Worship Jesus

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Post Reply
Message
Author
goghtherefore
Posts: 199
Joined: 2 years ago

Worship Jesus

#1 Post by goghtherefore » 1 week ago

An informative audio visual presentation; imo.

Did The Jehovah's Witnesses Change Their Bible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxEHF-XbYBk

.02,

goghtherefore
“This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
Luke 9:35

User avatar
Illusive
Posts: 56
Joined: 1 week ago

Re: Worship Jesus

#2 Post by Illusive » 1 week ago

I know little about the early JWs or the JW theology as a whole still. That entire video is fascinating.

If it is the case that early JWs believed that Jesus is God(being the divine logos, or the divine thought of God which is identical to his essence), then the JWs would've been trinitarians(probably) even if they verbally denied it, there is obviously more to it depending on what their Christology would've been.

If however, it is the case that early JWs believed that Jesus should be worshipped and that he is not God, then that would've been polytheism.
Latin Catholic. Professional Super-Villain. Founder of Cerberus. Follower of the Shepherd who is the savior of humanity. Dank meme enjoyer

Theme song: https://youtu.be/PnuSL7oUimA

Contact me on Discord - The Illusive Man#5157

goghtherefore
Posts: 199
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Worship Jesus

#3 Post by goghtherefore » 1 week ago

Thank you for your comment Illusive

Regarding: ..."early JWs believed that Jesus should be worshipped and that he is not God, then that would've been polytheism."

As part of discussion recently regarding the nature of Jesus Christ, Jdubs believe Jesus is also Michael (one of the archangels) and Abaddon (angel of the abyss (of revelation)).

Might new word have to be invented to describe this "diverse" nature of our Lord and Shepherd Jesus Christ?


With appreciation,

goghtherefore
“This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
Luke 9:35

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 319
Joined: 4 months ago
Contact:

Re: Worship Jesus

#4 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 week ago

There are some questionable translation changes in the NWT in some places for sure. Certain words that seem insignificant change the entire context of whole passages.

A few of can think of are:

-The 70 week Babylon prophecies ("for" is changed out for "at", to imply it's 70 weeks at Babylon for Israel, as opposed to 70 weeks for Babylon's rule, to suit their 607 reasoning). This is revealed upon manuscript examination.

-Changing the word from "appoint" to "Covenant" in the latter part of Lord's Supper passages (this changes the context of the passage to make it look like that only those who have been specially selected to be part of a "ruling covenant" can partake of the emblems, when in reality the Covenant of Jesus blood for Christians to partake of, and the election of ruling were two different topics he spoke of)

-Changing "be persuaded/convinced by those taking the lead" to "obey those taking the lead" (many Bibles are guilty of this however, to enforce an all powerful clergy doctrine, when the original verse speaks of "being convinced" of those taking the lead in accordance to observation and agreement with their doctrine in accordance to scripture).




However, in other places, I can agree with the NWT renditions. Which brings us to the topic of the "worship" of Jesus.


In Greek and Hebrew, the term "worship" is not rendered, but it is the general term for "bow", or to pay respect, which is the same term used for when Abraham is bowed to by Sarah, and the kings of Israel. Where as the alternative phrase for "worship" in Hebrew and Greek, which is explicitly and uniquely attributed to God the Father, is different, and is never to my knowledge used for Jesus.

In this case, it's a very similar case to Theos, in that, God is called Theos, without the Ho define article many times in general, but this only means "mighty", so it is a general descriptive term. A casual attribute. However, the Father is uniquely called Ho-Theos and El-Shaddai, which is the definite form which means "The God", as opposed to being a general description. This is why there is often confusion over just what "polytheism is" textually, because the ancient language paradigm was different, which is why many beings, such as angels, kings and judges, are also called "god" or "gods".

Therefore, polytheism is not believing in more than one "god", but rather, is the unauthorised holy worship of those "gods", or, biblical polytheism can also refer to believing in more than one "eternal uncreated God", of which, there is only the Creator, the Father (though I know Trinitarians [in whatever form they subscribe] consider the "Son" to also be part of that eternal nature).


But back to the main point, I personally have no issue with the word "obeisance" being inserted, because it is more accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew terms and applications for the specific word that was translated. If we declare otherwise, then it makes David and Abraham God, for they were also "bowed to/worshipped/obeisance'd", from the same word.

In this case, as akin to Theos (which has multiple uses and definitions and is not uniquely attributed to God), the word used which is often (and wrongly translated) as "worship", God the Father is bowed(worshipped) to, the Kings of Israel are "bowed"(worshipped) to, Abraham was bowed(worshipped) to, etc. But only God is "worshipped" (which is a totally different word).


So based on my observation and study, as well as also speaking with people who know Greek and have conversed with on this rendition (such as Brother Eric Wilson), though the NWT does a fair few naughty and sly edits for the sake of doctrine, I the term "obeisance/bow" appropriate, and should be rendered that way in "every" use of this specific word (whether it be to God or otherwise).


Very good video on the subject here:

"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

User avatar
Illusive
Posts: 56
Joined: 1 week ago

Re: Worship Jesus

#5 Post by Illusive » 1 week ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 1 week ago There are some questionable translation changes in the NWT in some places for sure. Certain words that seem insignificant change the entire context of whole passages.

A few of can think of are:

-The 70 week Babylon prophecies ("for" is changed out for "at", to imply it's 70 weeks at Babylon for Israel, as opposed to 70 weeks for Babylon's rule, to suit their 607 reasoning). This is revealed upon manuscript examination.

-Changing the word from "appoint" to "Covenant" in the latter part of Lord's Supper passages (this changes the context of the passage to make it look like that only those who have been specially selected to be part of a "ruling covenant" can partake of the emblems, when in reality the Covenant of Jesus blood for Christians to partake of, and the election of ruling were two different topics he spoke of)

-Changing "be persuaded/convinced by those taking the lead" to "obey those taking the lead" (many Bibles are guilty of this however, to enforce an all powerful clergy doctrine, when the original verse speaks of "being convinced" of those taking the lead in accordance to observation and agreement with their doctrine in accordance to scripture).




However, in other places, I can agree with the NWT renditions. Which brings us to the topic of the "worship" of Jesus.


In Greek and Hebrew, the term "worship" is not rendered, but it is the general term for "bow", or to pay respect, which is the same term used for when Abraham is bowed to by Sarah, and the kings of Israel. Where as the alternative phrase for "worship" in Hebrew and Greek, which is explicitly and uniquely attributed to God the Father, is different, and is never to my knowledge used for Jesus.

In this case, it's a very similar case to Theos, in that, God is called Theos, without the Ho define article many times in general, but this only means "mighty", so it is a general descriptive term. A casual attribute. However, the Father is uniquely called Ho-Theos and El-Shaddai, which is the definite form which means "The God", as opposed to being a general description. This is why there is often confusion over just what "polytheism is" textually, because the ancient language paradigm was different, which is why many beings, such as angels, kings and judges, are also called "god" or "gods".

Therefore, polytheism is not believing in more than one "god", but rather, is the unauthorised holy worship of those "gods", or, biblical polytheism can also refer to believing in more than one "eternal uncreated God", of which, there is only the Creator, the Father (though I know Trinitarians [in whatever form they subscribe] consider the "Son" to also be part of that eternal nature).


But back to the main point, I personally have no issue with the word "obeisance" being inserted, because it is more accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew terms and applications for the specific word that was translated. If we declare otherwise, then it makes David and Abraham God, for they were also "bowed to/worshipped/obeisance'd", from the same word.

In this case, as akin to Theos (which has multiple uses and definitions and is not uniquely attributed to God), the word used which is often (and wrongly translated) as "worship", God the Father is bowed(worshipped) to, the Kings of Israel are "bowed"(worshipped) to, Abraham was bowed(worshipped) to, etc. But only God is "worshipped" (which is a totally different word).


So based on my observation and study, as well as also speaking with people who know Greek and have conversed with on this rendition (such as Brother Eric Wilson), though the NWT does a fair few naughty and sly edits for the sake of doctrine, I the term "obeisance/bow" appropriate, and should be rendered that way in "every" use of this specific word (whether it be to God or otherwise).


Very good video on the subject here:

Usually don't care about translational issues very much and try not to argue them because I have no expertise in Greek but I decided to read about it for a few days.

I have come to understand that the case JWs(but in your case, an Arian argument alone) make for John 1:1 referring to the Word(which is undeniably Christ) as "a god", is because the word "theos" is an indefinite noun because it is not preceded by a definite article, because it's theos rather than ho theos. Is that an accurate representation of the position you hold? Want to clarify that I am totally representing you correctly.
Latin Catholic. Professional Super-Villain. Founder of Cerberus. Follower of the Shepherd who is the savior of humanity. Dank meme enjoyer

Theme song: https://youtu.be/PnuSL7oUimA

Contact me on Discord - The Illusive Man#5157

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 319
Joined: 4 months ago
Contact:

Re: Worship Jesus

#6 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 week ago

Illusive wrote: 1 week ago

I have come to understand that the case JWs(but in your case, an Arian argument alone) make for John 1:1 referring to the Word(which is undeniably Christ) as "a god", is because the word "theos" is an indefinite noun because it is not preceded by a definite article, because it's theos rather than ho theos. Is that an accurate representation of the position you hold? Want to clarify that I am totally representing you correctly.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that the translation is "divine", not "God", or "a god". Both for linguistic reasons, and historical church reasons. Though I'd consider "a god" a second best guess.



I will post my reasoning on John 1:1 from my web article (as brief as I can, I will try to cut out some pieces):

This verse in the original Greek renders; “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with TonTheon, and Theos was the Word”....

Whilst the definite form of the word (Ton/Ho-Theon/Theos) refers to the Almighty God, creator of all things, the non-definite (Theon/Theos), whilst sometimes is used to refer to God, simply renders the meaning; “divine”, “mighty one” or “strong one”.

From the same root word, Satan the Devil is called the “god” or theos of this world at 2 Corinthians 4:4, which transliterated in Hebrew means “Elohim”. Jesus himself even at one time referred to the judges in Israel as “gods” with the non-definite form of theos/elohim. Never are any of these people called “Hotheos”...

... “theos” without “Ho”, is to mean “divine”, “mighty” or “godlike”. As such, taken on its own merits and translated accurately, this verse cannot be explicitly used to claim Jesus as the Almighty God.


Some have argued against this notion by saying that because the way John placed the word “theos” in this sentence based on a supposed rule of Greek grammar (Ben Sharp's), that “theos” in this context means the Almighty God (“hotheos”), and thus say the translation of “the word was God” is accurate, but this is not agreed upon universally by all Greek scholars.

We must bear in mind that there are only two forms of “god” or “divine” in the scriptures, “the God” (Hotheos) or “divine/powerful” (theos). There is no in-between phrase, it’s one form or the other, theos or hotheos.

"Theos” alone does ‘not’ mean “God”, but is something God, as well as other people, are “called” in a descriptive sense.


...the argument that; “theos should be read as God”, as to mean; the identity of Almighty God (Hotheos), in this verse, based on Greek grammatical structure, was stated by these very same Trinitarians (the Catholic church) to be “heresy” and a mistranslation of text which supports “modalism” or “Sabellianism” (the belief that the Son is the Father).


"The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, “and the Word was the God.” The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, “and the word was a God.”— David A. Reed, Theologian


Thus we come to an impasse. If “theos” is not to be read as “Hotheos” (which is the only unique definition which refers to God Almighty), then all that remains is the option to translate the word as “theos” in the non-definitive form which by definition only means “divine” or “mighty”, not God. One translation locks out the other, there is no middle ground to grammatically transliterate theos (divine) to mean hotheos (God) without a Trinitarian declaring the “heresy of Sabellianism” according to their own language scholars and doctrine.

Thus, this supposition poses a problem for both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. Either we can attest the grammatical argument that it is to be translated to say “the word was God” and we cause John 1:1 to support Sabellianism/Modalism, or we support the alternative rendering, that “the word was divine/mighty”, which then "enables" (though does not alone confirm) an Arianist interpretation.

“Arian Controversy” at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D... was launched from the basis of John 1:1, and it was not over whether “Jesus was God” at first, but over the “nature of Jesus”, and what “substance he was”...

The fact that there was such a back and forth debate on this scripture, which started, not over the Godship of Jesus, but over his “substance”, I believe further drives evidence against the notion that the original rendering was “the word was God”, because this was a debate over what the word “divine” meant, which lead to numerous philosophical positions...

because the word “divine” had been mislabelled to mean “God’s substance” (which is not found in the Bible as the Homoians tried to astutely get across), this lead the Athanasians to conclude Jesus was God, of which birthed the most heated part of the massive controversy which lasted for 60 years.

It was after this we know for a certainty, when translators began to write in the manuscripts “the word was God” (Hotheos), which in turn then lead to another controversy, that of the accusation of Sabellianism.... we had a debate for 60 years over the meaning of the word “divine” and its relation to “substance”, which I think is a strong historical source to firmly attest that the original rendering of this scripture was “the word was divine”.

It should be noted that a Trinitarian could still support the interpretation of theos in this verse merely meaning “divine” as opposed to “God”, whilst still believing in Jesus being God if he wanted to... for other scriptures as we have covered do call God “divine” (theos)… but he certainly couldn’t use ‘this’ verse to say “Jesus (the Word) is God” without contradicting the traditional Trinity doctrine, lest he supported Modalism or Sabellianism.


(Supporting renditions:

“…and the word was a god.” – Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, 300–600 C.E
“…and the word was a god.” – The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808.
“…and a god was the word.” – The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864.
“…and the Word was a divine being.” – La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, 1928.
“…and the Word was divine.” – The Bible—An American Translation,1935
“and of a divine kind was the Word.” – Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1946
“and the Word was a God.” – The New Testament, James L. Tomanek, 1958
“…and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975
“…and godlike kind was the Logos.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978
“…so the Word was divine” – The Original New Testament, 1985 )
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

User avatar
Illusive
Posts: 56
Joined: 1 week ago

Re: Worship Jesus

#7 Post by Illusive » 1 week ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 1 week ago
Illusive wrote: 1 week ago

I have come to understand that the case JWs(but in your case, an Arian argument alone) make for John 1:1 referring to the Word(which is undeniably Christ) as "a god", is because the word "theos" is an indefinite noun because it is not preceded by a definite article, because it's theos rather than ho theos. Is that an accurate representation of the position you hold? Want to clarify that I am totally representing you correctly.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that the translation is "divine", not "God", or "a god". Both for linguistic reasons, and historical church reasons. Though I'd consider "a god" a second best guess.



I will post my reasoning on John 1:1 from my web article (as brief as I can, I will try to cut out some pieces):

This verse in the original Greek renders; “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with TonTheon, and Theos was the Word”....

Whilst the definite form of the word (Ton/Ho-Theon/Theos) refers to the Almighty God, creator of all things, the non-definite (Theon/Theos), whilst sometimes is used to refer to God, simply renders the meaning; “divine”, “mighty one” or “strong one”.

From the same root word, Satan the Devil is called the “god” or theos of this world at 2 Corinthians 4:4, which transliterated in Hebrew means “Elohim”. Jesus himself even at one time referred to the judges in Israel as “gods” with the non-definite form of theos/elohim. Never are any of these people called “Hotheos”...

... “theos” without “Ho”, is to mean “divine”, “mighty” or “godlike”. As such, taken on its own merits and translated accurately, this verse cannot be explicitly used to claim Jesus as the Almighty God.


Some have argued against this notion by saying that because the way John placed the word “theos” in this sentence based on a supposed rule of Greek grammar (Ben Sharp's), that “theos” in this context means the Almighty God (“hotheos”), and thus say the translation of “the word was God” is accurate, but this is not agreed upon universally by all Greek scholars.

We must bear in mind that there are only two forms of “god” or “divine” in the scriptures, “the God” (Hotheos) or “divine/powerful” (theos). There is no in-between phrase, it’s one form or the other, theos or hotheos.

"Theos” alone does ‘not’ mean “God”, but is something God, as well as other people, are “called” in a descriptive sense.


...the argument that; “theos should be read as God”, as to mean; the identity of Almighty God (Hotheos), in this verse, based on Greek grammatical structure, was stated by these very same Trinitarians (the Catholic church) to be “heresy” and a mistranslation of text which supports “modalism” or “Sabellianism” (the belief that the Son is the Father).


"The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, “and the Word was the God.” The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, “and the word was a God.”— David A. Reed, Theologian


Thus we come to an impasse. If “theos” is not to be read as “Hotheos” (which is the only unique definition which refers to God Almighty), then all that remains is the option to translate the word as “theos” in the non-definitive form which by definition only means “divine” or “mighty”, not God. One translation locks out the other, there is no middle ground to grammatically transliterate theos (divine) to mean hotheos (God) without a Trinitarian declaring the “heresy of Sabellianism” according to their own language scholars and doctrine.

Thus, this supposition poses a problem for both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. Either we can attest the grammatical argument that it is to be translated to say “the word was God” and we cause John 1:1 to support Sabellianism/Modalism, or we support the alternative rendering, that “the word was divine/mighty”, which then "enables" (though does not alone confirm) an Arianist interpretation.

“Arian Controversy” at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D... was launched from the basis of John 1:1, and it was not over whether “Jesus was God” at first, but over the “nature of Jesus”, and what “substance he was”...

The fact that there was such a back and forth debate on this scripture, which started, not over the Godship of Jesus, but over his “substance”, I believe further drives evidence against the notion that the original rendering was “the word was God”, because this was a debate over what the word “divine” meant, which lead to numerous philosophical positions...

because the word “divine” had been mislabelled to mean “God’s substance” (which is not found in the Bible as the Homoians tried to astutely get across), this lead the Athanasians to conclude Jesus was God, of which birthed the most heated part of the massive controversy which lasted for 60 years.

It was after this we know for a certainty, when translators began to write in the manuscripts “the word was God” (Hotheos), which in turn then lead to another controversy, that of the accusation of Sabellianism.... we had a debate for 60 years over the meaning of the word “divine” and its relation to “substance”, which I think is a strong historical source to firmly attest that the original rendering of this scripture was “the word was divine”.

It should be noted that a Trinitarian could still support the interpretation of theos in this verse merely meaning “divine” as opposed to “God”, whilst still believing in Jesus being God if he wanted to... for other scriptures as we have covered do call God “divine” (theos)… but he certainly couldn’t use ‘this’ verse to say “Jesus (the Word) is God” without contradicting the traditional Trinity doctrine, lest he supported Modalism or Sabellianism.


(Supporting renditions:

“…and the word was a god.” – Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, 300–600 C.E
“…and the word was a god.” – The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808.
“…and a god was the word.” – The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864.
“…and the Word was a divine being.” – La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, 1928.
“…and the Word was divine.” – The Bible—An American Translation,1935
“and of a divine kind was the Word.” – Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1946
“and the Word was a God.” – The New Testament, James L. Tomanek, 1958
“…and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975
“…and godlike kind was the Logos.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978
“…so the Word was divine” – The Original New Testament, 1985 )

Okay cool, would you say that the word 'theos' may be used in a qualitative sense then? Sorry I'm using the terminology of linguists now since I myself have no knowledge of Greek. But thankfully I'm good at English which is a language so I'll use that to try and understand. Anyway by qualitative I mean "the quality or properties of" something.

So do you think the word "theos" translated as "Divine" would be that way to indicate that the Word(or Divine Logos, as we call it) possessed the same unique divine nature as ho theos?
Latin Catholic. Professional Super-Villain. Founder of Cerberus. Follower of the Shepherd who is the savior of humanity. Dank meme enjoyer

Theme song: https://youtu.be/PnuSL7oUimA

Contact me on Discord - The Illusive Man#5157

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 319
Joined: 4 months ago
Contact:

Re: Worship Jesus

#8 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 week ago

Illusive wrote: 1 week ago


Okay cool, would you say that the word 'theos' may be used in a qualitative sense then? Sorry I'm using the terminology of linguists now since I myself have no knowledge of Greek. But thankfully I'm good at English which is a language so I'll use that to try and understand. Anyway by qualitative I mean "the quality or properties of" something.

So do you think the word "theos" translated as "Divine" would be that way to indicate that the Word(or Divine Logos, as we call it) possessed the same unique divine nature as ho theos?

I'd say so yes, it can be qualitative (if by that you mean the "description" of something). One may even argue that was its "major" usage, and that when referring to Almighty God, he is being called "the strongest of the strong ones", or "THE powerful one of all powerful ones", as opposed to being a word that was by definition "deity" or a name of an object.


As for the second question. It is possible I think yes, considering that Jesus was "Begat out of God", he may share his "divine substance", made out of the "same stuff" as it were, even if not his essence, but that would be my conjecture. However, it may be just as well that Jesus is "divine" or "Powerful" in the way that other spirit beings are said to be "divine/powerful/gods".
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

User avatar
Illusive
Posts: 56
Joined: 1 week ago

Re: Worship Jesus

#9 Post by Illusive » 1 week ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote: 1 week ago
Illusive wrote: 1 week ago


Okay cool, would you say that the word 'theos' may be used in a qualitative sense then? Sorry I'm using the terminology of linguists now since I myself have no knowledge of Greek. But thankfully I'm good at English which is a language so I'll use that to try and understand. Anyway by qualitative I mean "the quality or properties of" something.

So do you think the word "theos" translated as "Divine" would be that way to indicate that the Word(or Divine Logos, as we call it) possessed the same unique divine nature as ho theos?

I'd say so yes, it can be qualitative (if by that you mean the "description" of something). One may even argue that was its "major" usage, and that when referring to Almighty God, he is being called "the strongest of the strong ones", or "THE powerful one of all powerful ones", as opposed to being a word that was by definition "deity" or a name of an object.


As for the second question. It is possible I think yes, considering that Jesus was "Begat out of God", he may share his "divine substance", made out of the "same stuff" as it were, even if not his essence, but that would be my conjecture.
I'm sure you'd agree that "The Word was Divine" would indicate something about the Word that is unique about his substance compared to all others. So he cannot share the divine substance the way you or I do. I hold qualities which are a finite reflection of Gods eternal substance. But in this case, it must be something unique to Christ right? If the Apostle John were indicating something that all humans had, he could have just said that. Instead he specifically indicates the divinity of Christ as the Divine Logos.

So he shares the divine substance, but in what sense in your opinion? Does he have any eternal qualities do you think? Or are you unsure?
Latin Catholic. Professional Super-Villain. Founder of Cerberus. Follower of the Shepherd who is the savior of humanity. Dank meme enjoyer

Theme song: https://youtu.be/PnuSL7oUimA

Contact me on Discord - The Illusive Man#5157

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 319
Joined: 4 months ago
Contact:

Re: Worship Jesus

#10 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 week ago

Illusive wrote: 1 week ago

So he shares the divine substance, but in what sense in your opinion? Does he have any eternal qualities do you think? Or are you unsure?
Because it's not explicit in scripture. I cannot be sure or make a firm statement.

We could say "Wisdom", because Jesus is Wisdom in Proverbs 8. However, there are alternative interpretations which suggest, Jesus is God's Wisdom and Word "expressed", and that Jesus is not Wisdom in a "qualitative" sense or cardinal sense. But rather, as God's spokes person, he "is his spoken word", representatively at all times, and so the "carrier" or "transmitter" of God's Wisdom.

Therefore, I am concrete on nothing.

One could say that he only shares God's "substance material" which could be considered "eternal" in nature, but nothing else, and is his own person, his own unique consciousness which came into being later, who was then tutored by God since the day he was "created", before all other things ever came into existence.

So one could say he was "in part" eternal, only in reference to his substance, but not his own independent mind, being, etc. For example, I take a piece of my DNA, skin, etc, and begin to grow a person out of it in a lab. It's "me" in that it's "my flesh", but it would not be my consciousness or persona, if it had its own brain/mind. It would be my submissive genetic clone son, with a mind of his own. The "image" or "likeness" of me, but was not me, yet "was me" materially.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 2 guests