Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

a reply to: whereislogic

Simple straightforward logic can be hard sometimes when Satan and his demons have had thousands of years of practicing getting people to abandon it. But I'll have a go anyway, if you're the image of some thing, you are not that thing now are you? However, it does nicely explain why one would say something like "If you have seen me, you have seen that thing", figuratively. Jesus, the image of the invisible God, is not the invisible God himself. After all, Jesus was seen.

You have made a mistake and have neglected to consider the most important part of the Christian religion. That part is that Jesus preexisted as the image of the invisible God. God is total spirit and is not an entity as some suppose. He brought forth His image to show His creation as He pleased. This image had the power of life and the power of creation. The NT Apostles called this image the Begotten of the Most High and John called the image "The Word". At this time Jesus did not exist as the first creation was celestial and not terrestrial. As the "Word" created the terrestrial universe and all that are visible and invisible in this terrestrial creation, He did so as the Celestial "Word of God" and not as Jesus.

Being then manifested in the flesh by the Most High, the "Word of God" then became the Terrestrial Jesus. Jesus had never created as He was in the flesh and neither was He the "Word of God" while in the flesh. He had divested His authority as the "Word of God' while in the flesh but still had the power of life.

Being conceived by the Most High, Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God and also the Son of man. His flesh was that of man and His spirit that of God. After His death he then shed His flesh and was restored as the "Word of God". Jesus is dead forever but His name is left as His testimony. He now is restored as the image of the Most High. His name is "The Word Of God." Where most Christians are not understanding is in that the "Word Of God" was and is now The Most High God where as Jesus' flesh [body] was the Begotten Son of The Most High God as He was the man Jesus but His spirit was still "The Word Of The Most High God. Substance change .

originally posted by: Akragon
ah... do you have any idea how many people were called "lord" in the bible.... probably not

Not to mention that the Hebrew word for "lord" does not appear in the oldest most reliable Hebrew manuscripts in Genesis 18 except for verse 12, referring to Abraham as "my lord". In honest accurate translations that aren't made by people who intend to make others forget about God's name (both the name itself, its meaning and what it stands for), "lord" appears only 1 time in the entire chapter.

Genesis 18:1

Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him ...

3 Then he said: “Jehovah,...

11 Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah began to laugh to herself, saying: “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I really have this pleasure?” 13 Then Jehovah said to Abraham:...

22 Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham.

33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.

Why should one trust the doctrines and imaginations (or daydreaming) of anyone who does not quote the bible truthfully and will refuse to acknowledge this simple fact that I mentioned at the start of this comment (as well as the approx 7000 times where this swap was made in other places in the bible; and these people who quote such bible translations still wanna complain about the word "other" in Col.1:16,17 in the NW?* Talk about hypocrisy) while demonstrating many of the things mentioned in Jeremiah 23 (I quoted from that chapter before in this thread)? *: see video at the end of this comment for some of those false accusations and complaints about the word "other" by Trinitarians

It's completely dishonest to pretend that "the LORD" (or more deceptively "the Lord") is an adequate translation or substitute for God's name. There already is a Hebrew word that means "lord", which is ʼAdho·naiʹ, which as mentioned, only appears once in Genesis 18. That's also how you get weird translations that say things like...

Psalm 110:1 (KJ)

A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

When it really says...
NW:
Jehovah declared to my Lord:

“Sit at my right hand

Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

or the American Standard Version:
Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

It continues in the videos I shared on page 3 (it says responding to MBI3030 in the title, 2 more parts). Some of the videos I shared in that comment also discuss the huge difference between "by" and "through", not that Trinitarians care about honest translation, they'll continue to say "creation was by Jesus" instead of "through Jesus" cause it works better for their eisegesis, just as was done in this thread. Conveniently ignoring all the information about that subject (from the bible) that I shared on the previous page.

originally posted by: Seede
You have made a mistake and have neglected to consider the most important part of the Christian religion. That part is that Jesus preexisted as the image of the invisible God.

Since I've been sharing information about Jesus' prehuman existence being the first created being by God since the 2nd comment of mine in this thread and almost every comment since then including the comment you were responding to (which also mentions that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of creation, emphasizing both as well as making clear that he wasn't called Jesus yet at that point in time but we're still talking about the same individual and person/being) you can hardly call that 'neglecting'. Would this be an appropiate time to remind people that "person" and "being" are synonyms? And that "substance" is a Greek philosophical term? Anyway, back to you...

God is total spirit and is not an entity as some suppose.

Is God a Real Person?

Common answers:

▪ “He is everywhere, in everything. He is like the wind.”

▪ “He is an indefinable intelligence, an abstract force.”

What did Jesus say?

▪ “In the house of my Father there are many abodes.” (John 14:2) Jesus spoke of God as having a figurative house, or dwelling place.

▪ “I came out from the Father and have come into the world. Further, I am leaving the world and am going my way to the Father.” (John 16:28) Jesus believed that God is an actual Person living in a specific location.

JESUS never referred to God as some abstract force. On the contrary, he talked to God and prayed to him. He often called Jehovah his heavenly Father, a term revealing his deep intimacy with God.—John 8:19, 38, 54.

It is true that “no man has seen God at any time” and that “God is a Spirit.” (John 1:18; 4:24) But this does not mean that he is without any type of body or form. The Bible tells us: “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” (1 Corinthians 15:44) So does Jehovah have a spiritual body?

Yes. When Jesus was resurrected, he “entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:24) This teaches us two important facts about God. First, he has a place of dwelling. Second, he is a Person, not simply an indefinable force that resides everywhere. [whereislogic: third, Jesus is not the Person who is spoken of as God here, since he's already appearing before Him after entering into heaven itself, not before; which is significant if you want to forcefit a Trinitarian twist onto this text and ignore what I just pointed out along with straightforward logic when someone is clearly spelling out that one individual is appearing before another individual]

How, then, can God’s influence be felt everywhere? God can send his holy spirit, or power in action, to any place in the universe. Like a father who extends his hand to console and support his children, God extends his holy spirit to accomplish his purpose.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.

Because God is a Person, he also has a personality with likes and dislikes—even feelings. The Bible tells us that he loves his people, rejoices in his works, hates idolatry, and feels hurt over wickedness. (Genesis 6:6; Deuteronomy 16:22; 1 Kings 10:9; Psalm 104:31) At 1 Timothy 1:11, he is called “the happy God.” No wonder Jesus said that we can learn to love this God with our whole heart!—Mark 12:30.*

*: For more information on this subject, see chapter 1 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I could address the rest of your eisegesis but I know you're not very interested in what the bible really teaches (on top of that you didn't answer the question you quoted, so you didn't 'really' respond, just cycling through Trinitarian arguments and doctrines like Deathslayer and Deetermined, who also won't 'really' answer any of my questions if I'm asking something, not sure if I asked Deathslayer something directly as I did with Deetermined in the comment you were responding to but he still didn't really respond to any of the points I brought up in my commentary to him, just went to the next card to play), after all I still remember you saying in my thread about "One myth leads to another":

Let us start with the myth that Paul wrote Colossians 2:8...

In your attempt to discredit part of the bible's authenticity while ironically claiming to speak up "in defense of Paul". Shortly before claiming that Paul joined a sect/cult when he became a Christian. Referring to true Christianity as a "sect" in the same manner as the (mostly Jewish) opponents of Christianity did back in Paul's time. Almost using the exact same terminology, "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5) or "the Nazarene sect" (2nd quotation is from you). While calling yourself or claiming to be a "Christian".

To outsiders Christianity was referred to as “The Way” (Ac 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), and opponents called it “the sect of the Nazarenes” or just “this sect.”—Ac 24:5; 28:22.

Source: Christian, Insight, Volume 1
Quoting you again and getting back to my simple straighforward question:

That part is that Jesus preexisted as the image of the invisible God.

So that means that Jesus in his prehuman existence was not the invisible God that he's already the image of now is he? That's what that statement of yours logically leads to without Trinitarian eisegesis, theosophy and contradictions claimed after such a statement or acknowledgement. Those who want to conflate Jehovah and Jesus always wanna skip past such simple and clear statements, like Jesus referring to Jehovah as "my God" and Paul using the phrase "Blessed be the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph.1:3).

“Guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ For making a show of such knowledge some have deviated from the faith.” (1 Timothy 6:20, 21)

Not that these are the only ones as I've demonstrated in this thread, or perhaps I should say as Deathslayer and Deetermined demonstrated in this thread by talking past it with more Trinitarian cards they have to play (even thiough I'm answering their points and explaining the verses they bring up, they won't do the same with the verses I'm bringing up or give some cop-out Trinitarian eisegesis regarding Col.1:15 for example as you did, not clarifying the text with other relevant bible quotations that help with understanding the bible's teaching as a whole, letting the bible interpret the bible, and not guys like Tertullian or those who picked up on their philosophical language and way of interpreting, eisegesis):

a reply to: Deetermined

Yes, but they aren't generally spelled with an uppercase "L" or are they bowed to. The angels would always reprimand anyone who tried to bow to them, unless of course, Jesus was with them.

Except, there isn't lower and uppercase letters in Hebrew..

Elohim is both singular and plural. When anything is plural, such as "cookies", it doesn't tell you exactly how many cookies we're talking about, does it? You just know that the plural shows that there are more than one.

the word can denote a multiple... it can not be three equals one, or three in one...

There is nothing that has trinitarian equality in the bible... Jesus = God = Spirit which are all equal... is not a biblical concept

Jesus even states specifically... There is none greater then his Father

originally posted by: whereislogic
...(even though I'm answering their points and explaining the verses they bring up, they won't do the same with the verses I'm bringing up or give some cop-out Trinitarian eisegesis regarding Col.1:15 for example as you did, not clarifying the text with other relevant bible quotations that help with understanding the bible's teaching as a whole, letting the bible interpret the bible, ...):

They'll claim that they're letting Scripture interpret Scripture though, but they are demonstrating something else (there are still no bible quotations in the OP where all the erronuous claims are made and numbered, or the first page of this thread for that matter):

Scripture itself is our best theology professor in helping us understand and apply Scripture.

Source: How Does Scripture Interpret Scripture? | Answers in Genesis

Sure Mr. Trinitarian (Mr. Young Earth Creationist, since the "answers in Genesis" website teaches that theosophy as well), now how about you actually accepting and acknowledging what it says instead of cherrypicking Trinitarian bible translations that read "and the Word was God" at the end of John 1:1. The evidence is clear, it's speaking about Jesus being a spirit being, a divine being, a heavenly being, a god as the Greek shows (just like other angels are called "gods" because they are heavenly beings, divine beings; see end of comment) as well as the context of the bible, John chapter 1 included, specifically the verse that says that no man has seen God at any time. Nope, than the eisegesis kicks into overgear. And things start to get a bit muddy as to when modalism or Trinitarianism is taught (just like is done with the phrase "the Father is greater than I am", where they switch to arguing that Jesus says that in a different mode, a mode that apparently is not as great as the Father-mode, yet, they're still supposedly equal persons in one divine substance, arguing along the lines of Tertullian when he was actually arguing against modalism and resorting to Greek Pagan philosophy and vague Greek philosophical terms that Greek philosophers loved to obscure some more*).

Just in case the word "eisegesis" isn't clear to anyone:

Eisegesis...is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Source: wikipedia

*: more from wikipedia:

The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers,...

Source: First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

From the definition for the Hebrew word for "God", "god" or "gods" in A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT):
7. ...spirit....
8. heavenly beings, angels, i.e. a supernatural being, created, with a special focus on their power or nobility (Ps 8:6)

The word has multiple applications and a broader meaning (which does not suddenly change when people start writing and translating into Greek just in case anyone wants to go there in their thoughts since we're talking about John 1:1 here). When Jesus was with God (Almighty, definition 1 in the dictionary above) he was a spirit (7), heavenly being (8), and "mighty one"(4). He was however not God in the sense of definition 1 mentioned in the dictionary above and quoted in the video entitled "Response to Is Jesus Just "a god" Like Others are Called "gods"?" that I shared earlier.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Akragon
ah... do you have any idea how many people were called "lord" in the bible.... probably not

Not to mention that the Hebrew word for "lord" does not appear in the oldest most reliable Hebrew manuscripts in Genesis 18 except for verse 12, referring to Abraham as "my lord". In honest accurate translations that aren't made by people who intend to make others forget about God's name (both the name itself, its meaning and what it stands for*), "lord" appears only 1 time in the entire chapter.

*: including the individual who is represented by that name (as a unique individual, last time I went to Church, not once was Jehovah mentioned or praised, yet still they managed to sing about "God's holy name" without even mentioning it, when I asked afterwards what that name was, they told me it was Jesus, again no mention of Jehovah at all, as if he doesn't even exist)

1 John 2:22

22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Since "Christ" means "anointed one" giving a clear indication of being anointed by someone else (the bible also teaches elsewhere that it was God who anointed him), and since Trinitarians will make no mention of this, they can say Jesus is the Christ all they want but they are still denying that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the anointed one of Jehovah, appointed by Jehovah to be "heir of all things". On top of that they are denying Jehovah's existence in the manner I just explained, thus they deny the Father and the Son (which includes their teachings, not just their existence as 2 different individuals).

Hebrews 1:

TO THE HEBREWS

1 Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

All indications that Jesus is not the God who appointed him heir of all things (which logically means all other things than Jehovah and Jesus whether you add "other" to your translation or not), meaning Jesus wasn't heir of all things before being appointed that position by God. He has "become" better than the (other) angels (gods, elohim, divine beings, spirit beings).

7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

a reply to: Akragon

Question: "If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28?"

Answer: The phrase “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) was spoken by Jesus during the upper room discourse, and the greater context is the promising of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus says repeatedly that He is doing the Father’s will, thereby implying that He is somehow subservient to the Father. The question then becomes how can Jesus be equal to God when by His own admission He is subservient to the will of God? The answer to this question lies within the nature of the incarnation.

During the incarnation, Jesus was temporarily “made lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9), which refers to Jesus’ status. The doctrine of the incarnation says that the second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Jesus was fully human and “made lower than the angels.” However, Jesus is fully divine, too. By taking on human nature, Jesus did not relinquish His divine nature—God cannot stop being God. How do we reconcile the fact that the second Person of the Trinity is fully divine yet fully human and by definition “lower than the angels”? The answer to that question can be found in Philippians 2:5-11. When the second Person of the Trinity took on human form, something amazing occurred. Christ “made himself nothing.” This phrase has generated more ink than almost any other phrase in the Bible. In essence, what it means is that Jesus voluntarily relinquished the prerogative of freely exercising His divine attributes and subjected Himself to the will of the Father while on earth.

www.gotquestions.org...

First of all, you have to remember one of the reasons Jesus came to earth in the first place...

Matthew 20:25-28

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Philippians 2:5-11

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

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:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

a reply to: Deetermined
Philippians 2:5-8

5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form [whereislogic: Jesus also being a spirit being when he was still in heaven], gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.* [Lit., “came to be in the likeness of men.”] 8 More than that, when he came as a man,* [Lit., “when he was found in appearance as a man.”] he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.* 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Not that they should openly acknowledge that he is God, i.e. God Almighty, Jehovah God, God the Father (and that Trinitarians start making videos on youtube entitling them "Jesus is Jehovah", in essence claiming that Jesus is "God the Father", even though that's not part of standard Trinitarian doctrine, since their teachers make a point out of claiming that "the Son is not the Father" in their favorite teaching picture for example, yet then other Trinitarians contradict that again by claiming that Jesus is Jehovah; or their teachers themselves contradict it by claiming that Jesus is God with the implication that the word "God" is referring to God Almighty, i.e. Jehovah God, the Father). The glory and praise should primarily be going to Jehovah. Jesus isn't interested in getting equal praise or glory or that he should be equal to Jehovah God, which would be a seizure or robbery.

Servetus and the Name Jehovah

Servetus’ quest for the truth also led him to use the name Jehovah. Some months after William Tyndale employed this name in his translation of the Pentateuch, Servetus published On the Errors of the Trinity—in which he used the name Jehovah throughout. He explained in this work: “The other name, the most holy of all, יהוה, . . . can be interpreted as follows, . . . ‘He causes to be,’ ‘he who brings into being,’ ‘the cause of existence.’” He noted: “The name of Jehovah can properly apply only to the Father.”

Source: Michael Servetus—A Solitary Quest for the Truth: Awake!—2006

Regarding the word "obedient"...obedient to whom? Obedient to himself? That's easy, not very impressive. Not exactly an example and mental attitude one would want to follow (not very servant-like). Acts 3:13

The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom you handed over and disowned before Pilate, even though he had decided to release him.


Let's just do 3 for those who like that number (in the bible it's used for emphasis when something is repeated 3 times), and because it's relevant:

Translation details regarding Phil.2:6 can be found in the link "Trinity: Reasoning" cause it's one of those standard mistranslations that Trinitarians love to use so much. Pretty much all are listed there.

a reply to: Deetermined

Paulian nonsense

Only one version of the bible translates Phillipians 2 that way... clearly a mistranslation

Theres nothing that mentions him being equal to God in the bible

in reality it says something like this

6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

a reply to: whereislogic

Put aside all of this discussion on Trinity for a moment and answer a few simple questions for me.

1) Do you believe that every thing in heaven and on earth will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? (As stated in Philippians 2:11)

2) What is the purpose for the above? Why does everyone confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord bring glory to God?

3) What does it mean for Jesus Christ to be Lord?

4) How come Jesus says that if you didn't know him, you didn't know his Father either? How is it possible that you can't know one without the other?

a reply to: Akragon

Paulian nonsense? More like Akragon nonsense. I seriously don't know why you even care to have this debate since you've been saying for YEARS that you don't believe the majority of what's written in the Bible anyway. Are you really so desperate and bored that you can spend all day debating a subject that you really have no faith or interest in, not to mention knowledge of? I really don't understand it.

a reply to: Deetermined

Mainly because i do believe in the gospels... and a trinity isn't part of any of them

not to mention the fact that the idea that Jesus was God is only found in John... amazingly the earlier texts say nothing about the idea, which means it wasn't an original belief of him or his followers

Other then that... pure amusement

people wonder why Christianity is so screwed up... this is part of the problem

a reply to: Akragon

Mainly because i do believe in the gospels..

How can you say that and call Paul nonsense in the same breath? You can say you believe in the gospels, but the truth is, you don't and you'll never convince anyone of faith that you do when you continually throw half of it out. Like you said, you only do it to amuse yourself, but you're not amusing others.

a reply to: Akragon

not to mention the fact that the idea that Jesus was God is only found in John... amazingly the earlier texts say nothing about the idea, which means it wasn't an original belief of him or his followers

Why do you continue to say things that you absolutely know not to be true? Why don't you try looking in the places that Jesus himself said were about him?!

Luke 24:44

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

a reply to: Deetermined

How can you say that and call Paul nonsense in the same breath?

Quite easily... Paul taught a different doctrine then Jesus... is a self proclaimed apostle, and i don't trust his writing, or him for that matter

You can say you believe in the gospels, but the truth is, you don't and you'll never convince anyone of faith that you do when you continually throw half of it out.

Except im not Christian... I grew up and realized Christianity is False through many years of study... so don't tell me what i do and do not believe... I don't believe Christianity's version of the gospels, but you people don't read much of the gospels anyways.... you prefer Paulian doctrine

And just so you know, i couldn't care less what anyone else believes... again, NOT Christian... so im not preaching or trying to convince anyone of my faith... only my lack of faith in your religion

Why do you continue to say things that you absolutely know not to be true? Why don't you try looking in the places that Jesus himself said were about him?!

Luke 24:44

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

And why don't you try using a bit of logic.... Just because Jesus pre-existed his incarnation does not make him God

Nor does that passage state such a thing...

Gimmie a break

a reply to: Deetermined
Well since you haven't answered my question(s), I'll keep it as short as I can (edit: didn't work, I have a real issue with being succinct, always additional thoughts and questions that pop up in my mind that I want to rephrase in various ways, at first I had a short reply).

1: yes, allthough I think "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend" is primarily meant figuratively, in the sense that they "should" become submissive to God's theocracy, His Kingdom (+the rules, God's commandments) of which Jesus has been appointed by God to be the King, ruler and Lord (so also submissive and obedient to that duly appointed Lord and acknowledging Jesus as that appointed Lord or ruler of that Kingdom). Of course if someone literally bends their knee, that would be a sign of submission as well. But I don't think angels in heaven have literal knees they can bend. I'm also noticing that it isn't mentioned that they should bend the knee for or to Jesus but "in the name of Jesus". Such as when you're doing something in the name of .....

2: Because God made him the Lord or ruler of God's Kingdom. Which would be a part of acknowledging that he is Lord (Lord of what? God's Kingdom, God's people, Jesus is duly appointed by God to rule). Not that he's just any lord. It's an acknowledgement of God's theocratic order and hierarchy and the role Jesus plays in it. Next to that the name "Jesus" is called a theophoric (god-bearing) name, it combines part of the name Jehovah with the Hebrew word for "salvation", the name Jesus and everything it stands for on its own already brings glory to God, the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah is salvation" (through Jesus Christ). So it teaches something important about both Jesus and Jehovah and glorifies Jehovah as One that provides salvation.

Acts 2:36

36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”

i.e. Jesus wasn't "Lord and Christ" (the anointed one of God) before God made him both Lord and Christ, before God appointed him that position and role and anointed him (which is what was done to Israelite kings as well).

3: I think I just answered that one, a lord rules, lords are leaders. It's similar to the word "King" and "master". Of course in Jesus Christ's case, acknowledging that he is Lord refers to him being the Lord or ruler of God's Kingdom and theocracy. So it's also an acknowledgement of the existence of that Kingdom and theocracy as a real government with subjects, not just something in the hearts of 'believers' as some Trinitarians teach (but that's another subject).

4: That's not quite how it's phrased. John 8:19:

Then they said to him: “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.”

Because Jesus is "the image of the invisible God", "he is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being" (Heb.1:3) you can learn things about Jehovah by learning things about Jesus. I've spoken before about the different levels of "knowing" someone in this thread. If you intimately get to know Jesus (including his love for Jehovah and his obedience to Jehovah), you will get to know his Father as well. It doesn't actually say you can't get to know Jehovah without getting to know Jesus though, allthough I don't recommend it in light of 1 John 2:22 (it doesn't seem possible to really get to know Jehovah intimately without learning about Jesus and acknowledging that he is the Christ, the anointed one of Jehovah and how all that fits in to Jehovah's plans for mankind):

22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

So, are you willing to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, meaning he is the anointed one of Jehovah, logically leading to the conclusion that Jehovah anointed him and that Jesus has a God who anointed him?

Hebrews 1:8,9

8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”

Or you wanna stick with both ways of thinking, God anointed Jesus, but since Jesus is God, Jesus (in God-mode or the God-part of him) anointed himself (in human-mode or the human part of him). Mind you, this process of anointing Jesus (showing God's approval of Jesus) happened when Jesus was on earth.

Matthew 3:17

16 After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

So was Jesus performing some kind of ventriloquist act here? Or was that his God speaking about him and calling him "my Son", not "my God" or "God" like the way Jesus constantly refers to Jehovah as "my God"? Does Jesus have a God that is greater than Jesus? How am I supposed to view phrases as found in Eph.1:3 such as "Blessed be the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" from a Trinitarian perspective? If there is a God of our Lord Jesus Christ, then Jesus is logically not this particular God otherwise this God would not be called "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" and Paul would have simply said "Blessed be the (or our) God and Lord Jesus Christ" or something like that, he would not have identified this God as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a "God ...of our Lord Jesus Christ" and thereby acknowledging that Jesus has a God, logically excluding Jesus from being that particular God when one applies a proper and understandable use of language and reasoning?

I left out "and Father" so as not to be distracted from the point.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Actually the ORIGINAL disciples said to stay away and not to speak with those who teach gnosticism....

im afraid not...

Gnosticism wasn't even mentioned in any of their writing

it is said that johns gospel apparently speaks out about gnostic writing... not specifically in the least... and at the most.... speculation

im getting the feeling you don't even know what gnosticism is... Or what its about

LOL

The word gnosticism was not around back then and yet you use the word and not its meaning.

It is lies like this you spread that make you a bigot.

If you read the letters and volumes of books written by those who followed Jesus and I am not talking just about the Apostles you will clearly see they approached and demanded the heretics (mostly gnosticism and mysticism) to stop teaching lies... the reason why many wrote letters warning and teaching the lies.... like the one you now are attempting to spread.

These disciples stopped the spread of "doctrines of men" and many antichrist.... can you name one during the time of Apostle John? There were a few.

But by the time the apostles had died off AND the original 72 selected by Christ after 150 AD when gnostics teachings were the NORM.... actually much earlier in Egypt ... after the death of Clement of Alexandria (one of the 72).

I tell you now and everyone else ..... listen closely..... It is VERY clear what a Christian is and what one is not.... according to the original disciples of Christ AND the followers (disciples Christ chose AND who those disciples chose) because they could ALL heal the sick, the could ALL simply speak "come out in Jesus name and people were healed from all types of disease and a few even raised the dead... WHY could they do this and today hardly anyone does it? what happened?

A Christian walks with the Holy Spirit and this person can heal the sick, they drive out demons, miracles are preformed amongst those holy ones...

A Christian never curses, never gets mad, never seeks revenge, never steals, no gossiping, no jealousy, has the patience of a snake, no sex outside the marriage, no fornication, not eating blood products like blood sausages, No idols, homosexual is not tolerated does not hang out with any non believers, will only marry those of same faith, etc... and much more....

Don't start with Jesus, I know who he is and why he came here..... I know what a sinner is BUT a sinner can STOP sinning and yet still be a sinner; those who stop sinning, those who really suffer by stopping and rejecting ALL temptation, forgiving everyone no matter what, (a good example... see the Christians in Texas who lost 26 people by murder inside a house of God and yet they stand together and pray together) These dead are ALL martyrs for God the Father and God the Son and The Holy Spirit of God. stay away from all types of evil including most of what is on TV and internet .. to keep thoughts clear of these things..... which helps you to keep your mind on God and what he wants while walking in true love with the Holy Spirit.

I have been shown both my known and unknown sins that I carry and I am heading straight to hell if I do not make the necessary changes after I fast with repentance. I have repented and now comes change with the long suffering for everyone and it will not be easy. I am only making it due to my prayers being answered. I see my life changing by the day and the Finnish line is far off in the distance....

Being nice to people does NOT cut it.
Being nice to your neighbours does not cut it.
Not eating pork does not cut it.
No drugs, no alcohol, no dancing, no swearing etc.... does NOT cut it.
Praying to God everyday does NOT cut it.
Attempting to live the life of a Christian does NOT cut it......

all of this no longer matters in your life if you are still sinning. God can not and will not approach a sinner and neither will the Holy Spirit.

Those who sin or live in sin are not Christian but bigots and heretics.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

The word gnosticism was not around back then and yet you use the word and not its meaning.

Many of the ideas in "gnosticism" predate christianity... it was only given said name in the early second century... and its quite obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about... You're just ranting (preaching) about your particular version of your religion... seems very fundy

Even in your OP... you claim the trinity was what they've always taught.... well you are sorely mistaken... the Christian trinity didn't come around until quite a few years after Jesus' death... the exact time is unknown, but none of the apostles knew of such a triune God... Nor did Jesus for that matter... and it certainly wasn't what it turned into after Nicaea


And by the way i have read almost all of the early church letters... IF not all of them over the last 16 some odd years... And IF we go by your standard of "Christianity" they weren't Christian at all because "they" (the early head church) exterminated the gnostic writers... and most of their writing

So i will hold to my statement you quoted.... you haven't a clue what gnosticism is or what they taught

but i will tell you as to educate and not belittle as you attempted to do

Gnosticism relies on the self... not the church

in any case, the point being... Just because you disagree with a certain belief or idea does not make it "gnostic"

a reply to: Deetermined

This is why I use the ORIGINAL the FIRST disciples of Jesus 72 plus apostles to reference biblical teachings. The Trinity was taught by John (last living apostle) and his followers and anyone who rejected it was an antichrist.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DeathSlayer

The word gnosticism was not around back then and yet you use the word and not its meaning.

Many of the ideas in "gnosticism" predate christianity... it was only given said name in the early second century... and its quite obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about... You're just ranting (preaching) about your particular version of your religion... seems very fundy

Even in your OP... you claim the trinity was what they've always taught.... well you are sorely mistaken... the Christian trinity didn't come around until quite a few years after Jesus' death... the exact time is unknown, but none of the apostles knew of such a triune God... Nor did Jesus for that matter... and it certainly wasn't what it turned into after Nicaea


And by the way i have read almost all of the early church letters... IF not all of them over the last 16 some odd years... And IF we go by your standard of "Christianity" they weren't Christian at all because "they" (the early head church) exterminated the gnostic writers... and most of their writing

So i will hold to my statement you quoted.... you haven't a clue what gnosticism is or what they taught

but i will tell you as to educate and not belittle as you attempted to do

Gnosticism relies on the self... not the church

in any case, the point being... Just because you disagree with a certain belief or idea does not make it "gnostic"

First of all you are again wrong about when where and WHY gnosticism came around. Before Christianity it was PAGANISM not gnosticism teachings throughout the ancient world.

if you think the Trinity was not taught then you are wrong. Go back to OP and reread ad you will see the direct quotes from the disciples of Jesus and Apostle John and they all agreed that the The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are one. They were the ones who used the term .... TRINITY.

Add or subtract what you will but the you are wrong ..... a typical gnostic teaching ...... there is no trinity.