that Today you will be with me in paradise. and there is no comma in the original translation. i believe the footnotes in the nwt even acknowledge that. and as for hell, christ spoke of eternal torment for the wicked (matt 25:41, rev 20:11-15)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:19 pm
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
nearly all the titles belonging to Jehovah are shared to an extent with Jesus. So Jesus and Jehovah may both rightly be called father and savior.


Not if you are looking at the Bible.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
-----------------

Is 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

-------------------------

Is 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.
-------------------------

Also, as we saw previously from the Book of the Unveiling (Revelation) of Jesus Christ, the title 'First and Last' is applied to Jesus.

Compare with:

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Here we see it is Jehovah God (the LORD) that is the First and the Last.

How can it be said that there are 'two First and Lasts' ? C'mon.


The titles/names shepherd, peace, redeemer, savior, lord, master, father (fathers the word) and even god can apply to both Christ and God. Yet God is the source of all of these titles and Jesus has access to them only in the form of God's created image within Christ and not the person of God himself.

This is why there is no Savior beside God because the savior is under God and this is why there is no god beside Jesus because there is the one true God above him. (our father who art in heaven).

The devil is called in the Bible "the god (theos) of this world". This is certainly "another God" but this God is UNDER God not "beside" God.

1Co 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued [the LAST] unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:29 pm
kate4christ03 wrote:
neo the verse rl is talking about is 2cor 5:8 . another good one is phil 1:23.

also, CHrist told the thief in luke that Today you will be with me in paradise. and there is no comma in the original translation. i believe the footnotes in the nwt even acknowledge that. and as for hell, christ spoke of eternal torment for the wicked (matt 25:41, rev 20:11-15)



Verily I say unto you this day, [someday in the future] thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Paradise is ALWAYS a place on earth and Jesus (according to the Bible) is in "heaven" currently seated at the right hand of God and not in paradise yet.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:54 pm
God is not the first or the last because God has no beginning or end.

God preceded the first and endures way beyond the last.

So the first would be the numeral one and God would be both zero and infinity.

Zero and infinity are the creator and the numeral one is creation.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 07:54 am
RexRed wrote:
God is not the first or the last because God has no beginning or end.

God preceded the first and endures way beyond the last.

So the first would be the numeral one and God would be both zero and infinity.

Zero and infinity are the creator and the numeral one is creation.


So, when God says 'I am the First and the Last', he really didn't mean it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 08:23:22