Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111981 | ||
part 5. . In Heb. 1:3, the Son is manifestly identified as the apaugasma (reflection or radiance) of God. The expression is similar to Paul's use of eikon tou theou in Col. 1:15 and, furthermore, the phrase informs us that as the image of God, Christ starkly resembles God and reflects his Father's characteristics. He is not, however, equal to His Father (Buchanan 7). The apostle John wrote that the One who sends is greater than He who is sent (John 13:16). Hebrews 7:7 also communicates the principle that the One who blesses is greater than he who is blessed (Luke 1:42). As the apostle, priest, prophet, coworker and reflection of God the Father, the Son mirrors God. Yet, he is not in the same category of being as his Father. The same point could be made about the Greek word character. The word indicates that the character is a faithful reproduction of the original (Lev. 13:28). The character bears the form of the original without being identical to the original (2 Macc. 4:10). The Son thus externally resembles God without being God himself. Time and space do not permit us to dwell any longer on Heb. 1:1-4, however. We must move on to the next section of Hebrews chapter 1. For more information on character, consult A-S 479. Tara1 |
||||||
2 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | EdB | 111990 | ||
Tara1 Touche come into my web said the spider to the fly. You ask the question and hope someone uses the right verse or verses that then enables to you jump on their answer. Your explanation of Hebrew 1:8 is lengthy and in some places quite frankly beyond me. However this we do know the translation of the NWT was done by men that did not know Hebrew nor Greek nor any of the original languages. This dissertation you provided was done through the years in an attempt to debunk these facts by breeding doubt into the correctness of existing translations while providing a feasible explanation of the NWT. In many places you used the expert linguists quotes to establish your point however in all cases you have either drawn them out of context or never provided their complete thoughts. For instance in many cases you quote Robertson to prove or make your hypothesis yet fail to mention Robertson’s stands in direct opposition to the doctrine your presenting. In many cases you take his words, quoting only the part you desire, however a full reading of what Robertson said would show that Robertson in the very next sentence proves proof that the idea your using his word to prove is incorrect and violates the original language sentence structure. This dissertation while lengthy is worthless as proof of the doctrine your trying to advocate. It is nothing more than conjecture manufactured to defend a false doctrine by taking sound bits from respected men and pasting them together in such a way that it appears they support the false doctrine your proposing. Of the respected Christian men you quoted if asked it they believe Jesus to be anything other than God would laugh you out of the room. Go back into your web and that your Russellite doctine with you. EdB |
||||||
3 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | kalos | 112005 | ||
EdB: Good post. Good work. Thanks for providing this information, obviously the result of good research and analysis on your part. Shalom, kalos |
||||||
4 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | EdB | 112009 | ||
Kalos Thanks and let me say you did a mighty fine job on your post also. Let us stand together in face of false doctrine. EdB |
||||||
5 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | kalos | 112011 | ||
EdB: Standing together in the face of false doctrine -- amen to that! Grace and peace, kalos |
||||||
6 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | EdB | 112013 | ||
Dude! ;-) | ||||||