A Case For Creation

[Kessel Day]

He didn't take it from him.

so you say; however, this verse from the Bible disagrees. it says God took spirit from Moses. i prefer to believe God's Word.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone."

And you still didn't say how not having a name makes you a non-person.

not having a name is just evidence that something may not be a person; especially when that something is shown to be the possession of someone else, can be used to annoint many persons, is never shown in a vision to be a person, can be "quenched", and can "fill" persons.

 

[Kessel Day]

I'm guessing that's your long winded answer to my question. Yes they are quite different. I was unware that Witnesses did not revere Jesus as much as other Christians. It was a Witness who at least convinced me to believe in God a long while back. He gushed about Jesus a lot. I just figured he worshipped Jesus as much as the rest.

squeek, i would ask you to not go to other people about what our beliefs are. many times their answers are incorrect. if you have any questions, i would be glad to answer them.

our belief about Jesus is this:

we believe Jesus is our reigning King. he is our redeemer and the Messiah and was born from a virgin, Mary. he is the only mediator between God and men and is the one through whom all prayers are to be directed. because he is just like his Father, we know what kind of person Jehovah God is like. Jesus was the first creation of God. (Rev 3:14)

is Jesus God almighty? no. is Jesus a god or divine or a "mighty one". yes.

Jesus himself said that there is only one true God at John 17:3. that God is Jesus' Father. see also John 20:17.

 

[Kessel Day]

Kessel, you didn't read the scripture then. It said that of the three men seen, two were identified as angels and the third was identified as Jehovah. If it were not Jehovah God, then it would have been identified as somebody else, such as angels as you say, just as the two angels were identified as just that, angels, so if the third person was an angel, then why wasn't he identified as an angel? Why was he only identified as Jehovah?

As shown to you, the NT makes it clear nobody has seen the Father, but since Jehovah was seen in the OT, it must be reasoned that it is another person of the godhead, such as the son who has made himself seen.

it is Jehovah who says to Moses at Ex 33:20 that "no man may see me and yet live." is Jehovah a liar?

exactly who do you think Jehovah is, rodhulk?

 

[squeekness]

squeek, i would ask you to not go to other people about what our beliefs are. many times their answers are incorrect. if you have any questions, i would be glad to answer them.

our belief about Jesus is this:

we believe Jesus is our reigning King. he is our redeemer and the Messiah and was born from a virgin, Mary. he is the only mediator between God and men and is the one through whom all prayers are to be directed. because he is just like his Father, we know what kind of person Jehovah God is like. Jesus was the first creation of God. (Rev 3:14)

is Jesus God almighty? no. is Jesus a god or divine or a "mighty one". yes.

Jesus himself said that there is only one true God at John 17:3. that God is Jesus' Father. see also John 20:17.

Hmm. Sorry, Kessel. I am going to see we will disagree about the Trinity so I won't even argue it, I doubt either of us will convince the other of anything. I have no desire to bicker endlessly.

As for my comments on your beliefs, I was commenting (but not neccessarily saying I agree) on the post above mine that which seemed to state that Witnesses revered Jesus less than I had realized. I have not dealt with many Witnesses and the ones I did know were starting with the basics with me since I was such an unbeliever of anything at the time. We did not cover the Trinity at all. All I can say is that the post above mine seemed legitimate. I did read and do acknowledge your response to it. Your answer doesn't exactly refute the above post however.

I will say that I do not worship Jesus as something created since the worship of anything (whether it be a golden calf or my own soul) created is idolatry. I believe Jesus has always been here with us since the beginning. He was with us when the world was made and with Daniel's friends in the fire and he was with us unto the cross. He always was, always is, and always will be, and so was not created (in my opinion). This I believe just as I respect your right not to agree with me.

The fact is that none of us are in a position to conclusively prove anything. That is why I prefer to focus on Jesus' message of brotherly love and moral conduct. The quality of that message is beyond doubt and I think in most cases, human efforts should be spent working on that than things which cannot be proven without doubts.

 

[Kessel Day]

This is a bit simplistic, but I did use this quote in a PM conversation with another poster in regards to the Trinity. It's how I view the incarnation.

i had my own private ideas about God and His nature before i did an indepth study of the Bible. i was very surprised at what i found there when i read a Bible where God's personal name, Jehovah, was replaced in the verses it was originally in.

it really does change a person's understanding when reading a Bible that has God's name where HE originally had it. God's personality becomes clear. Jesus place in God's arrangement comes into focus.

recall that in the model prayer, the first thing Jesus said to do was "hallow" or make sacred, his Father's name.

 

[celldog]

so you say; however, this verse from the Bible disagrees. it says God took spirit from Moses. i prefer to believe God's Word.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone."




not having a name is just evidence that something may not be a person; especially when that something is shown to be the possession of someone else, can be used to annoint many persons, is never shown in a vision to be a person, can be "quenched", and can "fill" persons.

Didn't I just go through that looooooooooong explanation of that for you? You've heard of Paul being poured out ...I gave you the cooling off of a hot Kobe Bryant, and you either are ignoring the literal principle or you truly don't understand.

Answer the question: Is God a bird if He covers us with His wings in Psa 91??
If you are in hot water, what is my meaning??? Scripture follows the same rules where context dictates. It's very simple.

So please answer the questions.


And why all of the contradictions in your doctrines..??? And with that, how can you trust what you are saying today???

 

[celldog]

it is Jehovah who says to Moses at Ex 33:20 that "no man may see me and yet live." is Jehovah a liar?

exactly who do you think Jehovah is, rodhulk?

Ever heard of a Theophany, Kessell?? That's what was going on in that text. This was a pre-incarnate...eternal Christ. Second person of the One Godhead.

 

[Kessel Day]

Hmm. Sorry, Kessel. I am going to see we will disagree about the Trinity so I won't even argue it, I doubt either of us will convince the other of anything. I have no desire to bicker endlessly.

As for my comments on your beliefs, I was commenting (but not neccessarily saying I agree) on the post above mine that which seemed to state that Witnesses revered Jesus less than I had realized. I have not dealt with many Witnesses and the ones I did know were starting with the basics with me since I was such an unbeliever of anything at the time. We did not cover the Trinity at all. All I can say is that the post above mine seemed legitimate. I did read and do acknowledge your response to it. Your answer doesn't exactly refute the above post however.

I will say that I do not worship Jesus as something created since the worship of anything (whether it be a golden calf or my own soul) created is idolatry. I believe Jesus has always been here with us since the beginning. He was with us when the world was made and with Daniel's friends in the fire and he was with us unto the cross. He always was, always is, and always will be, and so was not created (in my opinion). This I believe just as I respect your right not to agree with me.

The fact is that none of us are in a position to conclusively prove anything. That is why I prefer to focus on Jesus' message of brotherly love and moral conduct. The quality of that message is beyond doubt and I think in most cases, human efforts should be spent working on that than things which cannot be proven without doubts.

i agree that (in this thread at least) we have had alot of trinity discussion, perhaps too much for some.

we also agree that it is important, even essential, that we focus on Jesus' message in order to be approved by his Father.

however, God desires even more of us.

at Colossians 1:10, we are urged not only to

"to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work" but also to be "increasing in the knowledge of God."

Jesus even said "this means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." John 17:3

God wants us to know Him. so it makes a difference whether He is a trinity, or whether He is, as the Israelites believed, "Jehovah our God is One Jehovah".

 

[Kessel Day]

Ever heard of a Theophany, Kessell?? That's what was going on in that text. This was a pre-incarnate...eternal Christ. Second person of the One Godhead.

are you saying you think "Jehovah" is Jesus?

 

[Kessel Day]

I use the NIV (New Internation Version) because all my commentaries do. Is the New World's Translation that different?

in some respects it is very different than most translations of the Bible. it puts the Divine Name "Jehovah" back in every text from which it was removed and replaced with titles such as "Lord" or "God".

because it does so and is written in modern English, it is very understandable.

 

[Kessel Day]

Ever heard of a Theophany, Kessell?? That's what was going on in that text. This was a pre-incarnate...eternal Christ. Second person of the One Godhead.

and your scriptures showing that this is true are . . .?

 

[celldog]

I'm guessing that's your long winded answer to my question. Yes they are quite different. I was unware that Witnesses did not revere Jesus as much as other Christians. It was a Witness who at least convinced me to believe in God a long while back. He gushed about Jesus a lot. I just figured he worshipped Jesus as much as the rest.

When talking to cultists, you must scale the language barrier. They have a totally different Jesus that that of orthodox christianity. The pour a different meaning into the words we use (i.e. Kessells take on the Holy Spirit not being a person) . They believe that Jesus is now Michael the Archangel. The Book of Jude has Michael in it. And Jude speaks of Jesus as God. And since we cannot worship angels we have a problem. Check this out from Paul:


2 Corinthians 11
3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.


The church was fighting against false teachers and abhorent groups even then. That is why Jesus asked Peter who do men say that I am?? Why is that important? Because if your faith is in a false Jesus or a false Spirit, you
don't have any faith at all.

 

[Kessel Day]

Didn't I just go through that looooooooooong explanation of that for you? You've heard of Paul being poured out ...I gave you the cooling off of a hot Kobe Bryant, and you either are ignoring the literal principle or you truly don't understand.

i understood your analogy. but i repeat, we are discussing a subject the nature of which is under analysis.

if an actual person (like God or Paul) uses a metaphor or simile, it does not change the nature of that person. the literary device only helps us understand that person or his actions better.

however, if the subject is "X" and we don't know what "X" is, we have to examine each scripture that describes "X" to determine whether "X" is a person or something else.

i submit that if "X" can be apportioned, if "X" can be used to anoint many people, if "X" can "fill" people, if "X" is described as God's possession (the phrases "God's Spirit" and "the spirit OF God" are used throughout the Bible), that X is NOT a person.

if you can imagine, just once, that holy spirit is God's force, what He uses to fulfill His Will, those verses make perfect sense.

 

[rodhulk]

in some respects it is very different than most translations of the Bible. it puts the Divine Name "Jehovah" back in every text from which it was removed and replaced with titles such as "Lord" or "God".

because it does so and is written in modern English, it is very understandable.

'Jehovah' was not the Divine name that was used, Kessel?

It was JHVH or YHWH, and/or the like.

They just added vowels to make it pronounceable. 'Jehovah' is found nowhere in the scriptures.

 

[Kessel Day]

I'm not conerned about other religions and cultures, I'm concerned about what the Bible says.

as am i, rodhulk.

how do you feel about the removal of God's Name from the Bible?

 

[rodhulk]

it is Jehovah who says to Moses at Ex 33:20 that "no man may see me and yet live." is Jehovah a liar?

exactly who do you think Jehovah is, rodhulk?

Kessel,

Did you actually 'really' read what I said about Jehovah as to how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament?

It is as you said above in the OT, no man has seen God and lived. But the NT makes it clear that it is the person of the 'Father' who is not seen, therefore, as recorded in Genesis, it should be obvious that the person of the 'Son' is seen since Jehovah is seen and identified as Jehovah (while the other two were identified as angels, not Jehovah's). You see, since we know the Son is seen, Jesus, we can most likely say it was Jesus (the Son) who was seen and it was the 'Father' who rained down sulfur on Sodom and Gommorah from Heaven. Just as it was Jesus (the Son) who dies on the cross while the Father was in Heaven.

 

[rodhulk]

as am i, rodhulk.

how do you feel about the removal of God's Name from the Bible?

Your translation is not using his name either, Kessel. Just a pronounceable name.

 

[Kessel Day]

Micah 5:2. Yyour translation has 'indefinite' rather than many other translations which have 'everlasting.'

As I said, indefinite doesn't prove your case or mine.

"And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you, there will come out to me the one who is to become rule in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

this agrees with Rev 3:14 which says that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God". Jesus was the first creation of God. through Jesus, everything else was made.

Oh, I should also mention that you said that many people are translating John 1:1 as "a God." This in reference to Bison.

Do remember that in the last days, there will be the great falling away from the truth.

And it's lengthy, but I can type out why "a God" would be incorrect to use from the source language and why "....the word was God" is correct.

you probably didn't know that the very ones who translated John 1:1 as "a god" or "divine" are also trinitarians.

they just happen to be more honest about Greek grammar than other trinitarians.

 

[Kessel Day]

Your translation is not using his name either, Kessel. Just a pronounceable name.

but wouldn't you agree that "LORD" or "GOD" used in its place is definitely not what God intended there? why not replace it with YHWH then? titles change the meaning.

Jesus said to hallow that name. how can we "hallow" a name we never use, rodhulk?

did you know that Jesus wasn't pronounced the same way we do either? your own name would be different in another language.

what is important is that we use the name for God that is common in our language.

 

[rodhulk]

i have to go to work or would find more scriptures for you.

Read Judges 6:11-16.

in it Jehovah's angel is addressed by Gideon as "Jehovah". this shows that God's angel when representing Him can be called by His name.

there are other, clearer examples i will provide later. (it will help you to have a Bible that replaces God's name where it was removed or one that at least indicates that removal by using LORD.)

Problem with this, Kessel, is as I've said a couple of times already, there were three men that were seen. Two were identified as angels. The third was identified as Jehovah, not an angel. If he was an angel, why did the scripture not address it as that when it did with the other two?

This shows that it addressed Jehovah as who he is, Jehovah, and the two angels as just that, two angels.

So, yes, it was Jehovah himself.

 

[rodhulk]

but wouldn't you agree that "LORD" or "GOD" used in its place is definitely not what God intended there? why not replace it with YHWH then? titles change the meaning.

Jesus said to hallow that name. how can we "hallow" a name we never use, rodhulk?

did you know that Jesus wasn't pronounced the same way we do either? your own name would be different in another language.

what is important is that we use the name for God that is common in our language.

Yeshua was the name Jesus would have always heard.

First, you agree, it seems, that Jehovah may not be his name yet you say to hallow his name. I ask then, Kessel, what is his name?

You see, if we don't have his name, then how can we 'hallow' his name?

 

[rodhulk]

"And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you, there will come out to me the one who is to become rule in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

this agrees with Rev 3:14 which says that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God". Jesus was the first creation of God. through Jesus, everything else was made.



you probably didn't know that the very ones who translated John 1:1 as "a god" or "divine" are also trinitarians.

they just happen to be more honest about Greek grammar than other trinitarians.

If everything was made through Jesus, then how can Jesus be made through himself? Yes, Kessel, the word 'else' is not in the source language. And if you believe it is, then how do you interpret the scripture I have already use that even your own translation confirms, everything came into existance through Jesus. I ask, how can Jesus come into existance through himself if he doesn't exist?

It doesn't matter if the ones who translated 'a God' or 'divine' were trinitarians. I'm only interested in the proper translation and you can't say they were just being more honest. The source language is a little tricky and maybe, perhaps, they didn't understand it or missed something.

You seem to be saying this just as an attack on these people (trinitarians) who translated it as "....was God." What if they were honestly translating it? You must ask yourself that.

There have been some non-christains that have also translated that verse as "....was God." So, they weren't trinitarians. This could include scholars, researchers, teachers, etc....

 

[Kessel Day]

Kessel,

Did you actually 'really' read what I said about Jehovah as to how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament?

It is as you said above in the OT, no man has seen God and lived. But the NT makes it clear that it is the person of the 'Father' who is not seen, therefore, as recorded in Genesis, it should be obvious that the person of the 'Son' is seen since Jehovah is seen and identified as Jehovah (while the other two were identified as angels, not Jehovah's). You see, since we know the Son is seen, Jesus, we can most likely say it was Jesus (the Son) who was seen and it was the 'Father' who rained down sulfur on Sodom and Gommorah from Heaven. Just as it was Jesus (the Son) who dies on the cross while the Father was in Heaven.

this is my point, rodhulk. if you had a translation that replaced God's name you wouldn't have written that.

"And God proceeded to speak all these words saying: "I am Jehovah your God who have brought you out of the land of Egypt. You must not have any other gods against my face." Ex 20:1,2

"And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: . . . . "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." Ex 33:17-20

"No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained Him." John 1:18

God=Jehovah

Jesus=the only begotten god who has explained Him

yes, i'd say the Greek Scriptures explain the Hebrew ones, and vice versa.

lastly, i found another account where an angel of Jehovah's is mistaken for Jehovah Himself. it is at Judges 13:21,22

"And Jehovah's angel did not repeat appearing to Manoah and his wife anymore. Then it was that Manoah knew that he had been Jehovah's angel. Consequently Manoah said to his wife: "We shall positively die, because it is God that we have seen."

 

[rodhulk]

You spell like a chimp.

When I'm speaking to one, I try to use the appropriate language.

 

[JStorm]

On a lighter note, my Pastor told me women actually asked their Doctors to induce labor the day before 6.6.06 so they wouldn't have a their child on that day.

In regards to a creation thread, I ask.. did God really intend for His followers to act so weird? Seriously. I'm not picking a fight. It just seems that I spend more time defending my faith rather than spreading the good news.

Sorry for the rant.