Kiemelt bejegyzés

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty Who is the real God? A tri nity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the F at h...

Sunday, 2 December 2012

5. Archangel Michael, the Son of God

Archangel Michael, the Son of God

Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and It's Meaning

"en arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos" John 1:1 in Greek

About the word anarthrous

an·ar·throus  (n-ärthrs)
adj.
1. Linguistics Occurring without an article. Used especially of Greek nouns.
[From Greek anarthros, not articulated : an-, without; see a-1 + arthron, joint; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]

We could understand the anarthrous meaning of John 1:1 through a simple substitution of words.

If we substitute a word of a proposition with one of the common ground words the construction of the proposition will be the same.

For example:

"In my bag I have two apples."

"In my bag I have two plums."

Now, what we will have if we substitute some words from John 1:1?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Let's see:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god

Compare now with this substitution:

in the beginning was the women and the women was with man and the women was man

Technically the substituted proposition shows us some very interesting things, the nature of woman. She was also a "man" in her human nature. That is the meaning of the non substituted John 1:1

If we compare John 1:1 with 2Peter 1:4, what we will say about our future nature (if we accept truly and faithfully the heavenly calling)?

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."

We will have "the divine nature" as our Lord Jesus have from the beginning, when he was with his Father. So, we will be God or Jesus, because our "divine nature"? No, not at all. This word "god" could be used in both way:

- as a term for a descriptive title of God, the Father Almighty 

and 

- as a term for a similar nature as God have

Conclusion:
In John 1:1 we have both terms, but in the case of the Logos, we have an anarthrous construction not an articular construction and in this case the anarthrous construction emphasizes the nature of the Logos and is not a term for a descriptive title of God. So, John 1:1 shows us that the Logos was not God the Father himself, just has the same nature as his Father. Is not about a second or lesser "god", is about nature.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/07/your-gospel-of-john-says-the-word-was-god-but-that-translation-is-really-quite-odd/#disqus_thread
---

Why the disciples forgave sins if they are not God?


The question:
"WHY did Jesus forgive sin if he was not God incarnate????????????" 
The answer:
"WHY did the disciples forgave sins if they were not God?"

John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

About the expression "Jesus was God incarnate" we do not believe this. How could he be? If he is the Son of God? He is divine, but he is not God himself. God is one, and he is only the Father Almighty. So, the reason why Jesus and his disciples forgave sins, is because God, the Father Almighty gave them the authority to do this. For the disciples, God gave this authority through Lord Jesus. Without God's permission, they could not do this. This couldn't be an argument in the case of proving the Trinity doctrine. With such logic, even the disciples could join in the so called "Trinity" to be a God with many faces.

John 5:36 "But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me."
---

Emperor Constantine and the Erythraean sibyl (pagan oracle)

It is very interesting how emperor Constantine used a pagan oracle in a theological argument against his enemies. At that time, and before that time, some Christians from the Gnostic movement believed that the pagans were also inspired by God.

"(18.) Lend your ears and listen a little, impious Arius, and understand your folly. O God, protector of all, may you be well – disposed to what is being said, if it should admit of faith! For I, your man, holding to your propitious providence, from the very ancient Greek and Roman writing (WOW!!!) shall demonstrate clearly Arius’ madness, which has been prophesied and predicted three thousand years ago by the Erythraean sibyl. (19.) For she indeed says: “Woe to you, Libya, situated in maritime regions, for there shall come to you a time, in which with the people and your daughters you must be compelled to undergo a terrible and cruel and very difficult crisis, from which a judgment both of faith and of piety in respect to all persons will be given, but you will decline to extreme ruin, for you have dared to engulf the receptacle of celestial flowers and to mangle it with a bite and you have polluted it with iron teeth.” (20.) What then, knave? Where in the world do you admit that you are now? There, obviously; for I have your letters, which you have scraped with the pen of madness toward me, in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you – doubtless in regard to salvation. But if you shall deny that this is so, I now call God to witness that truly I send to Alexandria – that you may perish more quickly – the Erythraean Sibyl’s very ancient tablet, composed in the Greek tongue."

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-34

Arius view - that the Son of God has a beginning - was well received in his country and the emperor did not contradict this notice "in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you" but tried to fight this popularity with a pagan oracle.
---

Is the "Archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"?

Jehovah Witnesses weren't the first to reason that Jesus is Michael the Archangel:

"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels of God's inner council, and who is regularly described as "most venerable", "holy", and "glorious". This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas (was the brother of the Bishop of Rome) saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael. Both, for example, are invested with supreme power over the people of God; both pronounce judgment on the faithful; and both hand sinners over to the angel of repentance to reform them. ... The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. There is evidence also, as we observed in the preceding paragraph, of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel; here the influence of Jewish angelology is discernible." - Early Christian Doctrines, by JND Kelly, pp 94, 95 

In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees says: 

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn B{ible} D{ictionary}." (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048. 

"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.

John Wesley's Note on the Whole Bible: 

Daniel Chapter 10 

5. A certain man; Very probably Christ, who appeared to Daniel in royal and priestly robes, and in so great brightness and majesty. 

13. Withstood me; God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael; Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained; To counter-work their designs against the people of God 

21. Michael; Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.


C. H. Spurgeon from "Mornings and Evenings":

"To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."

As I wrote earlier, the so called trinity doctrine is of pagan origin, it is wrong and is not found in the Bible, thus it is an anti-biblical doctrine. But others say, that the Son of God did not preexist as a literal being, with God the Father as a distinct person (ebionites, muslims, unitarians, etc.). And others say that he was Michael the archangel, the Son of God, who chose to become human:

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to His first-born Word, the eldest of His angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the Authority, and the Name of God, and the Word, and Man according to God's image, and He who sees Israel (allusion to Michael from the book of Daniel 12:1, from the Old Testament)." 
P. 247, The Works of Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues"

"This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him. And the great and glorious angel Michael is he who has authority over this people, and governs them; for this is he who gave them the law into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same." 
"The Pastor of Hermas"

"And in that hour, the Highest Messenger MichaEl (the one who watches over the sons of your people) will arise, and then a time of difficulty will begin such as has never happened before and will never happen again. Will raise all those whose were written in the book, and many who died and were buried will be resurrected; some to life in the age, some to disgrace, and some will be scattered and shamed in that age. Then those who understand my words will shine like the brightness of the sky and like the stars in the heavens for ages of ages." 
Septuagint - Daniel 12:1-3 

A very important note: Matthew Henry cites Daniel 10:13 as "The first of the chief princes," not "on of the chief princes" ...

See also Young's Literal Translation

"And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first ("achad" not "echad - one") of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;"

(...)
And he saith, Hast thou known why I have come unto thee? and now I turn back to fight with the head of Persia; yea, I am going forth, and lo, the head of Javan hath come; but I declare to thee that which is noted down in the Writing of Truth, and there is not one strengthening himself with me, concerning these, except Michael your head."
Young's Literal Translation
http://yltbible.com/daniel/10.htm

"And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book"
Young's Literal Translation
http://yltbible.com/daniel/12.htm

"The Arab historian Shahrastani (Eleventh Century) affirms that, in the Fourth Century, Arius borrowed his doctrine, according to which the Messiah is the first angel of God for the Magharians, "who lived four hundred years before Arius and were known by the simplicity of their way of life and their serene abstinence."
"Who were these Magharians, whose existence dates back to the First Century before the Christian era? Their Arab name leaves little doubt; it means "people of the cavern or the cave," because -- Shahrastani makes clear -- they hid their sacred texts in caverns."
"There is nothing surprising in the fact that the doctrine of the Angel-Messiah (the angelos-christos) was originally Essene, since it was shared by the [various] Christianities and predominated up to the historization of Jesus, undertaken in the second half of the Second Century."
http://www.notbored.org/resistance-4.html

Daniel 12:1 And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book.

So, who is this great head?

Let's see a few commentaries:
“As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” - John Calvin. (See Calvin's writings online at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm) 

“Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.” - John Wesley's commentary on Daniel 10:21. (See Wesley's writings online at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/daniel.htm) 

“a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.” - Geneva Bible Commentary. (See http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Daniel/12.html)

Matthew Henry about Michael as Jesus

"[2.] Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5. He came to help me (v. 13); and there is none but he that holds with me in these things, v. 21. Christ is the church's prince; angels are not, Heb. ii. 5. He presides in the affairs of the church and effectually provides for its good. He is said to hold with the angels, for it is he that makes them serviceable to the heirs of salvation; and, if he were not on the church's side, its case were bad. But, says David, and so says the church, The Lord takes my part with those that help me, Ps. cxviii. 7. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, Ps. liv. 4."

"The Promised Appearance of Michael; The Prophecy Sealed Up. (b. c. 534.)

I. Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, v. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a firm friend Michael was to the church, ch. x. 21. He all along showed this friendship in the upper world; the angels knew it; but now Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deut. xxxii. 3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. i. 5. And, if he stand up for his church, who can be against it? . . . ."

See also: Is Michael Christ? (Part 1) by John Evans on:
http://www.planetpreterist.com/news-5298.html

But the opponents of this view say, that is wrong because "Archangel Christology" is an "angel Christology" in opposition with the Bible - Hebrews chapter 1.
So, the question is if Michael the archangel is an angel or something more?

I disagree with the term "angel Christology", because this term in not fully correct. 
I prefer Archangel Christology, because Michael is not a simple angel, he is the head of the angels, not one of them. He was before them. God created angels through him, so he can not be one of them! But this could be a confusion of tongues, or maybe some people want to deliberately confuse this issue. Some words could be used in parallel, but not in the same meanings: 
John 1:1: the Logos is god, but not God Almighty
2Corinthians 4:4: Satan is god, but not God Almighty
Matthew.16:23: Peter is satan, but not Satan the Devil
John 10:34: Some people could be gods, but of course not God Almighty 
Galathians 4:14 Paul received as angel of God, but he was not an angel
And so on... so the preexisted Son of God could be an angel of Jehovah - if we use this word as "messenger of Jehovah", but he is not "one of the angels" if we use this word as a common description for the angels.

So, who is Michael the Archangel in the Bible?

"And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first ('achad) of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;
(...)
And he saith, Hast thou known why I have come unto thee? and now I turn back to fight with the head of Persia; yea, I am going forth, and lo, the head of Javan hath come; but I declare to thee that which is noted down in the Writing of Truth, and there is not one strengthening himself with me, concerning these, except Michael your head."
Young's Literal Translation
http://yltbible.com/daniel/10.htm
Note: 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first -- a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,
http://biblos.com/daniel/10-13.htm

"If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. [Emphases in original.]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

"And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book"
Young's Literal Translation
http://yltbible.com/daniel/12.htm

"The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel." 
Geneva Study Bible - the old protestant Bible commentary 

Another followers of the Archangel Christology was the Arians or under other name the fellow Lucianists

Who was this Arians? They were Christians, named after Arius of Alexandria, but also they were "the fellow-Lucianists" (supporters of Lucian of Antioch and Arius of Alexandria)
http://www.fourthcentury.com/notwppages/arius-supporters-map.htm

At the council of Nicaea some so called Arians becames traitors of this Christology to escape the banishment. Bishop of Ptolemais Secundus prophecy ... has turned over one of the "traitors":

“You subscribed, Eusebius, in order to escape being sent into banishment. But I place my confidence in a revelation made to me by God, that within a year you too will be sent into exile.” 

In fact, within three months after the conclusion of the council, returning to his own original and manifest impiety, Eusebius was sent into exile as Secundus had predicted.

"I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [i.e. the pious one]."
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-1

Who was this Lucian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_of_Antioch

"The Arab historian Shahrastani (Eleventh Century) affirms that, in the Fourth Century, Arius borrowed his doctrine, according to which the Messiah is the first angel of God for the Magharians, "who lived four hundred years before Arius and were known by the simplicity of their way of life and their serene abstinence."

"Who were these Magharians, whose existence dates back to the First Century before the Christian era? Their Arab name leaves little doubt; it means "people of the cavern or the cave," because -- Shahrastani makes clear -- they hid their sacred texts in caverns."

"There is nothing surprising in the fact that the doctrine of the Angel-Messiah (the angelos-christos) was originally Essene, since it was shared by the [various] Christianities and predominated up to the historization of Jesus, undertaken in the second half of the Second Century."
http://www.notbored.org/resistance-4.html

So, the so called "Arianism" is certainly not invented by Arius nor by his teacher Lucian, but is certain an old, Jewish Christology. The true Christology.

Strong conclusion

The so called "Arianism" in fact is pre-christian biblical Jewish christology (messiahism). Was not invented by Arius.

There is, also, two echoes in the apostle Paul teaching:

"(...) but as angel of God you received me as Christ Jesus." Galatians 4:14 Biblos Interlinear Bible

"For himself Lord with shout with voice of arch-agent and with trumpet of God will descend from heaven (...)." 1Thessalonians 4:16 Biblos Interlinear Bible

And in Revelation 19:14 ASV "And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure."

Note: My opinions presented here may not necessarily reflect the full position of the authors cited in this topic (nor in other topics), or in other beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all others cited. I encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
---

Question: 
Wich was the "native" language of our Lord Jesus: hebrew or aramaic?

A neo-hebrew (a mix of hebrew and aramaic)
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html
http://www.ccsom.org/languageofjesus/EloiLamaShabachtani.htm

"Hebraidi dialektō"

Did the Messiah Speak Aramaic or Hebrew? (Part 1) by E.A.Knapp

http://www.torahclass.com/archived-articles/413-did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-1-by-eaknapp
Did the Messiah Speak Aramaic or Hebrew? (Part 2) by E.A.Knapp

http://www.torahclass.com/archived-articles/412-did-the-messiah-speak-aramaic-or-hebrew-part-2-by-eaknapp

Did the Messiah Speak Aramaic or Hebrew (Part 4) by E.A.Knapp
---

Was our Lord Jesus in the Paradise in that day when he died?

According to many modern time Bible translations, our Lord Jesus was in the Paradise, in the first day of his death: Luke 23:43. But where was that Paradise? On Earth was not yet. So, could be in Heaven? But this is in contradiction with John 20:17. Or maybe the heavenly Paradise are without God, his Father? This is a nonsens.
What is the truth, now?

In Luke 23:43 according to the early, second century Codex Curetonianus is: "I say today to you, you will be with me in paradise". This translation is in harmony with John 20:17, so this is the real saying of our Lord Jesus.

This text, which may be as early as the second century, is written in the oldest and classical form of the Syriac alphabet, called Esrangelo, without vowel points.

In our Bibles is in other form. Why? What happened with the text?
We have just two variants:
1.The text was misunderstood
2.The text was altered to support the pagan dogma of the immortal soul
---

What do you think about The Anointed One? 
(Matthew 22:42)
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying: What think ye of Messiah? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 
He saith unto them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: «Yhwh said unto my Lord ( Aw-done'), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool»? (Psalm 110:1)
If David then call him „my Lord” (Aw-done'), how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. 
Another verse related to this Psalm is Proverbs 30:4.
“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's (bene) name, if thou canst tell?”
Article from "Iesiti" by FBC
---

Only God is "divine" from a Biblical perspective?

Many people believe that only God is "divine" and because the Son of God (Jesus) is divine, he is God himself. But, according to the Bible, even humans could be "divine nature", if God (through his qualities) is inside of that humans, so, to be a "divine nature" is not equal to be God himself, nor a "part" of God himself. This disprove the Trinity doctrine.

See please 2Peter 1:4&1John 4:4:

Young's Literal Translation
through which to us the most great and precious promises have been given, that through these ye may become partakers of a divine nature, having escaped from the corruption in the world in desires.

Young's Literal Translation
Ye -- of God ye are, little children, and ye have overcome them; because greater is He (God) who is in you, than he (Satan) who is in the world.

Now, please compare "ye may become partakers of a divine nature" with "He (God) who is in you" and answer this question:
We will be God himself because God is in us and we have divine nature? 

If your answer is no, why then the Son of God is God himself, because he have divine nature and God is in him?

Also, read the following verse and answer the question, please:
Young's Literal Translation 1John 3:2
beloved, now, children of God are we, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be, and we have known that if he may be manifested, like him we shall be, because we shall see him as he is;

In this verse is written that "like him we shall be". So, we shall be even Jesus himself? No??? Why then, if Jesus is like his Father, he is God himself?
---

What should know oneness "Jesus only", trinitarians, unitarians, etc. about the word "god" from John 1:1 part c "and the word was god"?

Many people believe in "God's incarnation" (oneness "Jesus only", trinitarians, etc.) or in God's literal words - as God's plan incarnation (unitarians, socinians, christadelphians, etc.) because they don't understand John 1:1 part c "and the word was god" and they do this because not understand a very simple way of saying. For example Satan is "the god (the same word like in John 1:1 part c) of this age", according to 2Corinthians 4:4. Satan is God, like the Father, or just "god"? Again, Peter was named "satan" by Jesus, according to Matthew.16:23. Is Peter Satan, the Devil or just "satan"? 

When in John 1:1 part c our Lord Jesus is named "god" is in this way of saying: 

John 10:
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than alld; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’e? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

What is the problem with the word "god" from John 1:1 part c? This word (god) could be used or was used just in connection with God Almighty? No! I don't know why it is so hard for trinitarinans and unitarians to accept an apart way of saying? The first man, Adam, after his eartly nature was named "man" (wich means a kind of soil), and of course his sons are all named after his nature: man. If the sons of Adam have the eartly, Adam-like, Adam-nature, why the heavenly Son of God could not have the heavenly God-like, God (Divine)-nature? The sons of Adam are not Adam, so, the son of God are not God. Of course, when the Son of God came in this world he put down his God-nature, and put up the Adam-nature, so, he became a simple man, like the first man, Adam, special, pure and without sin. If we understand right John 1:1 part c, the whole message of John 1:1 is so simple, so wonderful, so true: God have a heavenly Son (son in literal meaning, see please Hebrews 1:3), who have the same nature as his Father. This Son came down from heaven, not God, nor a "God's plan".

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!
---

True Christians have one God, 

but this is not Lord Jesus, he is the Son of this one God

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'" 
John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." 
1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 
1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 
James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." 
---

Witnessing testimony only regarding Lord Jesus?

"serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews; how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.  ASV Acts 20:19-21 

This is more than clear for all who want the truth.

Compare with 1Corinthians 15:12-16 ASV:

"Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:" 

So, the early Christians have a witnessing testimony only regarding Lord Jesus? Not at all. See the steps:

1.testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God
2.and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ

Testimony for two persons not one.
But now, many so called Christianities talk just about Jesus. But what? That he is the Almighty God.
---

A reply and a question about the Son of God pre-human existence

Subject: Re: 
To: 
Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 7:15 PM
"Thanks for sending, but it would be better to start with Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 20. 
Your Jesus is not human, but just dressed up as one. 
Mary had a baby begotten, fathered in her. To beget means to cause to come into existence! 
We have dealt with you various points in our two books. 
It is very important to worship as Messiah the Jesus who began in Mary and your Jesus is not really human>\I Tim 2:5 is not so hard. 
Again, start with Matt and LUke and Acts.
preexistence is a fog word: you cannot preexist yourself! 
you are describing a transformation and not a begetting at all. 
Better to believe Luke 1:25 and Matt 1:18, 20. 
You underestimate the false translations in some Bibles of some passages in John. 
X"
My reply
For good understanding, is must go to the whole Bible, not just in that text what we like.
Now, let me put to you a few questions.
First question:
Why in the ancient time, people believe that God must have a son?
Proverbs 30:
2“I am the most ignorant of men;
I do not have a man’s understanding. 
3I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. 
4Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know! 
---

An early version of John 1:1 in Bohairic Coptic language

In the Bohairic coptic, the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out. These early translators made a clear distinction, and knew how the text where understood.
Youtube
---

In Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah God said he will not give his glory to another. This glory is against idol worship. But Jesus Christ, His onlybegotten Son received Jehovah's glory. Does that make Jesus Jehovah? 

Answer: 
Not unless the disciples are Jehovah as well. 

(John 17:22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 

John 10:30 Does being one with the Father make you Jehovah?

(John 10:30) I and my Father are one.

Answer: 
Not unless the disciples are Jehovah as well!

(John 17:11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(John 17:23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Youtube
---

The origin of Arian Christology

What is Arian Christology?
"Arian Christology—the nontrinitarian belief that Christ was an archangel who chose to become a human ..."
/arian-christology-754891.html

But Arius invented this Christology?

Raoul Vaneigem: "The Arab historian Shahrastani (Seventh Century) affirms that, in the Fourth Century, Arius borrowed his doctrine, according to which the Messiah is the first angel of God for the Magharians, "who lived four hundred years before Arius and were known by the simplicity of their way of life and their serene abstinence."
"Who were these Magharians, whose existence dates back to the First Century before the Christian era? Their Arab name leaves little doubt; it means "people of the cavern or the cave," because -- Shahrastani makes clear -- they hid their sacred texts in caverns."
"There is nothing surprising in the fact that the doctrine of the Angel-Messiah (the angelos-christos) was originally Essene, since it was shared by the [various] Christianities and predominated up to the historization of Jesus, undertaken in the second half of the Second Century."
---

"Wonderful Counsellor"
Why?

The descriptive names of the onlybegotten Son of God from Isaiah 9:6 in Hebrew transliteration:
pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom

Let's see!

pele-joez: wonderful counsellor

el gibbor (singular): means "hero" like in the Ezekiel 32:21 "elei gibborim" ("ei" and "im" is the plural form)
NJB translate "elei gibborim" like “the mightiest heroes”. 
So, "el-gibbor" is not "mighty god" is "mighty hero" (according to Wilhelm Gesenius)

abi-ad: our father forever

sar-shalom: "sar" means high commander or head commander not prince, so the meaning is "(high) commander of peace"

Let's see again:

"For a child hath been born to us, a son hath been given to us, and the princely power is on his shoulder, and he doth call his name Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Our Father Forever, Commander Of Peace."

Remember: "given to us". By who? And by why? Why is he wonderful counsellor?

Let's see:

Isaiah 11:1,2 Young's Literal Translation
"And a rod hath come out from the stock of Jesse, And a branch from his roots is fruitful.
Rested on him hath the Spirit of Jehovah, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and fear of Jehovah."

Now, who is this wonderful son? You are right! Ladies and gentlemen, He is Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of Jehovah God, the Father Almighty, the awesome Creator of Heaven and Earth:

Luke 4:18 Young's Literal Translation
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.' "
---

If the Son is a "son"...

If the Son is a son...
Trinitarians, like Adam Clarke, admits, if Lord Jesus is a "son" of God in literal sense, he must be "originated" and so, subordinate to God. This is what we as non-trinitarians strongly believe.
"Perhaps his most controversial position regarded the eternal Sonship of Jesus. Clarke did not believe it Biblically faithful to affirm this doctrine, maintaining that prior to the Incarnation, Jesus was "unoriginated." Otherwise, according to Clarke, he would be subordinate to God and therefore not fully divine. This was important to Clarke because he felt that Jesus' divinity was crucial to understanding the atonement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke 
---

A list with John 1:1 translations

Expert: Janko - 9/1/2006

Question
Infro for you
www.simplebibletruths.net
A Non-Trinitarian Oneness Reference Library is Online---Check This Out
Who First Translated John1.1 Right =After The Nicene Creed Makers  
SBT1- HAS DONE THE RESEARCH WORK FOR YOU---ENJOY !-
Some Say The Truth Hurts or Hurts There Cause.

Here is a List of Historical Bibles that The Oneness and Tri-ist Ignore. 

IGNORING THIS HISIORICAL LIST OF---JOHN 1.1 –WHY ?
–Ask Those Who Do— 
and Show Them This 
(1) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
Diaglot 
1865 Diaglot NT      Free Downloads For   Diaglot 
C/H -open--- http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles2.html Online Now

See No.’s—52 THRU 56-For Whose in Harmony—And Online Now-
JOHN1onePLUS
No 1 --on Yahoo Search—Enter JOHN1onePLUS.htm
See at the Top of this page-Open 
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=JOHN1onePLUS&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=slv1-... 
(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person" 
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god" 
(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god 
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine 
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god 
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was" 
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine 
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god" 
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity" 
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was" 
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God" 
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" 
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god" 
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly] 
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god" 
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word" 
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature" 
(19) ames L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God" 
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God" 
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine" 
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" 
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature 
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" 
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos 
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine 
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was 
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One 
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was 
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" 
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] 
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. 
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] 
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] 
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] 
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] 
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] 
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] 
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] 
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] 
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] 
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) 
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] 
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] 
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" 
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]. 
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine." 
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God" 
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" 
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine" 
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being
To see how Jesus was described at John 1:1 in the most ancient Coptic texts, C/H- http://www.integlogic.com/sahidica/pages/sahidicpaper1990.html
It is noteworthy that the New Testament was translated into three languages
during the Koine period (b.330 AD), that is, while the Koine (common) Greek
was still the lingua franca of the Roman world and universally understood
C/H- http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

The answer of the author of the list (is not me, Janos)
We know all these facts that there are many versions of John 1:1,nothing knew to me or our organization.Whats the point of this?This fact is all cleared up for us . In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God. 

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty 
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2012/11/about-our-god-and-father.html Please share if you love the true God, Jehovah!  Thank's for your time, and may God bless you! With Christian love,
John Takacs, Romania
bibliaantica@yahoo.com

No comments:

Post a Comment