Genesis 1:26 Revisited, the Ordinal “FIRST”

[Trekson]

GINOLJC, to all.
first thanks for the reply, second, nope, I disagree with you. it's only one person, the Holy Spirit. to prove my point, is Jesus not the First and the Last. if so is this one person or two, but before you answer, we suggest you read Isaiah 41:4 FIRST, "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." now Trekson, the LORD, all cap said that he, the First, is "WITH" the Last. is this ONE person or is this two separate persons here in the verse. your answer please.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

I see three...The Father is, the son speaks, the HS is what is manifested, ex. the pillars of smoke and fire, the healings, all the miraculous things in the bible. I usually explain it like this. The trinity is so united that simultaneously, at the very same moment in time; The father thinks, let there be light, the Son says, let there be light, the HS, flips the switch, so to speak. God is on the throne, the son is at his right hand and the HS lights up heaven w/ their glory. Do they at times speak of themselves in the first person, sure why not they are all part of the same One!

 

[101G]

I see three...The Father is, the son speaks, the HS is what is manifested, ex. the pillars of smoke and fire, the healings, all the miraculous things in the bible. I usually explain it like this. The trinity is so united that simultaneously, at the very same moment in time; The father thinks, let there be light, the Son says, let there be light, the HS, flips the switch, so to speak. God is on the throne, the son is at his right hand and the HS lights up heaven w/ their glory. Do they at times speak of themselves in the first person, sure why not they are all part of the same One!

first, thanks for the reply, second, this is not what I asked you, listen closley, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I asked you is this the same one person who is both the First and "WITH" the Last , or is this two separate persons?. #1. the LORD, (one person), who is "With" a (second separate PERSON?). or #2. is this The LORD, (one person), the ordinal First, "WITH" himself the ordinal Last... the same person, meaning "ONE" person diversified.

now which is it, #1, or #2?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Trekson]

first, thanks for the reply, second, this is not what I asked you, listen closley, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I asked you is this the same one person who is both the First and "WITH" the Last , or is this two separate persons?. #1. the LORD, (one person), who is "With" a (second separate PERSON?). or #2. is this The LORD, (one person), the ordinal First, "WITH" himself the ordinal Last... the same person, meaning "ONE" person diversified.

now which is it, #1, or #2?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

2

 

[101G]

2

first thanks for the reply, second, ...... Trekson, you're 100% correct, if your 2 means answer #2. for if it means 2 person then you're in ERROR. for answer #2 is correct. it is one person, for Isaiah 48:12 makes it crystal clear, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO, the First is the same one person as the Last. the term "also" revealed the question correctly. also means, in addition; too. the Father and the Son is the same one person, only "diversified", with one of the "equal share" in flesh... just as John 1:1 states. with GOD, and was GOD, the same one person, now only diversified in flesh. and this diversity is clearly seen in the Greek term G243 allos. which express, "a numerical difference (2 entities), and denotes another of the same sort, (same one Person)." NOT "TWO" GODS, NOR "TWO" PERSONS, no only one God, one person, "shared", or is the diversity of his ownself in flesh, just as Isaiah 63:5 states, and Isaiah chapter 53 confirms.

so what is G243 ALLOS is saying?, (2 entities), but of (the same one Person). let the scriptures answer it for us. Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

the, "Spirit of God", is the FATHER, ("the Holy Ghost"), and the, "Spirit of Christ", is the SON, (the Holy Ghost, the equal Share, per Phil 2:6). G243 allos say 2 entities, but the same Sort, or the same one Person. lets see it in scriptures again, 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."

the ROOT, ("the Holy Ghost"), is, the Spirit of God the ordinal FIRST, "the Father", entitiy #1. the OFFSPRING, (the Holy Ghost, the equal Share, per Phil 2:6), is, the Spirit of Christ, the ordinal LAST, "the SON", entitiy #2. BINGO.

why do 101G say this is "diversity?". because the ordinal LAST, is called the "offspring", or the Son. well lets see what offspring means, it's the Greek word, 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
Root(s): G1096

there is why 101G uses "diversity" for it express the ONE TRUE and LIVING GOD clearly as the "First and the Last as one PERSON. and why do 101G not use simply the first and the last to express the Godhead, dose it not express God, the first and the last? yes, it do, but 101G use "diversty", because it clearly express the Godhead in Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." ..... (smile)

THERE IT IS IN A HUTSHELL.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Trekson]

first thanks for the reply, second, ...... Trekson, you're 100% correct, if your 2 means answer #2. for if it means 2 person then you're in ERROR. for answer #2 is correct. it is one person, for Isaiah 48:12 makes it crystal clear, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO, the First is the same one person as the Last. the term "also" revealed the question correctly. also means, in addition; too. the Father and the Son is the same one person, only "diversified", with one of the "equal share" in flesh... just as John 1:1 states. with GOD, and was GOD, the same one person, now only diversified in flesh. and this diversity is clearly seen in the Greek term G243 allos. which express, "a numerical difference (2 entities), and denotes another of the same sort, (same one Person)." NOT "TWO" GODS, NOR "TWO" PERSONS, no only one God, one person, "shared", or is the diversity of his ownself in flesh, just as Isaiah 63:5 states, and Isaiah chapter 53 confirms.

so what is G243 ALLOS is saying?, (2 entities), but of (the same one Person). let the scriptures answer it for us. Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

the, "Spirit of God", is the FATHER, ("the Holy Ghost"), and the, "Spirit of Christ", is the SON, (the Holy Ghost, the equal Share, per Phil 2:6). G243 allos say 2 entities, but the same Sort, or the same one Person. lets see it in scriptures again, 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."

the ROOT, ("the Holy Ghost"), is, the Spirit of God the ordinal FIRST, "the Father", entitiy #1. the OFFSPRING, (the Holy Ghost, the equal Share, per Phil 2:6), is, the Spirit of Christ, the ordinal LAST, "the SON", entitiy #2. BINGO.

why do 101G say this is "diversity?". because the ordinal LAST, is called the "offspring", or the Son. well lets see what offspring means, it's the Greek word, 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
Root(s): G1096

there is why 101G uses "diversity" for it express the ONE TRUE and LIVING GOD clearly as the "First and the Last as one PERSON. and why do 101G not use simply the first and the last to express the Godhead, dose it not express God, the first and the last? yes, it do, but 101G use "diversty", because it clearly express the Godhead in Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." ..... (smile)

THERE IT IS IN A HUTSHELL.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Well, we're not going to agree on this one, but I will say this regarding Col. 2:9, yes, the fulness of the Godhead (that word affirming a trinity) dwelt in Christ "in unity" the same we dwell in Christ, "in unity" and we are billions of individuals, I don't think it wrong to believe they have a unity so perfected that they could do things as ONE with unity, yet retain their individuality when needed.

 

[kcnalp]

Jesus is the Father, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

is not that "son" cakked Father, Everlasting...

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

So you're admitting the Father is God? I doubt you are. Do you even believe Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[101G]

Well, we're not going to agree on this one, but I will say this regarding Col. 2:9, yes, the fulness of the Godhead (that word affirming a trinity) dwelt in Christ "in unity" the same we dwell in Christ, "in unity" and we are billions of individuals, I don't think it wrong to believe they have a unity so perfected that they could do things as ONE with unity, yet retain their individuality when needed.

first thanks the reply, second, I never asked you to agree with me on nothing, I asked you to answer a question of FACT. which you say now you disagree. so that foolishness on your part. and as well as Col. 2:9, and no where do the bible say that it's a UNITY?. and again, it's not for you, or me, or mayone to "decide", what right or wrong when it comes to scriptures on our own accord, the scriptures stand on their own.... (smile)

so your answer 2 at first was a cover for believing that God is a "UNITY" correct. but yet in the face of truth, Isaiah 48:12 makes it crystal clear, the the First and the Last is no unity. "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

well Trekson, the First is "ALSO" the Last, that's not a unity, that's the same one person. which means you lied. and you cannot cover it up with Col. 2:9 either ... . lol...

now, when someone contridict their ownself, the book of James is clear, James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."James 1:6 "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."James 1:7 "For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."James 1:8 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

so let Isaiah 48:12 be a witness aganist you in the day of the Lord, according to your "unity". for we see the scriptures are true, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" WHY? 2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

so I leave you to Revelation 22:11. :cool:

Good day,

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[101G]

So you're admitting the Father is God? I doubt you are. Do you even believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Read post #47 above. (smile)... lol.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur

 

[Grailhunter]

Read post #47 above. (smile)... lol.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur

Ok, Spiritual Saboteur,
You got this thread going, in a nutshell, do they know what you are trying to prove?
Do they know that you are Jehovah's Witness?

 

[101G]

Ok, Spiritual Saboteur,
You got this thread going, in a nutshell, do they know what you are trying to prove?
Do they know that you are Jehovah's Witness?

(smile). LOL, LOL, LOL, you should ask barney if I'm JW, he will tell quickly.... for the umpteenth time, I'm Diversified Oneness. Just like the Lord Jesus taught, and his chosen apostle believed as well as the church disciple believe. this is nothing new, only the name, same substance.

now Grailhunter, do you know what I'm saying? for all of you are caught in a lie. listen. the First and the Last, listen to the word of God, as in John 1:1 the Word was "WITH" God? now this, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I here is one person.

but in the verse, the "First" is "WITH" the Last, many say it's two PERSONS, untrue, because Isaiah 48:12 put an end to that lie, listen. "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." also indicate that the First here is the Last the same one person. but the problem you and the rest who don not believe is how he Jesus is the "First" and the "Last" at the same time.... (smile).

WELL, that two person lie, the first one person, and the Last a second person, have been reprove by scriptures itself. which means the Word in John 1:1 is the Same one person who is God in that verse. which also means the PERSON Word in John 1:1 and John 1:3 is the same PERSON in Isaiah 44:24...... AS TO WHO MADE ALL THINGS." (smile).

now, don't argue with 101G, but argue with the scriptures.

anyone who deny the scripture is not of God. but an enemy of God. and why do I say this, because the bible say it. listen, James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." all who want to believe all those lying scholars, or want to interpret these verses another way, you're NOT a friend of God, but of the world.

there is no way someone can sit here and say the "First and the Last is two separate persons. when Isaiah clearly by God himself allowed him to write these word, "I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." if you get two separate person from those scriptures, you need to check youself, and the use of the language.

*****************************************************************************************************************
please note this, and let me make myself clear. if someone lie out of ignorance, (not knowing the truth), thaqt's is called an ERROR. but when someone lie, when they have information to show different, then it's a bald face lie. and why it's called "BOLD" Face, it has no COVER of ignorance, which is an ERROR. an ERROR I can forgive, but a bold face lie, without repentance, I cannot. no God, without repentance. Proverbs 6:16 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:"Proverbs 6:17 "A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,"
******************************************************************************************************************
now, when scripture plainly states, "I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.", there is no way, this is two persons.

and when the Lord Jesus whom you suppose to be following say, Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" is the Lord Jesus here two separate person SPEAKING, SAYING IA AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST? NO, or in this verse, Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." IS THIS TWO PERSONS SPEAKING? no, it's one person, and one person speaking. do you see how foolish the scriptures make one out to be who believe that it's two person.

now this verse, 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."
he, (JESUS), is Before David, root/title Father, (the ordinal First). and he, (JESUS), is After David, in flesh, offspring/title Son, (the ordinal Last).

so the lie of two separate person in Isaiah and John 1:1, and 3 is just that a lie. NOW THE TABLE IS OPEN TO ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE THAT THE FIRST AND THE LAST IN ISAIAH ARE TWO SEPARATE PERSONS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. remember, Proverbs 6:16 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:"Proverbs 6:17 "A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur

 

[Grailhunter]

for the umpteenth time, I'm Diversified Oneness.[/Q

Tomatoes....tamotoes

the first one person, and the Last a second person,

The first person and the last person jumps into the first person and now they have four arms and four legs and two heads and they make their way to the flying Saucer that flew in from Ezekiel and the take a time machine back to the Paradise of Delights....they shoot Adam and Eve so they will not eat the fruit and they live happily ever after.

 

[101G]

so we can take this as you cannot believe who the First and the Last is ....... one person..... (smile).

well Grailhunter?

only three scriptures destroy any three persons trinity. just follow the "WITH"

scripture #1. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

scripture #2. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

now the closer,
scripture #3. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

BINGO, the same one person.

the scriptures are clear, Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

think about those, Tomatoes....tamotoes ..... (smile) .... lol.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur

 

[Grailhunter]

so we can take this as you cannot believe who the First and the Last is ....... one person..... (smile).

well Grailhunter?

only three scriptures destroy any three persons trinity. just follow the "WITH"

scripture #1. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

scripture #2. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

now the closer,
scripture #3. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

BINGO, the same one person.

the scriptures are clear, Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

think about those, Tomatoes....tamotoes ..... (smile) .... lol.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur

I take it that you are quoting scriptures at random....
Still you have not explained your point...
But you quote John 1:1, that one is of interest. Do you know what "the Word" comes from that is the Logos...
**************The Gnostic Side of Christian History**********

Gnosticism….the Logos….and the Trinity in the Early Church
I cannot take credit for noting that parts of the Gospel of John has some Greek-Gnostic influences….it is a topic discussed by biblical scholars today, but it was noted within the first century. The Word-Logos was a very popular Greek metaphysical term or concept five to six centuries before Christ. A divine being manifesting as the Word, is a very metaphysical concept. In the period…it was sort of a buzz-word or term that appeared in various Greek metaphysical philosophies and then resurfaced in Gnosticism and Christianity. The concept was used over and over again with different spins on its meaning, long before it ends up in the Gospel of John.

Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and of course religion. The word is derived from a Greek word that has various meanings depending on the application i.e. "ground”, “order”, "plea", "truth", "expectation", "message", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", discourse" and even the universe or nature based intelligence and of course in Christian lore, the metaphysical manifestation of the Word of God.

It became a technical term in Greek Western Philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, of which then the Gnostics expanded upon. The writings of Heraclitus was the first place that we know of, where the word Logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy. For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's irrational structure.

Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in other ways. The Sophists (5th century BC) used the term to mean discourse. Aristotle (4th century BC) applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse" or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos. Pyrrhoist philosophers (4TH century BC) used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics (3rd century BC) spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the universe, in other words the birth of the Universe.) which foreshadows various related concepts in Neoplatonism.

Within Hellenistic Judaism, a philosopher named Philo (c.  20 BC – c.  50 AD) adopted the term Logos into Jewish philosophy. Philo distinguished between logos-prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos-endiathetos ("the word remaining within"). It is through this path that some connect this belief with some Gnostic sects and Jewish mysticisms.

The term is also used in more modern Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung. (1875-1961) Despite the conventional translation as "word", logos is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used. However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".

Gnostic views--- First as a matter of accuracy, the Gnostics labeled or named themselves in different ways but considered themselves Christians. The term Gnostic was a label given to them from outside sources. The meaning gets lost because, it is many times applied to any writings or texts or beliefs outside of the Canon. So it effectively means non-canonical. So as the classification of early Christian texts are at times debatable. Many texts are classified Gnostic simply because someone did not like them.

Defining the Gnostic sects would be like defining the Protestant denominations today. Just as it is hard to define “Mainstream Christianity” today. Since their beliefs were secret….we only know so much about them. What we know of Gnosticism today is through surviving texts that have been labeled Gnostic and also the derogatory writings of the ECF’s about the Gnostics.

Like the Christians, the Gnostics were developing a growing animosity towards the Jews because of the crucifixion…hard to get over the “crucify Him!” thing. Beyond that the Gnostics considered the Old Testament God somewhere between crazy or evil, because of His cruel and wrathful nature. But in both religions there is a focus on Christ and a focus to place Him as the primary God and to down play the role of God the Father…it is this effort that causes the Gnostic beliefs to show up in canonical texts and so called Mainstream Christian beliefs.

That being said, the Gnostic views or beliefs concerning the Logos varied but eventually they saw Christ as the revealed Logos, the word or expression of God animated in a spiritual-physical form that walked the earth in the personification of Yeshua-God. Early Christians liked Valentinus and Marcion at one time were very popular with the church but as their views and writings became more “Gnostic/mystical” in nature, they were condemned. The Gnostics did consider themselves as mystics, but they were faithful to the worship of Yeshua in their own way, not in His physical form as having been born in the flesh, they expanded the spiritual mystical side of the existence of the Logos. As in the manifestation of the Logos and the liberation of His spiritual aspect on the Cross. The concept of the Logos led some sects of Gnosticism to nearly deny the flesh and blood side of Christ.

In this way they believed that He was the Logos personified, and in that sense, He could have never been born in the flesh, because He was ever present since the beginning of time. The existent Word….present…but not flesh…present in the physical only as an illusion. But to the Gnostics, the Word had a germinating spiritual affect which placed a spiritual spark into Mankind, and then salvation was from within in this sense. (John 17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.) This verse even if it is not Gnostic, goes along with Gnostic beliefs.

So then the Gnostics believed that what Yeshua taught was inside of all of us, so that if we could just merge/join ourselves with that spark…that knowledge that was within us could save us. (Which is where the term Gnostic comes from…Greek for knowledge.) This philosophy shared some Platonic features as well, for it was the “inner” existence and knowledge of Christ, that was in the individual, in that so realized could cause one to be saved. At some point the Gnostics developed secret rituals to cause enlightenment or awareness of this inner “Christ.” Logos was the focal point and the key, the connecting force and principle that bound the eternal cosmos to the individual Soul, in whose image it was created and placed in a world of darkness and evil. This concept, that all that is matter/physical is dark and evil is distinctly connected to Greek philosophical thought and the Gnostics married these Greek beliefs with Christ’s teaching to formulate their own beliefs.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Gnostic elements of the Gospel of John are not a modern observation and if it was not for the popularity of the Apostle John, it might not have been included in the Canon. The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Yeshua as the incarnate Logos, And from there stand point Christ was the Creator God. Early translators of the Greek New Testament such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD) were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word Logos as used to describe Yeshua in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of “principio erat verbum” was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun verbum for "word", but in the later translations they had the advantage of nouns such as “le mot” in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (German verb for word) in favor of noman fur (German noun for word), this concept in Protestant denominations moved away from the original Greek meanings of the word Logos to a more dynamic but less philosophical explanation that came forward as “the living word” as in the Word of God was living as opposed to Christ being the walking Word.

Then again John has other issues, the story line is choppy enough to suggest removal of some sections and as it is additions have been proven. In regard to Gnostic beliefs the conception of Yeshua as Logos was a metaphysical-physical-spiritual conception, in which Yeshua’s spirit descended from heaven where He previously resided. (No one gets into the explanation of the Son of God title as in He was called the Son of God before the New Testament.) There are several scriptures to this effect, even outside of John aluding to the pre-existent Christ. The point and intent being to elevate Yeshua above the Jewish God. The scriptures in the NT indicate that it is Yeshua that is Almighty, not His Father…Yeshua is Alpha and Omega…not His Father. Yeshua existed before His birth, so conception is indefinable. Yeshua created the World…not His Father. Yeshua had all authority….not His Father. This becomes a problem for early Christianity because this belief is straight up Gnostic, and later comes back to haunt them when they try to denounce Gnosticism, but then hold Gnostic beliefs themselves. So they ended up having to defend their own beliefs while denouncing the Gnostics that had similar beliefs.

The superiority of Yeshua was not a belief held by many Christians in the era. Frequently the Bible references and designates Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord, and this lead some to believe that Christ was a demi-god. The words in the scriptures were rearranged so that the phrase Jesus Christ shows up 115 times in the NT, leading some to believe Christ was Yeshua’s last name. When the phrase Jesus Christ never appears in the actual scriptures. Then you have these scriptures that differentiates the descriptions and designations between the two, i.e. Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord. Romans 1:7, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:11, Romans 10:9, Romans 15:6 1st Corinthians 1:3, 1st Corinthians 6:11, 1st Corinthians 8:6, 1st Corinthians 15:57, 2nd Corinthians 1:2, 2nd Corinthians 11:21, 2nd Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 13:14, Ephesians 1:2, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Ephesians 5:20, Ephesians 6:23, Philippians 2:19, Colossians 3:17, 1st Thessalonians 1:1, 1st Thessalonians 1:3, 1st Thessalonians 3:11, 1st Thessalonians 3:13, 1st Thessalonians 4:1, 1st Thessalonians 5:9, 1st Thessalonians 5:23, 2nd Thessalonians 1:1, 2nd Thessalonians 1:2, 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, 2nd Thessalonians 1:12, 2nd Thessalonians 2:16, 1st Timothy 5:21, 2nd Timothy 4:1, Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:3, James 1:1, 1st Peter 1:3, 2nd John 1:3, Jude 1:4, Jude 1:21 Acts 11:17, Acts 20:21, Acts 20:24,

Considering the scriptures listed above and than these scriptures….

1st Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ…. And John 14:28 which states ….I go unto the Father: for my Father I is greater than I….This caused some confusion. Early Christians were taught their religion, they did not have a bound Bible, nor copies of texts….very expensive…even if they could read…the scriptures were either read to them or they had a few pamphlets. Either way Christian beliefs varied as they do today, particularly the beliefs regarding Yeshua. Was He a powerful prophet, was He a demi-god, or was He an equal God, Was He the Supreme God, even out ranking His Father Yahweh? The term Trinity is not in the Bible and most likely most early Christians had not heard of the term.

It is a matter of Christian history that beliefs varied. Some believed He was not a God, but rather a powerful prophet, that He was also the human Messiah spoke of in the OT. Some of this maybe because Christ and the Prophet Ezekiel both called themselves “Son of man.” Part of the confusion came from the Jewish religion that considered Elijah senior to the coming messiah. The coming messiah was prophesied to be a human warlord king that would take down the oppressors of the Jewish people…and thus would have blood on his hands and would be seen as with David, not worthy of a highly religious office. It was for this reason that the Jewish people believed that Elijah would return in a fiery chariot to “nationally” introduce the Messiah to the Jewish people. The arrival of the Messiah would be a spectacular event for the Jewish nation to see. So there were a lot of questions going on.

So then we come to the period from the end of Paul’s ministry up to the time of the Ecumenical Councils, starting around 325 ad. During this time the Gnostics are growing strong, even challenging Christianity in numbers, (Because the Christians were being killed by the Romans) and as I explained they had issues with the OT God and focused on Christ as the Supreme God, but did not really believe that Christ was of the God of the OT. Some Gnostic believed in the birth of Christ but did not believe in the physical conception of Yeshua, believing that it was more of a spiritual-cosmic-mystical manifestation of Christ in Miriam’s womb. Some of these beliefs make their way into many Christian beliefs. Ask a few Christians to explain how Christ was conceived, and see what you get.

So at the time, many believed that Yeshua was a flesh and blood man. Some believed He was a mixture of both. Some believed He was a lesser god…a demigod. Some believed that He was a God but junior to God the Father. Some believed that He was the Supreme God, and senior to God the Father. Then there were Gnostics that believed that Yeshua was the only true God. Christian beliefs are not standardized during this period. The Early Church Fathers found themselves fighting on two fronts. Struggling against the Gnostics and trying to standardize “Mainstream Christian” beliefs. As a whole they were losing. Gnosticism was growing and Christian beliefs continued to be unorganized and very diverse. As a whole the ECF’s were preaching the truth, that Yeshua was the Son of God and a God….but not all believed that.

By the time of the Ecumenical Councils, they were contending with many different beliefs within Christianity. First and foremost they wanted to nail down the fact that Yeshua was the Son of God and a God. There were many scriptures that supported this belief… but they had went too far…as I said, the scriptures indicated that Yeshua is Almighty, not His Father…Yeshua is Alpha and Omega…not His Father. Yeshua existed before His birth, so conception is indefinable. Yeshua created the World…not His Father. Yeshua had all authority….not His Father. And they were also contending with the Gnostic beliefs that the OT God was evil or crazy and some of these beliefs were becoming very popular. (The first Bible did not include the Old Testament) And the Gnostic Logos present Yeshua in a non-physical term just added to the heated arguments. Then there were some that believed that Christianity was trying to demote God the Father. Nothing left for Him as a God except maybe a broom to clean the hallways.

Their solution for all this….was to make them all One God and determine that God the Father and God the Son are of the same substance and nature. So in that way everyone had a part in everything. Although this solution more or less defused the arguments, this decision was not popular and people did not like it for different reasons. There was a general understanding and beliefs regarding unity, but the One God concept was not supported by Christians as a whole….because it violated the beliefs of people in many ways.

 

[Grailhunter]

So the Roman Church had a problem and they handled it as Romans do. It was decreed that if you did not believe in the one substance and one God Trinity doctrine…you would not go to heaven…if you spoke against it or preached another doctrine, you could be excommunicated or executed as a heretic….because the Roman Church was under the rule of the Roman Empire a heretic was also an enemy of the Roman Empire.

The Coptic Church went into hiding. Their congregations were in North Africa, many located in Alexandria, Egypt. They were so far south that they could minister to their congregations in secret. In 451 the Coptic Church split from other Christian churches in a major schism at the Council of Chalcedon over the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

Then there is the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. With Emperor Charlemagne's crowning, this made the Byzantine Emperor redundant, and relations between the East and the West deteriorated until a formal split occurred in 1054. The cause of the schism was mostly caused by political power struggles and some of the finer points in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Eastern Church became the Greek Orthodox Church, severing all ties with Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.

Greek Orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity, three distinct, divine persons (hypostases), without overlap or modality among them, who each have one divine essence (ousia Greek οὐσία)—uncreated, immaterial and eternal. These three persons are typically distinguished by their relation to each other. The Father is eternal and not begotten and does not proceed from any, the Son is eternal and begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternal and proceeds from the Father.

But the decision of the earlier councils really did not have an affect on the individual beliefs of Christians and this will become the status of the reality of doctrines. It has always been the fly in the ointment, that is, trying to control beliefs. The confusion factor for Christians was when they read the interactions between Yahweh and Yeshua in the Gospels, they then had to juggle the beliefs of conception, oneness, and eternal existence. Then that meant that scriptures about Yeshua is Almighty, not His Father…Yeshua is Alpha and Omega…not His Father. Yeshua existed before His birth, so conception is indefinable. Yeshua created the World…not His Father. Yeshua had all authority….not His Father…….were then made erroneous because it pertained to all of them, in one person, and could not be contributed to or connected to any “one” of them. In this formula they are one God and one person so they do everything together. This concept nullified dozens of scriptures.

At this point, the explanation of this was never addressed…and stood alone as a Catholic belief….that was until the Protestants. As a rule the Protestants accepted the early Roman Catholic doctrines, but in many cases combined Jewish and Christian beliefs which just adds to the confusion. As it is today, the One God formula is popular with the Protestants and most do not question the contradictions.

Still again, many Christians embrace the metaphysical concept of “The Word” and the concept of the one God…one person, which is fine with me….Christ spoke the Word of God….but for me I just keep it simple. But then I firmly believe that it was God the Father that conceived a Son and created the world and all that is. Which does not take away from the fact that Christ and the Holy Spirit are also full-fledged Gods and are united in a spiritual way. I also believe in the living word of God in that the scriptures can speak to us in different ways.

 

[Enoch111]

The point to be made of this Topic is to settle once and for all the questions concerning person(s) in the Godhead by the scriptures, no opinion, and not what I think, but what the God say in his WORD.

Reams of reams of words, but it is still your opinion.

 

[101G]

first thanks for the reply, second, why post something on the Gnostics? I could care less what they believe?

but one thing I will address is this,

Then again John has other issues, the story line is choppy enough to suggest removal of some sections and as it is additions have been proven.

so are you saying that something is wrong with the scriptures? yes or no.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[101G]

Reams of reams of words, but it is still your opinion.

first thanks for the reply, second if it's my opinion, then it's your duty to reprove and expose the opinion of man.

so if you can, please try... (smile), or you can help kcnalp out on "who" is the ONLY one that have eternal LIFE?

your choice... (Smile)

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Grailhunter]

first thanks for the reply, second, why post something on the Gnostics? I could care less what they believe?

but one thing I will address is this,

so are you saying that something is wrong with the scriptures? yes or no.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

The Logos is a Greek metaphysical and sometimes philosophical concept that first occurred 6 centuries before Christ in the Greek Wisdom Schools. The Gnostics also adopted this belief as a term, using it to promote the idea that Christ was the Creator God because they thought the God of the Old Testament was crazy or evil.
The Gospel of John actually starts around 1:19...some one stuck those Gnostic passages in there. But have a blast..

 

[101G]

The Logos is a Greek metaphysical and sometimes philosophical concept that first occurred 6 centuries before Christ in the Greek Wisdom Schools. The Gnostics also adopted this belief as a term, using it to promote the idea that Christ was the Creator God because they thought the God of the Old Testament was crazy or evil.
The Gospel of John actually starts around 1:19...some one stuck those Gnostic passages in there. But have a blast..

the gospel of John starts at verse 19? so verses 1-18 is not apart of the book?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"