fredag 25. november 2011

Nr. 140: Jesus is not the only true God, but the only true son of God!

Nr. 140:

Jesus is not the only true God, but the only true son of God!

Trinity Teachers do not read correctly Norwegian when they read that the Son of God = God. Jesus is the only true God, but his son, the firstborn!

The Apostolic Fathers has been recognized by the Roman Church as the leading religious teachers in the first centuries after Christ's birth. What they learned is of interest.

Justinus Martyr, who died about the year 165 AD, spoke of Jesus in his førmenneskelige existence as a created angel, that "someone other than the God who created all things." He said that Jesus was subordinate to God and "never [did] something without the Creator of the universe would have him do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about the year 200 AD, said that Jesus in his førmenneskelige life was separated from God and subordinate to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "true and only God," who is "above all, and that there is no next."

Clemens Alexandrinus, who died about the year 215 AD, called Jesus in his førmenneskelige existence "a creature" while he spoke of God as "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal.

Tertullian, who died about the year 230 AD, learned about God's sovereignty. He said: "The Father is other than the Son, because he is bigger, like the one who begets is different from the one being bred, as the emitter, is different from the one being issued." He also said: " There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things God was alone. "

Hippolytus, who died about the year 235 AD, said that God is "the one God, the first and the only one, everyone's Creator and Lord." "Nothing is as eternal as he. . . But he was one, alone, and because he wanted it, until he brought something that had not been to before, "so that when he made his only begotten Son - Jesus in his førmenneskelige existence.

Origen, who died around the year 250 AD, said that "the Father and the Son are two substances. . . two things what their being concerned "and that" compared with the Father's [son] very little light. "

Historian Alvan Lamson summarizes the historical facts in this way:

"The doctrine of the Trinity, which is so prevalent in our time. . . receives no support in the language Justinus [martyr] user, and this observation can be extended to include all the pre-Nicene fathers, that all Christian writers for three centuries after Christ's birth. They speak indeed of the Father, the Son, and. . . The Holy Spirit, but not as equals, not as a being, not as Three in One, in some of the meanings treenighetslærens supporters give access to. The opposite is the case. "

In biblical language is "name" often of "fame" or reputation. (1kR 14: 17; see AN, NB, NW, fotn.) Setting out a bad reputation (bokst.: name) if someone meant to correct false accusations against the person, thereby damaging his reputation. (5Mo 22: 19) The fact that his name was 'rejected as evil', meant that they lost their good reputation. (Lu 6: 22) When the people after the flood in opposition to Jehovah began to build a tower and a city, it was to make himself "a famous name." (1MO 11: 3, 4)

On the other hand, the Lord God promised to make Abram's (Abraham's) name great if he would leave his country and his relatives and go to another country. (1MO 12: 1, 2) That this promise was fulfilled, is confirmed by the fact that today few people from ancient times has been such a big name like Abraham, in particular as an example of an outstanding faith. Millions still argue that because of their carnal descent are heirs of the blessing was pronounced upon Abraham. Jehovah did in a similar way David's name great by to bless him and grant him victory over the enemies of Israel. - 1SA 18: 30; 2Sa 7: 9

At birth, a man no reputation, and name it then get is not much more than a label. For this reason it is said in Ecclesiastes 7: 1: "A name is better than good oil, and the day of death better than the day one was born."

It is not when a person is born, but in the course of its life that its "name" is really important in the sense that it identifies the person as either a practicing justice, or as someone who does what is evil. (Proverbs 22: 1)

Because Jesus was faithful until death, his name was the one name "that has been given among men by which we must be saved," and he "inherited a name more excellent" than the angels. (Acts 4: 12; He 1: 3, 4) When it came to Solomon, was the expressed hope that his name would be "more glorious" than David, but he ended his days with a bad name, because he had fallen from the true worship. (1kg 1: 47: 11: 6, 9-11) "The evil one's name is going to rot away," or be an unpleasant smell. (Proverbs 10: 7) It is a good name, "preferable to great wealth." - Words 22: 1

We also know that Massoretene divided the Hebrew Scriptures in verse. Later, in the 1200s, they were divided into chapters. The first complete Bible in the current chapter and verse division was Robert Estienne French Bible, which was released in 1553. And it has never been the Holy Spirit pernonlig pronouns, holy spirit is impersonal pronouns.

In Matthew 28: 19 is the voice of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." A "name" can mean something other than a proper name. When the Norwegian says "in the legal name" or "in the name of truth," referring not to a person.

Just aims in the first case, the law stands for, its authority, and in the second case to the truth stand for, what it requires.

Scriptures do not say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is coequal or coeternal or that all is God.

An effective strength

Biblical use of the term "Holy Spirit" shows that this spirit is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to carry out a number of its intentions. It may to some extent compared with electricity, a power that can be used to perform many different types of work.

In 1 Genesis 1: 2 the Bible says that "the Spirit of God [Hebrew: ru'ach] hovered over the water." Here was God's spirit his "active force" (NW) that formed the earth. - See also Today's English Version (TEV).

God uses his spirit to educate those who serve him. David asked: "Teach me to do thy will, for you are my God! Your good Spirit [ru'ach] to lead me on the regular trails. "(Psalm 143: 10) When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him:" I will take of the Spirit [ru'ach ] which is upon you, and give to them. "- 4 Genesis 11: 17

Biblical prophecies were written down as men of God were "moved by the Holy Spirit [Greek: from pneu'ma]." (2 Peter 1: 20, 21) In this way the Bible was "inspired by God" (Greek: The o'pneu ‧ ‧ stos, which means "God-breathed"). (2 Timothy 3: 16, the New Testament in modern Norwegian [NTM]) And the Holy Spirit led certain people so that they saw visions and received prophetic dreams. - 2 Samuel 23: 2, Joel 3: 1, 2, Luke 1: 67; Acts 1: 16, 2: 32, 33

After Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit drove him out into the desert. (Mark 1: 12) The spirit was like a fire in the servants of God, so they were activated by this power. And it helped them to speak in a bold and courageous way. - Micah 3: 8, Acts 7: 55-60, 18: 25, Romans 12: 11; 1 I Thessalonians 5: 19

By his spirit completes God's judge of people and nations. (Isaiah 30: 27, 28, NW; 59: 18, 19, NW) And the Spirit of God can reach everywhere and seem to benefit people, but it may also go against them. - Psalm 139: 7-12.

The power of the normal

The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, came the Holy Spirit descending on him like a dove, not in human form. (Mark 1: 10) The God's active force put Jesus able to heal the sick and raising the dead. As Luke 5: 17 says: "Jesus was the Lord's power that he could heal."

Spirit of God did also Jesus' disciples are able to do miraculous things. Acts 2: 1-4 says that the disciples were gathered together at Pentecost, when the 'one got a soda from the sky when the wind blows a strong wind, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 'So the Holy Spirit, Jesus and other servants of God the power to do things that people usually could not do.

But there is no scripture that speaks of the Holy Spirit in such terms that it looks as if it is about a person? Yes, but note what the Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this: "Although this spirit is often described in such terms that it looks as if it concerns a person, it seems clear that [the Hebrew writings] sacred writers never seen this spirit that a particular person or the person who produced it. "- The Triune God.

In the Bible it is not unusual that something is personified. It is said that wisdom has children. (Luke 7: 35, A) sin and death is referred to as kings. (Romans 5: 14, 21, NW; see also LB.) I 1 Genesis 4: 7 says The New English Bible (NE): "Sin is a demon who is huddled at the door," and personifies the way of sin as an evil spirit who is huddled at Cain's door. But sin is of course not a spiritual person, and that the Holy Spirit is personified, nor will it to a spiritual person.

Similarly, it is said in the 1st John 5: 6-8 (NE) that not only the spirit but also "water and blood" is "witness." But water and blood are obviously not people, and the Holy Spirit is not a person. This is in harmony with the Bible usually refers to the Holy Spirit as something impersonal, such as when it refers to the parallel with the water and with fire. (Matthew 3: 11; Mark 1: 8) People are encouraged to be filled with the Holy Spirit rather than to fill up with wine. (Ephesians 5: 18) It is said that they are filled with the Holy Spirit just as they are filled with wisdom, faith and joy. (Acts 6: 3, 11: 24: 13: 52) And 2 Corinthians 6: 6 is the Holy Spirit spoken with a number of properties.

Such expressions would not be so common if the Holy Spirit was in reality a person.

It is also worth noting that while some scriptures say that the spirit speaks, there are other scriptures that show that it really did this through people or through angels. (Matthew 10: 19, 20, Acts 4: 24, 25, 28: 25; Hebrews 2: 2) the Spirit may in such case be compared with radio waves that transmit messages from one person to another, which is far away.

In Matthew 28: 19 is spoken of "the Holy Spirit." But the word "name" does not aim to be a proper name, either in Greek or Norwegian. When we say "in the legal name", we aim not to a person. We are referring to the law stands for, its authority. Archibald Thomas Robertson said: "This is a common way to use the 'name' (onoma) of the Septuagint and in papyrer as an expression of power or authority." (Word Pictures in the New Testament) So a baptism 'in the Holy Spirit name 'is a recognition of the spiritual authority, that it comes from God and acts in accordance with God's will.

Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as an "advocate" or a "help" (LB), and he said that it would "teach", "guidance" and "speech". (John 14: 16, 26, 16: 13) The Greek word he used for the "spokesman" or "help" (pa ‧ ‧ ra'kle tos), are male. In his discussion of "spokesman" or "Companion" and what this would do, he used so personal pronouns in the masculine gender. (John 16: 7, 8) When the Greek neuter word for "spirit" (pneu'ma) is used, on the other hand, a pronoun in the neuter rightly used.

No part of a Trinity
Different sources admit that the Bible does not support the idea that the Holy Spirit is the third person in a trinity. Here are some examples:
"In the Old Testament we find nowhere any clear manifestation that there is a third person."
- The Catholic Encyclopedia.

"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person, and there is also no compelling evidence that some of the Old Testament writers had such an opinion. . . . The Holy Spirit is in the Synoptists [the first three Gospels] and in Acts usually portrayed as a divine force or power. "
- The Catholic theologian Fortman.

"It is clear that the OT [Old Testament] not perceive God's spirit as a person. . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes portrayed as separate from God, it is because Yahweh's breath seems beyond him. "" The vast majority of passages in the NT [New Testament] reveals God's spirit as something, not as some, this is particularly evident in the parallel ism between the spirit and power of God. "
- New Catholic Encyclopedia.

"On the whole, speaking the New Testament, like the Old Testament of the Spirit as a divine power."
- A Catholic Dictionary.

From this we see that the Holy Spirit is not a person and not a part of a trinity. The Holy Spirit is God's active force, which he uses to accomplish his will. It is not equal to God, but is always at his disposal and is subordinate to him.

What will it mean to sin against the "spirit"?
What sins are not forgiven? LR also my commentaries from Mark's gospel to sin against the spirit.

Jewish religious leaders in the first century who made malicious opposition to Jesus Christ, sinned against the Holy Spirit. They saw that the Spirit of God worked in Christ when He performed miracles which was in honor of Jehovah. Yet they claimed the enemies of Christ that he had his power from Satan the Devil. Those who spoke blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit in this way, according to Jesus committed a sin that would not be forgiven, "neither in this system of things or it will come". - Matthew 12: 22-32.

Slander is malicious, libelous or profane speech. Since it is God who is the source of the holy spirit, it is to speak to his spirit the same as to speak against him. To do this without regret is unforgivable. What Jesus said about such a sin, showing that he was referring to those who deliberately opposes God's Holy Spirit business. When the Spirit of God worked in Jesus, but his opponents still argued that he had his power from the devil, they committed the sin of speaking blasphemy against the spirit. Jesus declared thus: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will never forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin." - Mark 3: 20-29.

Consider also the case with Judas Iscariot. He followed a dishonest price by stealing from the cash box he was entrusted. (John 12: 5, 6) Judas went later to the Jewish rulers and agreed with them that he would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Although he had remorse for treason, he never regretted his willful sin. Judas is therefore not worthy of a resurrection. Jesus called him thus "annihilation son." - John 17: 12, Matthew 26: 14-16.

Apostles authority to forgive or retain sins came partly into the picture in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who tried to run fake game against the Holy Spirit. Peter, who heard Jesus say that we read in John 20: 22, 23, revealed Ananias and Sapphira. Peter spoke first with Ananias, who fell dead, and then later Sapphira came in and stuck to their lies, announced Peter also her conviction. He forgave her her sins, but said: "Behold, the feet that have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall bear you out." Then she too fell dead. - Acts 5: 1-11.

It used the apostle Peter's special authority to determine that these particular sins had been maintained, and that he could do because he had miraculous knowledge that God would not forgive Ananias' and Sapphira sin. It also seems as if the apostles had superhuman insight in cases where they were sure that the sins were forgiven on the basis of Christ's sacrifice. The apostles who had received such special authority through the Holy Spirit, could then declare that sins had been forgiven or retained.

As we see as a common denominator is that is knowledge. Knowledge means more responsibility. Pilate did not commit a big sin that the Jewish religious leaders, who gave Jesus to the governor, or as Judas, who betrayed his Lord. (John 19: 11: 17: 12) Jesus said to the contemporary Pharisees that if they were blind, they would have no sin. By this he meant clearly that God could forgive their sins if they were due to ignorance, but because they denied that they were ignorant, 'remained their sin'. (John 9: 39-41)

Jesus said that they had no "excuse for their sin" because they heard the powerful words he spoke, and witnessed the mighty works he did in that God's spirit seemed to him. (John 15: 22-24; Lu 4: 18) Those who by word or deed, knowingly blasphemed God's holy spirit when it was revealed in this way, would make themselves guilty of "eternal sin" and could not be forgiven.

New Catholic Encyclopedia says about what the church believed the pagan doctrine of the Trinity:

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not completely designed and certainly not fully incorporated into the Christian life and profession of faith before the end of the fourth century. But it is precisely this formulation that first and foremost can claim the term trinity dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers had it not been something that the head was approaching such a mentality or perspective. "

Judaism is, to put it simply, a people's religion. One who goes over to Judaism, joins therefore both to the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. Judaism is a monotheistic religion in the strictest sense of the word, claiming that God intervenes in human history, especially in connection with the Jews. Jewish worship include a variety of annual festivals and different customs.

There are no creeds or dogmas that are accepted by all Jews, but a central part of worship in the synagogue is to confess that God is one, as it is expressed in the Shema, a prayer that is based on the 5 Deuteronomy 6: 4: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God is one Lord. "

This belief in one God was passed on to Christianity and Islam. Rabbi Dr. JH Hertz says, "This lofty declaration of absolute monotheism was a declaration of war against all polytheism. . . At the same time exclude the Shema, the Christian creeds Trinity as a desecration of God's unity. "


Muslims do not see the Trinity as a true Biblical doctrine. This is also interesting, as the Muslims see the Bible as the Word of God

When Mohammed was present, had Thurs the 1st religions in his opinion deviated from the path of truth. According to some Islamic commentators suggest the Koran that Jews and Christians will be rejected, when it says: "Do not their [the way], which has aroused Your wrath, or their, who have chosen the false direction." (Sura 1: 7)

In what way had they turned onto the wrong path?
A commentary on the Quran says: "The book [the Bible] people acted wrong: Jews by breaking their covenant and vilify Mary and Jesus. . . and the Christians by the Apostle exalt Jesus to God as "the help of the Trinity. - Sura 4: 153-176, AYA.

Islam's most important learning is, in all simplicity, what is called shahādah, creed, and that every Muslim know by heart: "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah" (There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah). This agrees with the Koran's words: "Your God is one God, there is no God except Him, the Compassionate, the Merciful." (Sura 2: 158)

The Quran says about God's position: "Believe in God and His messengers and say not, '(God's) three'. Let it be, for their own good! God is one God "(Sura 4: 169)

The Catholic theologian Hans Küng says in a book he has written about Christianity and world religions, that the Trinity is one of the reasons why the churches have not had any major success among non-Christian peoples.

He says: "Even well-informed Muslims simply can not grasp the idea of ​​a trinity, which Jews until now not been able to do. . . . The fact that the Trinity distinguish between one God and three hypostases, do not satisfy Muslims, who are rather confused than enlightened by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek and Latin.

Muslims see it as a play with words. . . .

Why would anyone want to add something to the notion of God's unity and uniqueness that can only dilute or rescind the unity and uniqueness? "
- Christianity and the World Religions

Spots not as God, when men shall revile DHÅ if these is a deity?
How can we be forgiven for that one and not others?
If DHÅ and Jesus is A, then one can ask why the thief who mocked Jesus, also was promised to get in paradise?
SPOTTED he not DHÅ, when he mocked Jesus?
When and how we know who is what if they all are?

But to take a closer look at it with sin against the Spirit of God:

Slander is malicious, libelous or profane speech. Since it is God who is the source of the holy spirit, it is to speak to his spirit the same as to speak against him.

To do this without regret is unforgivable. What Jesus said about such a sin, showing that he was referring to those who deliberately opposes God's Holy Spirit business. When Jehovah's spirit appeared in Jesus, but his opponents still argued that he had his power from the devil, they committed the sin of speaking blasphemy against the spirit. Jesus declared thus: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will never forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
- Mark 3: 20-29.

Consider also the case with Judas Iscariot. He followed a dishonest price by stealing from the cash box he was entrusted. (John 12: 5, 6) Judas went later to the Jewish rulers and agreed with them that he would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Although he had remorse for treason, he never regretted his willful sin. Judas is therefore not worthy of a resurrection. Jesus called him thus "annihilation son." - John 17: 12, Matthew 26: 14-16.

Is the idea of ​​a trinity come from the Bible, or are there other sources that suggest that this is a doctrine that has come as the influence of other sources?

In the Ancient world, dating back to Babylon, it was common to worship pagan gods in groups of three, triads. Worship of the triads were also prevalent in Egypt, Greece and Rome when Christ was on earth, and in the centuries before and after his time. After the death of the apostles began these pagan beliefs to penetrate Christianity.

The historian Will Durant said: "Christianity destroyed not paganism, it was assumed it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity. "And in his book on Egyptian religion maintains Siegfried Morenz:" Trinity was a main occupation of Egyptian theologians. . . Three gods come together and treated as a single being and will be prosecuted in the singular. In this regard, the Egyptian theology spiritual content directly related to Christian theology. "- Egyptian Religion.

Church men in Alexandria in Egypt in the late third and early fourth century, Athanasius, among others, bore clear signs of this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence grew, as Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as a link between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."

In the preface to Edward Gibbons's work on the history of Christianity, we read: "If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The first Christians unadulterated doctrine of the deity. . . was of the Roman church changed to the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as something worth believing. "
- History of Christianity.

A work on religious knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the pagan religions and grafted into the Christian faith." (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge) and a book about paganism and Christianity say that treenighetslærens' origin is entirely pagan. "
- The Paganism in Our Christianity.

That is why James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, we meet as the trinitarian group of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, and in Egyptian religion, the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find that God is seen as a Trinity. We especially remember the nyplatonske view of the highest or last and fundamental reality, "as is" triadic represented. " (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics)

What did the Greek philosopher Plato in the Trinity to do?

Plato lived, for it is believed, from 428 to 347 BC He maintained no doctrine of the Trinity in the form it has today, but his philosophy paved the way for this doctrine. Later arose the philosophical movements that had triadic views, and these were influenced by Plato's thoughts about God and nature.

A French dictionary says this about Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, which was just a rearranging of older trinities that came from earlier peoples, appears to be the rational, philosophical attribute trinity that gave rise to the three hypostases or divine people that the Christian churches teach about. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity. . . one can find in all the ancient [pagan] religions. "
- Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel.

Another reference work shows the influence that Greek philosophy was: "The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . was strongly influenced, directly or indirectly, of the Platonic philosophy. . . There can be no denying that the errors and corruptions gained ground in the Church from this hand. "
- The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

A book about the church in the first three centuries, says: "Trinity doctrine was designed gradually and at a relatively late stage. . . . they arise from a source that does not have anything with the Jewish and Christian scriptures to do,. . . it evolved and was instilled in the Christianity of the Church Fathers who made use of Plato's principles. "
- The Church of the First Three Centuries.

By the end of the third century was "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophical views were inseparable. As Adolf Harnack points out in his book on the history of dogma, the church's teaching "sound rooted in rock collapse [the pagan Greek thinking detection] soil. Thus, it was a mystery to the vast majority of Christians. "
- Outlines of the History of Dogma.

The church claimed that its new doctrine was based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In fact legitimized the the Hellenic speculation in their midst, the superstitious views and customs of the heathen mysteriedyrkelse."

Professor Andrews Norton said of the Trinity: "We can follow this teaching history backwards in time and discovers that it has originated, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy. . . Trinity doctrine is a doctrine derived from Christ and his apostles, but a fiction derived from the later Platonists school. "
- A Statement of Reasons.


Can it be expected that Christians believe that God, centuries after Christ's time and after he had inspired the write-down of the Bible, would support the formulation of a doctrine which had been unknown to his servants for thousands of years, a doctrine which is a 'unfathomable mystery' as is' beyond human comprehension, "a doctrine that had a pagan background, and as' largely a matter of church politics'?

"He was God and did not see it as a robbery to be equal with God"

Jesus was created in the image - like the rest of God's sons. What does it say that he did not view it as a "predatory" to be equal with God? He wanted not to make himself equal to God (in opposition to Satan, who wants to be worshiped). Adapt to Jesus to God's control, without brewing after (chasing after a predator chasing prey) to be equal to God. To put it another way: "not thought of a seizure, namely, that he should be equal with God"

"But gave up on his own, took on the servant and becoming like men. When he came forward as a human being"

God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, is a prime example of someone who has a self-sacrificing spirit. In his førmenneskelige life he must have lived a life in the highest degree was stimulating and satisfying. He stood in a close and confidential relationship with his father and many other angels (angel means messenger that Jesus also was). In addition, he can use his skills in challenging and exciting activities as "master works". (Proverbs 8: 30, 31) He was in a situation far beyond anything that even the richest man on earth has been able to enjoy. As it was second only to Jehovah God, he had an exalted and privileged position in the sky.

Yet "exhausted [Jesus] himself and took a slave's form and came to be in human equality." (Philippians 2: 7) He gave willingly renounce all their personal benefits to be human and sacrifice his life as a ransom to redress the damage Satan has caused. (1 Genesis 3: 1-7; Mark 10: 45) This meant he had to live among sinful people in a world which is Satan the Devil's power. (1 John 5: 19) It also meant that he had to endure personal discomfort and fatigue. But Jesus Christ was determined to do his Father's will, whatever it would cost him. (Matthew 26: 39; John 5: 30; 6: 38) His love and loyalty was thus put on the biggest test.

How far he was willing to go? According to the apostle Paul, "he humbled himself and became obedient until death, even death on a torture stake." - Philippians 2: 8

This shows that Jesus is God? No, it shows us how wonderful self-sacrificing and humble Jesus is. He wants the really do not go in opposition to Jehovah. What was the reward for his obedience was the great task that God had put on him?

If we include also verse 9, we get the answer:
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"

Can someone who already is Almighty, be raised? Or this suggests that Jesus had more authority after his return to his beloved father?

These verses teach us a lot of very important thing to take with them. But is not that there is a Trinity. What about a server form?

As in the visible creation, there is a hierarchy in the spirit world, among the angels. The foremost angel, both in power and authority is concerned, Michael, the archangel. And Gabriel always reveal themselves on behalf of God (Da 10: 13, 21, 12: 1, Jude 9, Revelation 12: 7, Luke 1).

A group of angels who have high rank, both privilege and honor is concerned, seraphs. (Isaiah 6: 2, 6) The cherubim are mentioned frequently in the Bible (about 90 times), and on the basis of the description of their duties and responsibilities, it is clear that they also occupy a special position among the angels. (1MO 3: 24; Ese 10: 1-22) Then there is the great multitude of angels (messengers) that God uses to communicate with people. To convey the messages are not the only thing they do.

As representatives of the Most High God has the responsibility to carry out his purpose, whether for protection and deliverance of his people or the destruction of the wicked. - 1MO 19: 1-26.

We also know that God created humans so that they were "slightly lower than the angels" (He 2:7).

Kol. 1: 15, 16: "He [Jesus Christ] is the invisible image of God, the firstborn, which are of the creation [all creation first-born, Danish 1907, NW; all creation's firstborn, EG, the first born of all creation, Study Bible ( Oslo 1981)]. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth. "
In what sense is Jesus Christ "the firstborn of all creation"?

1) Treenighetslærens supporters say that the 'first born' here means all, the highest, most prominent, and that we must understand that Christ is not part of creation, but the most prominent in relation to those that were created. (This is also interpreted in the 1978 left over.) If this is correct and the Trinity is true, we may ask: Why not say that the Father and the Holy Spirit is the firstborn of all creation? The Bible uses this term only Son. The usual meaning of "firstborn" implies that Jesus is the oldest in Yahweh's family of sons.

2) Prior to Colossians 1: 15 occurs the phrase 'first born' several times in the Bible, and when used on living creatures, the meaning usually the same - the firstborn belongs to a group. "Israel's firstborn" is one of the sons of Israel, "the firstborn son of Pharaoh" is a member of Pharaoh's family, "the firstborn of cattle" belonging to even the cattle. What is it that makes someone to ascribe to this phrase a different meaning in Colossians 1: 15? Is that the way this term is used in the Bible, or is it an article of faith that they already have, and they are trying to find evidence?

3) Excludes Colossians 1: 16, 17 that Jesus has been created? It is said there: "In him all things were created. . . All things were created through Him and for Him. "The Greek word here rendered by" everything ", is mortgaged, the inflected forms of pas. In Luke 13: 2 it is rendered "all others" in 1978-overs., EN and LB, while NTM and EG says "all the others." (See also Luke 21: 29, 1978-overs., LB, NTM, and Philippians 2: 21, 1978-overs., LB.) Consistent with everything else that the Bible says about the Son, adds NW panta the same meaning in Colossians 1: 16, 17 Parts of this scripture reads that way: "With him were all things created. . . All other things have been created through him and for him. "Thus it is shown that he is a creature, that he too is created by God.

What a problem for people who want to get to know God, is that his name not be used. During the 100-number or 200-number e.v.t. replaced depreciation founders name of God, Jehovah, with the words Kỵrios (Lord) and Theos (God) in the copies of the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.

In other translations, such as the Latin Vulgate, Douay-translation (based on the Vulgate) and the King James Version, and many newer translations (EN, EN, NB, GN, AT, RS, NIV, TEV) has followed a similar practice . It has replaced God's name with the terms "God" and "Lord", sometimes written with capital letters to signify that they are being used instead of the Tetragrammaton, the name of God.

So there you have bitten your marker is absolutely right - translations have fjærnet God's name. Was this what Jesus told the disciples to pray the Our Father?

Now it's not anywhere that says "Lord", it refers to Jehovah as not God everywhere refers to Jehovah. But is it correct to replace God's name with a title?

Is Jehovah or Yahweh in all your translation 6973 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Had it been easier to know God, if you used his name?

Look at Romans 10:13,14

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
But how can they call on someone they do not believe in?
How can they believe in they have not heard about?
And how can they hear without someone preaching?

It shows Paul to Joel 2:32 when he writes this.

Do you know which name belongs there?
Do you see the value of knowing the name?

We can examine some of John 1:1. It was, after all, what was the reason why the Jews of Berea were more noble - that they examined the Scriptures carefully. (Acts 17:10,11)

JOHN 1: 1 have this wording in many Bible translations, including the Norwegian of 1978/85: "In the beginning was the Word. Word was with God, and the Word was God. "Treenighetslærens supporters argue that this means that" the Word "(Greek: ho lo'gos), who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

But note that the context here is the basis for an accurate understanding. The translation of 1978-1985 says: "the Word was with God." One who is "in" another person, may not be the same as the other person. A magazine that treats biblical literature (Journal of Biblical Literature), which is edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, said in accordance with this that if the last part of John 1: 1 should be understood to mean "god", the most high God, this would "be contrary to the preceding sentence," which says that the Word was with God.

In John 1: 1 occurs the Greek noun the ‧ os' (god) twice. The first aim is to Almighty God, the Word was with ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the os ‧']»). In front of the first occurrence of the ‧ os' is the word ton, a form of the Greek definite article, which refers to a particular identity, a particular person, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with God [God]") .

However, it is no article in front of the ‧ os' the second time the word occurs in John 1: 1 A literal translation would therefore read as follows: "and God was the Word." But we have seen that many translations render this second the ‧ os' (which here is predicative, predikatsord) with the "divine", "the deity delicate" or "a god ". On what basis do they do this?

Greek has a definite article (which in Norwegian is set by, God, the Word), but not an indefinite article (a, a, a). Once the particular article does not stand in front of a noun is predicative (predikatsord), the noun can thus be indefinite, depending on the context shows.

Journal of Biblical Literature says that structures "in which a predicative no article precedes the verb, is primarily a qualitative significance." As this magazine says, it means that lo'gos comparable to a god. It also says the following about John 1: 1: "predicative qualitative content is so prominent that the noun [the ‧ os'] can not be regarded as certain."

John 1: 1 highlight words Word-quality, a quality in him, that he was "divine," "the divine species," "a god" but not Almighty God. This is consistent with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, which here is called "word" in his role as God's spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his superiors, the Almighty God.

There are many other verses in the Bible where almost all the translators consistently insert the indefinite article in which the Greek text has the same syntax as here. The Norwegian translation of the 1978/85 says, for example, in Mark 6: 49 that when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, "they thought it was a ghost." In Greek there is no indefinite article ("a") in front of the "ghost". But almost all translations put it in because a literal translation, "there was a ghost," would not fit in context. It relates in a similar way in John 1: 1 As this passage shows that the Word was with God, he could not be "God" but was "a god" or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and Greek expert who helped develop the American Standard Version, said simply: "the Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote: "Strictly speaking, should Jn 1: 1 translated. . . 'Word was a divine being'. "- Dictionary of the Bible.

In violation of a rule?
Some argue that such representations are contrary to a rule of Greek grammar, which was maintained by the Greek expert EC Colwell in 1933. He claimed that a noun which stands as predicative in Greek, "has [the specific] article when it follows the verb: it is not [the specific] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a noun which stands as a predicative in front of the verb should be understood as if it had the definite article in front. In John 1: 1 is the second noun (the ‧ os '), predicative, in front of the verb - "and [the ‧ os'] was the Word." Colwell argued therefore that John 1: 1 should read "And God [a] was the Word."

But consider just two examples that we find in John 8: 44 Where does Jesus say about the devil: "He was a murderer," and "he is a liar." Just as in John 1: 1 is predicative (nouns "killer" and "liar") in front of verbs ("have" and "is") in Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of some nouns, because there is no indefinite article in Greek. But most translations insert the word "one", because the Greek grammar and the context so requires. - See also such passages as Mark 11: 32 and John 4: 19, 6: 70, 9: 17, 10: 1, 12: 6

Requires context an indefinite article in John 1: 1? Yes, the Bible shows that Jesus is not Almighty God. There should be guidelines for the translator in such cases is therefore not Colwell uncertain grammatical rule, but the context. And it appears from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" in John 1: 1 and elsewhere, that many Greek experts do not agree to such an artificial rule, and that it is not in accordance with God's Word.

No one opposed
Is it to say that Jesus is "a god", in conflict with biblical teaching that there is only one God? No, because sometimes the Bible this term is about mighty creatures. Psalm 8: 6 (NW) reads: "You made him [man] a little less than godlike [Hebrew: elo ‧ heaven ']', ie the angels. When Jesus defended himself against the Jews, who accused him of claiming that he was God, he said: "The word of God came to be. . . of the Act referred to as gods. "Here we are talking about human judges. (John 10: 34, 35, Psalm 82: 1-6) And Satan is referred to as the "god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4: 4

What does the Bible say about God and Jesus?
If anyone read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived opinion about a Trinity, would they even have formed such an opinion? No, they would not.

For an objective reader, it is clear that only God is the Almighty, the Creator, that He is separate and distinct from any other, and that Jesus, in his førmenneskelige existence, are separate and distinct from God, a creature that is subordinate God.

A biblical doctrine is that God is one, is called monotheism. And LL Paine, professor of church history, suggests that monotheism in its purest form does not give room for the doctrine of a trinity: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a personal being. The view that the doctrine of a Trinity was found there. . . is completely without foundation. "

Join the monotheistic perception changed after Jesus came to earth? Paine answers: "At this point there is no break between the Old Testament and New Testament. The monotheistic tradition continues. Jesus was a Jew, and he was trained in the Old Testament writings of Jewish parents. His teaching was thoroughly Jewish, it was certainly a new gospel, but not a new theology. . . . And he accepted and believed himself to Jewish monotheism important scripture: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God is one Lord. '"

These words appear in the 5th Deuteronomy 6: 4 The Catholic translation The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) renders this passage thus: "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one, the only Yahweh." In this verse grammatical structure, there is nothing to suggest that the word "one" means something more than one person.

The Christian apostle Paul suggested nor that there had been a change in the nature of God, even after Jesus had come to earth. He wrote: "God is one." - Galatians 3: 20; see also 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6.

Throughout the Bible is God thousands of times spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it's like an entirely individual character. The Bible could not be clearer on this point. As God puts it: "I am Jehovah. It is my name and I give no other my honor. "(Isaiah 42: 8, NW)" I am the Lord [Jehovah, NW] your God. . . You shall have no other gods before me. "(Emphasis by us) - 2 Genesis 20: 2, 3

Why should all the biblical writers under the inspiration mention God as a person if he was actually three persons? What purpose would it serve, except to mislead people? If God consisted of three persons, he would naturally have been his Bible writers make it clear so that there could be no doubt about it. At least they would have to write down the Christian Greek Scriptures, and who was personally in touch with God's own Son, having done so. But they did not.

The Bible writers have made clear, is rather that God is one person - a unique, undivided Being, who do not have someone who is his equal: "I am the Lord [Jehovah, NW], there is no other, besides me there no God. "(Isaiah 45: 5)" You alone, you whose name is the Lord [Jehovah, NW], is the most high over all the earth. "- Psalm 83: 19

Jesus called God "the only true God." (John 17: 3) He never spoke of God as a deity, consisting of several persons. That is why none other than Jehovah called Almighty in the Bible. If others had been called, it would have been contrary to the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is ever called it, for it is Jehovah alone is the Supreme. In 1 Genesis 17: 1 declares: "I am God Almighty." And 2 Genesis 18: 11 says: "The Lord [Jehovah, NW] is greater than all gods."

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word eloh'ah (God) two plural forms, namely elo ‧ heaven 'and elo ‧ heh'. These plural forms usually refer to Jehovah, and they are then translated singular word "God". Showing these plurals that God is a Trinity? No, they do not. William Smith says: "The imaginative perception that [elo ‧ heaven '] refers to a trinity of persons in the Godhead, is now hardly support among philologists. Whether it's the grammarians call the majesty of majority, or it denotes the fullness of the divine is strengthened, the sum of the powers which God displays. "- A Dictionary of the Bible.

A scientific journal that discusses the Semitic languages, says the elo ‧ heaven ': "The word [is] almost without exception. . . together with a verbal singular and takes adjektivisk attribute in the singular. "(The American Journal of Semitic Languages ​​and Literature) title elo ‧ heaven 'occurs, for example, 35 times in Genesis, and every time it is the verb describing what God said and did , in the singular. (1 Genesis 1: 1 to 2: 4) The journal therefore draw the following conclusion: "Elo ‧ heaven 'should rather be explained as a reinforcing plural, signifying the greatness and majesty."

Elo ‧ heaven 'does not mean "people", but "gods." Those who claim that this word denotes a Trinity, making therefore the polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. How can we say? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But almost everyone who supports the Trinity, rejects the view that the Trinity consists of three separate gods.
The Bible also uses the words elo ‧ heaven 'and elo ‧ heh' when it reviews a number of false gods. (2 Genesis 12: 12: 20: 23) But other times it refers to a single false god, for example, when the Philistines spoke of "Dagon, the god [elo ‧ heh '] her." (Judges 16: 23, 24) Baal is called "god" (elo ‧ heaven '). (1 Kings 18: 27) The word is also used on humans. (Psalm 82: 1, 6) Moses was told he would serve as "God" (elo ‧ heaven ') for Aaron and Pharaoh. - 2 Deuteronomy 4: 16; 7: 1

When the titles elo ‧ heaven 'and elo ‧ heh' is used of false gods and even about people, it is obvious that it does not mean that the individual had multiple gods. The fact that the word elo ‧ heaven 'or elo ‧ heh' is used of Jehovah, does not that he is more than one person, especially when we take into account the testimony of the Bible also comes with.

Jesus, a special creature

When Jesus was on earth, he was a man, though he was perfect, because God had transferred Jesus' life force to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1: 18-25) This was not of his beginnings. He said that he had "come down from heaven." (John 3: 13) It was therefore only natural that he later told his followers: "What about when you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" - John 6: 62

Jesus had thus an existence in heaven before he came to earth. But it was one of the persons in an almighty, eternal, triune God? No, the Bible clearly shows that Jesus in his førmenneskelige existence was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings who were created by God. Neither angels or Jesus had existed before they were created.

In his førmenneskelige life was Jesus' all creation's firstborn. " (Colossians 1: 15, Erik Gunnes' translation [EG], see also NJB) He was "God's creature's beginning." (Revelation 3: 14, Sounds Bruns translation [LB]) The word "beginning" (Greek: ar ‧ KHE ') can not be rightly interpreted to mean that Jesus was the one who' started 'God's creatures. Some translations render the word ar ‧ KHE 'with' origins', but in their books of the Bible John uses various forms of this Greek word over 20 times and they always have the common sense of "beginning."

Yes, Jesus was created by God as God's invisible creature's beginning, the first of God's invisible creatures.

Notice how well these statements about Jesus' origins respond to the statements the symbolic "wisdom" in the Bible book of Proverbs comes with: "The Lord [Jehovah, NW] made me as his first work, before his other works, in ancient times. Before the mountains were lowered, before the hills was, I was born, before he had created the earth and land and soil rich first muldklump. "(Proverbs 8: 12, 22, 25, 26, elderly Norwegian translation [A]) Although the word "wisdom" is used to personalize it as God created, most biblical scholars agree that there really is a metaphorical expression is used of Jesus as a spirit creature in his førmenneskelige existence.

As the "wisdom" in his førmenneskelige life Jesus says further that he was "the works manager with [God]." (Proverbs 8: 30, A) In harmony with this role as a works manager says Colossians 1: 16 on Jesus that "all things were created by him."

It was thus with the help of his "works manager" Almighty God created all things. The Bible sums it all up this way: "For us there is only one God, the Father. By him are all things. . . And for us it is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. Through him all things. "- 1 Corinthians 8: 6

It was without doubt the work of the master God said "Let us make man in our image." (1 Genesis 1: 26) Some have argued that the words "us" and "our" in this statement suggests that there is talk of a trinity. But if you said: 'Let us create something for ourselves', no one would normally interpret this as if you meant that you were a composite of several people. You said simply that two or more people would work together on something. So it was when God used the words "us" and "our". He spoke simply of another person, his first spiritual creature, plant master Jesus in his førmenneskelige existence.

The Bible is to seek truth as a process of constantly learning new things. This means of course that one must also correct itself as that you possibly see that you have the wrong perception here or there - when one is driven by knowledge and not blind faith.

For if there is one thing the Bible really encourages us to do, then it's just that - study and research to learn the precise knowledge.

My perception is that those who believe in the Trinity is not completely safe transactions even on this myself - when no one really answer the same when you talk with them.

Outside a church here in Oslo says something like "I do not understand you - but I think (eler chairs - hukser not) on you." It seemed I put into words the incredible lack of response found in Christianity today.

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar