I have been looking at many of the topics here on the site and finding a confusion about the Lord Jesus. Is he God or Not. I have notice many different doctrine that have been put forth.
But may I add just one more to the pot please, “Diversified Oneness�.
What is it? It is the doctrine that was taught by the Lord Jesus himself to his apostles, and written in the scriptures. I know the very first question you’re thinking right now is “where is this diversity in the scriptures". really all over the bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
First let me define it by the scriptures and then show it in the scripture. Definition, Scripture, Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star�.
Notice that word “offspring�. it is the Greek word, according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
See how the KJV can translate offspring, “diversity�. Meaning, that he, Jesus is God “diversified� or “shared� in flesh as a man, a OFFSPRING of man kind.
I have read, as said, some of the responses to this subject matter. Everyone has an angel to the Godhead, but what if we’re not asking the right question to get the right answers?
I would like to put forth a series of question that will eliminate any doubt about the deity of our Lord and the Godhead in totality.
My first question is this, “Who raised the Lord Jesus body up after he died on the cross?�. who did it.
I’ll be looking for your responses.
My motto is this. “where there is knowledge, stay not ignorant�.
Diversified Oneness
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
one answer, Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.marco wrote:Thank you for your indulgence. Paul chose Paul; Paul interpreted his alleged encounter just as some chosen individuals through the ages have appointed themselves to found Christian religions, again through some mystical meeting.101G wrote:
I'll let you in on who choose Paul, then Saul. read Acts 22:14 and tell me who was it that chose Paul?
Let me ask: if someone today in Jordan, say or in Chad or China announced that they had heard a voice from the sky and had been temporarily struck blind by God, would that be universally accepted as fact? Why, I wonder, does the incredible become plausible when separated from us by a couple of millennia?
Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them".
I don't have to ask Billy Graham, Paul the apostle, or anyone, just watch their fruit.
Now, with that out of the way, did you get the fruit of the knowledge that JESUS is the God of our fathers?.
Post #52
101G wrote:
one answer, Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
This is a guideline but of course wicked people and people who make false claims DO quote Scripture for their purpose. There are many people preaching their brand of Christianity but they often have contradictory messages. Your guideline does not identify truth. When Paul tells us that women should shut up in Church, this is a bad command, and so, by the fruit, we might deduce Paul is a false prophet.
Post #53
marco wrote:101G wrote:
one answer, Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
This is a guideline but of course wicked people and people who make false claims DO quote Scripture for their purpose. There are many people preaching their brand of Christianity but they often have contradictory messages. Your guideline does not identify truth. When Paul tells us that women should shut up in Church, this is a bad command, and so, by the fruit, we might deduce Paul is a false prophet.
this is why we're given the Holy Ghost for comfort, and guidance. and we have been warned, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition".
1 Corinthians 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
we can't vouch for other, but only ourselves. 1 Thessalonians 5:16 "Rejoice evermore.
1 Thessalonians 5:17 "Pray without ceasing.
1 Thessalonians 5:18 "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1 Thessalonians 5:19 "Quench not the Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Despise not prophesyings.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil.
that should shore you up a bit.
but, Ephesians 6:10 "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Post #54
[Replying to post 49 by 101G]
I actually see what you're trying to say. The problem is that you're changing the nomenclature for no good reason. Stick with the terms used in scripture and more people will see what you're saying. For some reason you feel this intense desire to change "son" to "Jesus". It doesn't matter. Stop switching the words around and the theory still works.
The son/word/Christ/is effectively all that there is. This is the revealed God of the Old Testament. The old testament writers point out that God is beyond their abilities to comprehend. God is incomparable. Therefore whatever is articulated about God isn't really God at all. This is why John uses the term "word". It's the perfect way to spotlight what's really going on.
The term "God" isn't God, but it signifies something beyond which we can comprehend. It's a symbol, a metaphor, "the mediator", the copula, the first person singular verb to be, the equal sign in an equation, the means, the "by whom", being itself, eternal existence, immanence, the one.
None of these are God. God transcends everything. God is the origin of everything, and never the twain shall be conflated which isn't to say that they aren't "one".
The problem is that the origin of being cannot exist apart from being, therefore there is no diversity whatsoever. You're literally bringing the trinitarian godhead into your theory without even knowing it. There is only the one being; the word, Christ. God is in, with, and through Christ and Christ alone.
The Spirit isn't a being, or a spirit. The spirit subjectively permeates everything. God is the origin while Christ is the means filled with this spirit.
Jesus is a name given to a man who denied himself which allowed that Symbol of God to shine through. The denial or negation of the self abolishes it, kills it, and the image of God is all that remains. This is Christ, and Christ would say, "This is who I am". This is who his disciples became when they referred to themselves as "the way'
I actually see what you're trying to say. The problem is that you're changing the nomenclature for no good reason. Stick with the terms used in scripture and more people will see what you're saying. For some reason you feel this intense desire to change "son" to "Jesus". It doesn't matter. Stop switching the words around and the theory still works.
The son/word/Christ/is effectively all that there is. This is the revealed God of the Old Testament. The old testament writers point out that God is beyond their abilities to comprehend. God is incomparable. Therefore whatever is articulated about God isn't really God at all. This is why John uses the term "word". It's the perfect way to spotlight what's really going on.
The term "God" isn't God, but it signifies something beyond which we can comprehend. It's a symbol, a metaphor, "the mediator", the copula, the first person singular verb to be, the equal sign in an equation, the means, the "by whom", being itself, eternal existence, immanence, the one.
None of these are God. God transcends everything. God is the origin of everything, and never the twain shall be conflated which isn't to say that they aren't "one".
The problem is that the origin of being cannot exist apart from being, therefore there is no diversity whatsoever. You're literally bringing the trinitarian godhead into your theory without even knowing it. There is only the one being; the word, Christ. God is in, with, and through Christ and Christ alone.
The Spirit isn't a being, or a spirit. The spirit subjectively permeates everything. God is the origin while Christ is the means filled with this spirit.
Jesus is a name given to a man who denied himself which allowed that Symbol of God to shine through. The denial or negation of the self abolishes it, kills it, and the image of God is all that remains. This is Christ, and Christ would say, "This is who I am". This is who his disciples became when they referred to themselves as "the way'
Post #55
[Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]
thanks for the response. if nomenclature, meaning to make it simple, I plea guilty.
example you gave, "Son" to Jesus. correct, listen, the term "Son" do not always means biological son. according to the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "son", It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27. those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom 8:14.
the term "son" in reference to our Lord Jesus is metaphorical to character, or his moral characteristics. that why the scriptures in Hebrews 1:3 states, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"
the "express Image of his person" is his "character". hence the title "Son". see, express is the Greek word G5481 χα�ακτή� charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,� the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point� (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image
see definition #2, character, that's how he have the title "Son". for the character of God is "Holy", hence the Title "HOLY" Spirit. Holy is his character, Spirit is his nature. hence God is the Holy Spirit.
see no word changes, only making it simple.
thanks for the response. if nomenclature, meaning to make it simple, I plea guilty.
example you gave, "Son" to Jesus. correct, listen, the term "Son" do not always means biological son. according to the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "son", It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27. those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom 8:14.
the term "son" in reference to our Lord Jesus is metaphorical to character, or his moral characteristics. that why the scriptures in Hebrews 1:3 states, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"
the "express Image of his person" is his "character". hence the title "Son". see, express is the Greek word G5481 χα�ακτή� charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,� the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point� (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image
see definition #2, character, that's how he have the title "Son". for the character of God is "Holy", hence the Title "HOLY" Spirit. Holy is his character, Spirit is his nature. hence God is the Holy Spirit.
see no word changes, only making it simple.
Post #56
[Replying to shnarkle]
Are you saying Jesus represents God on earth? Like Jesus is as much God as a man can be. How much God can a man be? We have limits and Jesus was most of all one of us . That Jesus was one of us says more to me than that he is God , indeed he is not God the Father, he is the Son, What does Jesus as the Son mean in relation to the Father. We are getting into the meaning of the trinity here aren't we. The reason we have a trinity is because Jesus and the Father are separate persons.
Are you saying Jesus represents God on earth? Like Jesus is as much God as a man can be. How much God can a man be? We have limits and Jesus was most of all one of us . That Jesus was one of us says more to me than that he is God , indeed he is not God the Father, he is the Son, What does Jesus as the Son mean in relation to the Father. We are getting into the meaning of the trinity here aren't we. The reason we have a trinity is because Jesus and the Father are separate persons.
Post #57
No, incorrect. I simply pointed out that you keep injecting Jesus' name where it never existed. Try to pay attention to what I'm actually posting. I never said anything about biology.101G wrote: [Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]
thanks for the response. if nomenclature, meaning to make it simple, I plea guilty.
example you gave, "Son" to Jesus. correct,
Injecting straw man arguments and going on wild goose hunts doesn't simplify your argument. Try distilling it down to the essentials. You're posts are all over the place. They don't need to be all over the place. I'm following everything you're saying, and you're quite simply not connecting any of these disparate points with anything but speculation.
Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life". He never says he's the spirit or the father. He never says, "I am one with the father". Jesus is not the father nor is he the Spirit. The father is in him and he is in the father. That's what the texts state. Of course, you will never find Jesus making these statements in the first person. Why? Because he's denied himself. The "I" isn't Jesus. It's "the word", "I AM"; Christ; "the way" etc.
Post #58
thanks for the response.dio9 wrote: [Replying to shnarkle]
Are you saying Jesus represents God on earth? Like Jesus is as much God as a man can be. How much God can a man be? We have limits and Jesus was most of all one of us . That Jesus was one of us says more to me than that he is God , indeed he is not God the Father, he is the Son, What does Jesus as the Son mean in relation to the Father. We are getting into the meaning of the trinity here aren't we. The reason we have a trinity is because Jesus and the Father are separate persons.
what I'm saying is JESUS is God shared in flesh on earth. supportive scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me".
his "OWN" arm is him, God himself.
now to understand this concept. God is Spirit, ABSTRACT, by making a body of flesh in a woman womb that he "shared" himself" by coming in flesh. this flesh MANIFESTED the characteristics of the spirit that was in it. this MANIFESTATION is CONCRETE. meaning a concrete present of God in flesh, on earth. remember, the Spirit is shared, so as the Spirit he's everywhere as always, but at the same time shared in flesh. this is the The Intrinsic Spatial of God in concrete form here on earth. I suggest you look up Intrinsic and Spatial by themselves and get the meaning when put together.
now to understand the Spirit who is subjective, and the Spirit shared in flesh the objective, supportive scripture. John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
see, while God who is Spirit is in heaven, at the same time God shared in flesh on earth was speaking to Nicodemus at the same time in the the same space, or Spatial.
so, is Christ the representative of God on earth? he's the manifested present of God on earth.
that which was invisible is now made visible. so yes God is his "own" representative here on earth in flesh. supportive scripture, John 1:10 "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 "He came unto his own, and his own received him not".
Post #59
No straw man arguments here, just scripture.shnarkle wrote:No, incorrect. I simply pointed out that you keep injecting Jesus' name where it never existed. Try to pay attention to what I'm actually posting. I never said anything about biology.101G wrote: [Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]
thanks for the response. if nomenclature, meaning to make it simple, I plea guilty.
example you gave, "Son" to Jesus. correct,
Injecting straw man arguments and going on wild goose hunts doesn't simplify your argument. Try distilling it down to the essentials. You're posts are all over the place. They don't need to be all over the place. I'm following everything you're saying, and you're quite simply not connecting any of these disparate points with anything but speculation.
Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life". He never says he's the spirit or the father. He never says, "I am one with the father". Jesus is not the father nor is he the Spirit. The father is in him and he is in the father. That's what the texts state. Of course, you will never find Jesus making these statements in the first person. Why? Because he's denied himself. The "I" isn't Jesus. It's "the word", "I AM"; Christ; "the way" etc.
one of my first question I ask was, "Who made all things". that right there should have told you, but you didn't see it did you.
in order to have a straw man arguments one needs "straws" right. well I have scripture, the word of God which burn up any straws., or any man.....
Jeremiah 5:14 "Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them".
and fire burns up wood hay (straws) and stubble.
1 Corinthians 3:11 "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:12 "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1 Corinthians 3:13 "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1 Corinthians 3:14 "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire".
now, let's put these scriptures to the TEST. again, I ask "who made all things".
your answer please.
Post #60
He represents God's will and authority.
Not really. Christ is the image of God. In other words, Christ is transparent so when you see the son you're actually seeing the Father.Like Jesus is as much God as a man can be.
A man cannot be God because God is the orign of being, and the origin of being cannot exist apart from being. It's the difference between being and becoming.How much God can a man be?
No, Jesus denies himself. We don't. There is no comparison. Christ is all that remains when one denies themselves, and Christ is most of all the image of God.We have limits and Jesus was most of all one of us .
Jesus denied himself so he was never one of us. He didn't come to be one of us, but to make us like Christ; to be conformed into the image of God.That Jesus was one of us says more to me than that he is God ,
Yep.indeed he is not God the Father, he is the Son,
I don't know the chronology of events in the development of the trinity, but i do know that there's some contradictions going on, and i don't know which statements are primary and which are secondary. The creed states, "one in being with the father", but then most people i hear talking of the trinity refer to three persons. I'm inclind to go along with the creed because it matches the texts.What does Jesus as the Son mean in relation to the Father. We are getting into the meaning of the trinity here aren't we. The reason we have a trinity is because Jesus and the Father are separate persons.
In other words, the father is the origin of existence while Christ is the means of existence. Christ is the ground of being, and therefore God can't exist apart from Christ, and Christ can't exist without the origin. It should be pointed out that the terms "origin" and "beginning" are practically synonymous, but only with regards to things. Prior to the existence of things, orgin denotes source while beginning marks when something begins. The word exists prior to the beginning of what exists, e.g. time, space, things etc.
The meaning is relational. You can't have a son without a father, and you can't be a father without a son. The thing that i find most interesting here is that Paul and John seem to be pointing out that the word/Christ aren't God at all, but that the existence of God can only be found in the Son/the word/Christ.
I see a trinitarian aspect to the texts, and reality itself, but not necessarily with regards to God. There are not three persons. There is only one person, and that person is Christ/the word. God is found dwelling withing as the source of being, and God exists exclusively within the word. God cannot exist apart from being. This is simple logic and it seems to be what John and Paul are both pointing out. I think Jesus is saying the same thing when he says, "if you have seen the son you have seen the father". He is the image of God, but God's image isn't God. It's God's image. Look in a mirror and you see your image, but your image isn't you. It isn't who you are, it's an image of what you are.
God and Christ aren't a "what" or a thing. They are both a "who", and yet Christ's essential nature in being doesn't allow him to transcend being while he exists. Christ does transcend though because he says that he returns to the father. The father is transcendent so Christ eventually does transcend being.
