Jesus is Lord!
I have seen this on bumper stickers, TV and the internet, but I'm not quite sure what it means.
It seems to be saying that Jesus and the God are the same thing, is this correct?
Jesus is Lord?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #71
[Replying to post 70 by man]
"What about things that don’t have life are they FROM Him?"
Everything that exists has something FROM God with it otherwise it could not exist.
God withraws his Life/Power by degrees all the way to the inert matter.
"What about things that don’t have life are they FROM Him?"
Everything that exists has something FROM God with it otherwise it could not exist.
God withraws his Life/Power by degrees all the way to the inert matter.
Post #72
So god made quantum mechanics?Monta wrote: [Replying to post 70 by man]
"What about things that don’t have life are they FROM Him?"
Everything that exists has something FROM God with it otherwise it could not exist.
God withraws his Life/Power by degrees all the way to the inert matter.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Post #73
Yes he did. He is the greatest mathematician. Everything in this universe runs by mathematics.man wrote:So god made quantum mechanics?Monta wrote: [Replying to post 70 by man]
"What about things that don’t have life are they FROM Him?"
Everything that exists has something FROM God with it otherwise it could not exist.
God withraws his Life/Power by degrees all the way to the inert matter.
To address the OP, the Father is God Almighty. Jesus is "Lord," to the glory of God, the Father. (See Philippians 2:11.) The Father MADE Jesus the "Lord."
"Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)
Post #74
[Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]
Silly me, I thought god made man out of clay. Why would god make something like quantum mechanics that contradicts his word in the bible?
Silly me, I thought god made man out of clay. Why would god make something like quantum mechanics that contradicts his word in the bible?
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Post #75
Don't be silly. The Bible uses a lot of poetic license (like trees "clapping," etc.). We know, scientifically, that humans are made out of the same atomic elements that are found in "clay."man wrote: [Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]
Silly me, I thought god made man out of clay. Why would god make something like quantum mechanics that contradicts his word in the bible?
Post #76
Well, I have to give you credit for not being a nut bag fundamentalist that does not see any poetic license in the bible at all.onewithhim wrote:Don't be silly. The Bible uses a lot of poetic license (like trees "clapping," etc.). We know, scientifically, that humans are made out of the same atomic elements that are found in "clay."man wrote: [Replying to post 73 by onewithhim]
Silly me, I thought god made man out of clay. Why would god make something like quantum mechanics that contradicts his word in the bible?
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #77
To my mind there are two problems plaguing this discussion.
First is exegetical: What did the canonical authors believe about Jesus; what did the historical Jesus (based on what he says) believe about himself.
The second is philosophical: this thread will be dedicated to the philosophical problem, so things don't get so confusing.
The argument that 1 + 1+ 1 = 3, not 1, is to me a little unfair and even arrogant. Does anyone here really believe that Augustine through Aquinas and beyond were so stupid they didn't recognize this facile objection?
The fact is, the trinitarian formula is just that, a formula. Its job is to indicate God's nature. Taken at face value, it appears a contradiction because we are bound by space and time and fatally prone to picture-thinking. The Judaeo/Christian God however is not bound by space or time; but when he enters space and time, our description of this event of necessity requires language that is not entirely adequate--at best "suggests" his nature. This paradox or limitation of language is not a peculiarity of theology. Are not the physicists constantly warning us that the language they use and the diagrams they draw will lead us astray if taken too literally?
Consider that method of theology which we call 'negative theology'. The attributes assigned God do not tell us what he is--to say that God is infinite only contrasts what he is with finitude; the same with incorporeal. Even the more positive attributes like "omnipresent" become absurd if we attempt to imagine them: the best you will get is a kind of extended substance, which is of course not what theologians mean by the term.
Philosophical objections to the trinity have to take seriously the factors of space/time, as well as picture thinking.
First is exegetical: What did the canonical authors believe about Jesus; what did the historical Jesus (based on what he says) believe about himself.
The second is philosophical: this thread will be dedicated to the philosophical problem, so things don't get so confusing.
The argument that 1 + 1+ 1 = 3, not 1, is to me a little unfair and even arrogant. Does anyone here really believe that Augustine through Aquinas and beyond were so stupid they didn't recognize this facile objection?
The fact is, the trinitarian formula is just that, a formula. Its job is to indicate God's nature. Taken at face value, it appears a contradiction because we are bound by space and time and fatally prone to picture-thinking. The Judaeo/Christian God however is not bound by space or time; but when he enters space and time, our description of this event of necessity requires language that is not entirely adequate--at best "suggests" his nature. This paradox or limitation of language is not a peculiarity of theology. Are not the physicists constantly warning us that the language they use and the diagrams they draw will lead us astray if taken too literally?
Consider that method of theology which we call 'negative theology'. The attributes assigned God do not tell us what he is--to say that God is infinite only contrasts what he is with finitude; the same with incorporeal. Even the more positive attributes like "omnipresent" become absurd if we attempt to imagine them: the best you will get is a kind of extended substance, which is of course not what theologians mean by the term.
Philosophical objections to the trinity have to take seriously the factors of space/time, as well as picture thinking.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #78
In this thread, I deal with the exegetical (vs. the philosophical) difficulties of Jesus' divine nature.
It is my contention that Pauline and Johanine theology most certainly hold Jesus to be divine.
I believe the same is true of Jesus (as indicated by his own words).
A language problem besets us at the start and require us to keep some things in mind.
First, koine Greek is not sophisticated. authors had to sometimes use a single word in different ways and only context tells us how (e.g. the term "Lord" or "kurios" can be a deferential address, or can indicate YHWH (in the LXX YHWH is translated Kurios).
Second, Jewish/Christian theology was exegetically based. They did not sit around dwelling on abstract, metaphysical concepts like "incorporeality" or "omnipresence". They looked to their scripture to find ways of describing their beliefs about Jesus.
third: the canonical authors were not all concerned with the same things: John dedicates the most space to Jesus' preexistent nature. Paul switches quite fluidly between Jesus as preexistent, to Jesus as Davidic king, to Jesus as exalted sovereign, and gives us little help in the way of technical names for each of these states.
I propose the following terms:
The Word refers to the 2nd PoT. It precedes the incarnation (I am not here begging the question of whether such a state existed; one can deny the Word).
Jesus refers to the incarnate word.
other terms will turn up during the exegesis.
For Jesus, the most explicit is his declaration that "before Abraham, I AM." Even if we turn a blind eye to the obvious allusion to the O.T. God's self-referential, it is still a striking thing to claim existence before Abraham, who predates him by millennia.
Here is Paul in 1st Cor. 8:6
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 aIf anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet bknown as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and done Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
(1Co 8:1-6 NAS)
The context is idolatry, one of the three stereotypical vices of pagans in the eyes of Jews (the other two were greed and fornication/sexual perversion).
Paul is opposing paganism with Jewish/Christian monotheism: "though there may be so called gods in heaven or on earth--as in fact there are many gods and many lords--". Paul acknowledges that there are many deities on the market, as it were. But he and the Corinthians know that they are all bankrupt.
Scholars have pondered why Paul uses the term "lords" along with "gods" and have attempted to discern a distinction. There is none; rather, he uses both terms to set himself up for his own Christological monotheism.
Now, above I noted that Jewish theology was primarily a matter of exegesis; reading the ancient declarations about God.
One major text was the Shema, Deut 6:4 4 a"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the bLORD is one!" a monotheistic formula repeated twice daily by observant Jews.
It is this formula which Paul has adapted for the purpose of setting forward Christological monotheism. We will notice all the terms are present in 1 Cor. 8:6
For us there is one God, the father,
from whom are all things and we for him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and we through him.
All the elements of the Shema are present. Paul has distributed the two titles for God between Jesus and the Father. the Father is given the term theos which translated the Hebrew elohim; Jesus is given kurios, which translated YHWH. And yet Paul makes it clear that this does not constitute a ditheism, for he retains the important numerical description of the Shema, one.
It should also be mentioned that the jewish God was believed to have created the world, and to have created it alone. He did not require assistance.
But in the N.T. this role is ascribed to Jesus (John 1, as well as 1 Cor. 8:6)
Here is from Paul, the Phil. passage
I provide the Greek, accompanied by a translation
5 Τοῦτο φ�ονεῖτε �ν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ �ν Χ�ιστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
Have this frame of mind among you, which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 ὃς �ν μο�φῇ θεοῦ ὑπά�χων ο�χ ��παγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
Who, being in the form of God, did not regard being equal with God as something to be held on to.
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν �κένωσεν μο�φὴν δούλου λαβών, �ν �μοιώματι ἀνθ�ώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑ�εθεὶς ὡς ἄνθ�ωπος
But he emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in appearance as a man
8 �ταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχ�ι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυ�οῦ.
He humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, and death of a cross.
9 διὸ καὶ � θεὸς α�τὸν ὑπε�ύψωσεν καὶ �χα�ίσατο α�τῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲ� πᾶν ὄνομα,
Therefore also God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name
10 ἵνα �ν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ �που�ανίων καὶ �πιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
In order that, in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and of those upon the earth and of those under the earth;
11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα �ξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύ�ιος Ἰησοῦς Χ�ιστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατ�ός.
And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.
Let's first apply a functional, rather than ontological hermeneutic.
It should be noted that the passage begins with "having this same mindset" or "attitude". Already we should be wary of imposing on this texts questions of Jesus' ontological "substance". We are being exhorted; it would be a very strange exhortation for Paul to encourage us to alter our "substances", since that is impossible.
Central to this passage is how we regard ourselves: note 2:3 which is functional--how we relate to one another! "Regarding one another as more important than himself". From this verse he offers Jesus as an example of this posture of humility.
Thus turning back to 2:6 "although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped/or held on to. (Augustine renders it "taken advantage of").
This verse has nothing to do with ontological equations. It is a moral example for the Philippians. Jesus forsook not a metaphysical attribute, but the dignity of being equal with God; all the comforts of the palace, so to speak--instead, he abandoned his throne and took up the posture of a servant--that is, as a man (since man's task in Jewish theology is to be God's servants). This posture of humility was so complete that, not only did he stoop so low as to be man before God, but even to be an executed slave before men. Truly, Jesus, though having rights to the dignity of God, regarded all as better than himself.
Now at this point in the Phil passage, I turn away from the distinction between ontological and functional categories, and towards our other hermeneutical principle: Jewish theology is driven by exegesis; and this includes Jewish Christian theology.
There are two principle monotheistic texts for Jews. One is the Shema of Deut 6.4.; the other is Isaiah 40-55. In isaiah 45:22-23 Isaiah anticipates a day when all the world will recognize Israel's God as the only God.
It reads: Turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness, a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
This passage is high monotheism: There is only one God; he alone deserves recognition and worship.
But in the Phil passage is precisely Jesus who is accredited this honor:
Jesus (whose very name includes the root of "salvation") is given the name which is above every name. But what name could that be for a Jewish Christian like Paul? It is not, as some here have thought, the name Jesus; he already had that name, and so did other men (Joshua of the O.T.).
The name Paul has in mind is "YHWH", God's covenantal name in the O.T.
We will notice the allusions to Isaiah, given above.
It is at the name of Jesus that "every knee should bow"...and "every tongue confess"...
confess what? That Jesus is Lord. The Greek term Kurios is the very same word used to translate the Hebrew YHWH. That is the name which Paul has in mind when he proclaims that Jesus has been given the name that is above all names.
Now, this does raise a problem: does this mean that Jesus was not God previously? Not at all. We come full circle to our distinction between ontological vs. functional theology.
The point is not that Jesus, post-resurrecton, acquired an ontology, a metaphysical attribute, which he lacked previously. The point Paul is making is that, always being God, now enjoys the prerogatives of YWHW in relation to the world. Having defeated death and sin and all that is rebellious to God in this world, Jesus now reigns on his father's throne, as Lord.
Here is the Highest Christology from Revelation:
Once more, I remind everyone that Jewish/Christian theology was exegetically driven--they went to their sacred writings, rather than sat thinking about abstractions.
Isaiah 40-55 is chalk full of monotheistic declarations. Here are two texts from Isaiah
Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God."
Isaiah 48:12 "I am he; I am the first, and I am the last".
In Revelation we find these descriptions (clear allusions to Isaiah) are shared by God and Christ
God says I am the Alpha and the Omega in 1:8
Christ says: I am....the first and the last (1:17; cf. 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this")
God says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (21:6
Christ says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (22:13).
From JOhn again, we have Thomas' confession where he addresses the risen Christ as "My Lord and My God".
It is my contention that Pauline and Johanine theology most certainly hold Jesus to be divine.
I believe the same is true of Jesus (as indicated by his own words).
A language problem besets us at the start and require us to keep some things in mind.
First, koine Greek is not sophisticated. authors had to sometimes use a single word in different ways and only context tells us how (e.g. the term "Lord" or "kurios" can be a deferential address, or can indicate YHWH (in the LXX YHWH is translated Kurios).
Second, Jewish/Christian theology was exegetically based. They did not sit around dwelling on abstract, metaphysical concepts like "incorporeality" or "omnipresence". They looked to their scripture to find ways of describing their beliefs about Jesus.
third: the canonical authors were not all concerned with the same things: John dedicates the most space to Jesus' preexistent nature. Paul switches quite fluidly between Jesus as preexistent, to Jesus as Davidic king, to Jesus as exalted sovereign, and gives us little help in the way of technical names for each of these states.
I propose the following terms:
The Word refers to the 2nd PoT. It precedes the incarnation (I am not here begging the question of whether such a state existed; one can deny the Word).
Jesus refers to the incarnate word.
other terms will turn up during the exegesis.
For Jesus, the most explicit is his declaration that "before Abraham, I AM." Even if we turn a blind eye to the obvious allusion to the O.T. God's self-referential, it is still a striking thing to claim existence before Abraham, who predates him by millennia.
Here is Paul in 1st Cor. 8:6
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 aIf anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet bknown as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and done Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
(1Co 8:1-6 NAS)
The context is idolatry, one of the three stereotypical vices of pagans in the eyes of Jews (the other two were greed and fornication/sexual perversion).
Paul is opposing paganism with Jewish/Christian monotheism: "though there may be so called gods in heaven or on earth--as in fact there are many gods and many lords--". Paul acknowledges that there are many deities on the market, as it were. But he and the Corinthians know that they are all bankrupt.
Scholars have pondered why Paul uses the term "lords" along with "gods" and have attempted to discern a distinction. There is none; rather, he uses both terms to set himself up for his own Christological monotheism.
Now, above I noted that Jewish theology was primarily a matter of exegesis; reading the ancient declarations about God.
One major text was the Shema, Deut 6:4 4 a"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the bLORD is one!" a monotheistic formula repeated twice daily by observant Jews.
It is this formula which Paul has adapted for the purpose of setting forward Christological monotheism. We will notice all the terms are present in 1 Cor. 8:6
For us there is one God, the father,
from whom are all things and we for him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and we through him.
All the elements of the Shema are present. Paul has distributed the two titles for God between Jesus and the Father. the Father is given the term theos which translated the Hebrew elohim; Jesus is given kurios, which translated YHWH. And yet Paul makes it clear that this does not constitute a ditheism, for he retains the important numerical description of the Shema, one.
It should also be mentioned that the jewish God was believed to have created the world, and to have created it alone. He did not require assistance.
But in the N.T. this role is ascribed to Jesus (John 1, as well as 1 Cor. 8:6)
Here is from Paul, the Phil. passage
I provide the Greek, accompanied by a translation
5 Τοῦτο φ�ονεῖτε �ν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ �ν Χ�ιστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
Have this frame of mind among you, which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 ὃς �ν μο�φῇ θεοῦ ὑπά�χων ο�χ ��παγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
Who, being in the form of God, did not regard being equal with God as something to be held on to.
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν �κένωσεν μο�φὴν δούλου λαβών, �ν �μοιώματι ἀνθ�ώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑ�εθεὶς ὡς ἄνθ�ωπος
But he emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in appearance as a man
8 �ταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχ�ι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυ�οῦ.
He humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, and death of a cross.
9 διὸ καὶ � θεὸς α�τὸν ὑπε�ύψωσεν καὶ �χα�ίσατο α�τῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲ� πᾶν ὄνομα,
Therefore also God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name
10 ἵνα �ν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ �που�ανίων καὶ �πιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
In order that, in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and of those upon the earth and of those under the earth;
11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα �ξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύ�ιος Ἰησοῦς Χ�ιστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατ�ός.
And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.
Let's first apply a functional, rather than ontological hermeneutic.
It should be noted that the passage begins with "having this same mindset" or "attitude". Already we should be wary of imposing on this texts questions of Jesus' ontological "substance". We are being exhorted; it would be a very strange exhortation for Paul to encourage us to alter our "substances", since that is impossible.
Central to this passage is how we regard ourselves: note 2:3 which is functional--how we relate to one another! "Regarding one another as more important than himself". From this verse he offers Jesus as an example of this posture of humility.
Thus turning back to 2:6 "although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped/or held on to. (Augustine renders it "taken advantage of").
This verse has nothing to do with ontological equations. It is a moral example for the Philippians. Jesus forsook not a metaphysical attribute, but the dignity of being equal with God; all the comforts of the palace, so to speak--instead, he abandoned his throne and took up the posture of a servant--that is, as a man (since man's task in Jewish theology is to be God's servants). This posture of humility was so complete that, not only did he stoop so low as to be man before God, but even to be an executed slave before men. Truly, Jesus, though having rights to the dignity of God, regarded all as better than himself.
Now at this point in the Phil passage, I turn away from the distinction between ontological and functional categories, and towards our other hermeneutical principle: Jewish theology is driven by exegesis; and this includes Jewish Christian theology.
There are two principle monotheistic texts for Jews. One is the Shema of Deut 6.4.; the other is Isaiah 40-55. In isaiah 45:22-23 Isaiah anticipates a day when all the world will recognize Israel's God as the only God.
It reads: Turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness, a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
This passage is high monotheism: There is only one God; he alone deserves recognition and worship.
But in the Phil passage is precisely Jesus who is accredited this honor:
Jesus (whose very name includes the root of "salvation") is given the name which is above every name. But what name could that be for a Jewish Christian like Paul? It is not, as some here have thought, the name Jesus; he already had that name, and so did other men (Joshua of the O.T.).
The name Paul has in mind is "YHWH", God's covenantal name in the O.T.
We will notice the allusions to Isaiah, given above.
It is at the name of Jesus that "every knee should bow"...and "every tongue confess"...
confess what? That Jesus is Lord. The Greek term Kurios is the very same word used to translate the Hebrew YHWH. That is the name which Paul has in mind when he proclaims that Jesus has been given the name that is above all names.
Now, this does raise a problem: does this mean that Jesus was not God previously? Not at all. We come full circle to our distinction between ontological vs. functional theology.
The point is not that Jesus, post-resurrecton, acquired an ontology, a metaphysical attribute, which he lacked previously. The point Paul is making is that, always being God, now enjoys the prerogatives of YWHW in relation to the world. Having defeated death and sin and all that is rebellious to God in this world, Jesus now reigns on his father's throne, as Lord.
Here is the Highest Christology from Revelation:
Once more, I remind everyone that Jewish/Christian theology was exegetically driven--they went to their sacred writings, rather than sat thinking about abstractions.
Isaiah 40-55 is chalk full of monotheistic declarations. Here are two texts from Isaiah
Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God."
Isaiah 48:12 "I am he; I am the first, and I am the last".
In Revelation we find these descriptions (clear allusions to Isaiah) are shared by God and Christ
God says I am the Alpha and the Omega in 1:8
Christ says: I am....the first and the last (1:17; cf. 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this")
God says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (21:6
Christ says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (22:13).
From JOhn again, we have Thomas' confession where he addresses the risen Christ as "My Lord and My God".
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Post #79
[Replying to post 78 by liamconnor]
Whew! Your lengthy long-winded sermon has points in it that have been taken apart on this board more than once. Hebrews 1:8 has been explained ad nauseum, as has the "Alpha & Omega" of Revelation. Neither of those references shows that Jesus is God, if we closely examine them. I don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Can you just do some back-reading.....do some catching up?
I'm pooped. I've rebuffed your arguments (given by others) many times before.
Whew! Your lengthy long-winded sermon has points in it that have been taken apart on this board more than once. Hebrews 1:8 has been explained ad nauseum, as has the "Alpha & Omega" of Revelation. Neither of those references shows that Jesus is God, if we closely examine them. I don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Can you just do some back-reading.....do some catching up?
I'm pooped. I've rebuffed your arguments (given by others) many times before.Re: Jesus is Lord?
Post #80You said God's government will welcome everyone who accepts Jehovah as the one true God.onewithhim wrote:God's government will welcome everyone who accepts Jehovah as the one true God and agrees that he has the right to rule. They will also accept the provision for salvation that Jesus made available for everyone.man wrote:Do you think God's own government that will rule over the earth is going to have a problem with Jewish people, Muslim people, gay people, blasphemers and atheists?onewithhim wrote:The culmination of all of Bible prophecy. The very theme of the Bible is God's own government that will rule over the earth. Jesus focused on that government and taught us to pray for it.man wrote:You long for that day? Why what happens?onewithhim wrote:Awesome! I will look for those books and the "Holy Name Bible." I have The Divine Name King James Bible by Divine Name Publishers, which restores the name in all 6,972 places it occurs in the O.T. and includes it within parentheses where it should be in the N.T.Elijah John wrote:That is sad. I do like and respect the way the NWT has restored some of the NT references to YHVH, when it is clear that OT Scripture is being quoted, and in certain other cases.onewithhim wrote:And even in the NT YHWH has been obliterated. Where God's personal name was included in old manuscripts, it is deleted in modern translations. So sometimes where it says "Lord" it might be referring to YHWH. (See Acts 2:34 where Jehovah is definitely referred to.) It's hard to tell, and that is thanks to men through the centuries altering the texts to irradicate God's name.Elijah John wrote:I think the way most modern bumper-sticker Christians mean it is that "Jesus is God".man wrote: Jesus is Lord!
I have seen this on bumper stickers, TV and the internet, but I'm not quite sure what it means.
It seems to be saying that Jesus and the God are the same thing, is this correct?
But that is not the original meaning of the expression. To Paul, it meant "Jesus is master" our best authority for understanding things Divine and the mediator for access to the Divine.
In the OT/Hebrew Bible "LORD" always meant YHVH, Lord meant Adonai ( "my Lord, referring to YHVH)
Only in the NT does the lower case "Lord" refer to Jesus.
[/i]
What may be encouraging is that even outside of the JW organization, some are rediscovering the importance of the Divine name. Some Evangelicals refer to "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" and an Evangelical couple Peter and Linda-Miller Russo have published "Proclaim His Holy Name" , and also the "Proclaim His Holy Name Bible" which is based on the KJV, but with all the "LORD"s restored to "Yehovah".
I recommend the book and their version of the Bible.
Also, Keith E Johnson's "His Hallowed Name Revealed Again". I don't think he is either a JW or an Evangelical, but this book demonstrates he really understands the importance of The Name as well. Highly recommended.
It's really great that more people are recognizing God's name. Soon the whole planet "will have to know that I am Jehovah" (Ezekiel 38:23). I long for that day.
"Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matt.6:9,10, NASB)
"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and...it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever." (Daniel 2:44)
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders;...There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace." (Isaiah 9:6,7)
"Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection....They will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6)
Psalm 15 gives us a good idea of the kind of people Jehovah will have in his new world:
1 "O LORD [YHWH], who may abide in Your tent?
Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
2 He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.
3 He does not slander with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a reprobate is despised,
But who honors those who fear the LORD [YHWH];
He swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He does not put out his money at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things will never be shaken." (NASB)
What happens to the people like myself who will utterly refuse to accept Jehovah as the one true God?
Will they be punished?
