Trinity doctrine that God is Elohim fall together!
Jesus you is an Engel, including described reef in the word of God as the Lord Engel. Her s is a Swedish brother Leif Liljeström taking up dette emne og we find such Jesus og to engler in 1 Genesis 18 that åpenbarte tough for Abraham as three engler but one of them became også benevnt the Lord, dette was Jesus in his pre existence
ANGELS AND ELOHIM
I have previously written a lot about the word Elohim, which we translate as God, and how that word at all, in Hebrew, only represents God but also used for angels, demons and human spirits. Which, of course, both have severe complications for much of the Bible have been translated, but also teaches us that words not always as obvious as you would think. For example, as I written an article about this, so I can without blinking, with the biblical language to say "I AM A GOD", because as I said, the Bible, in its pristine otolkade figure, teaches us that the reborn man is an Elohim, because we will be like angels and the angels is Elohim, the Sons of God. To the conclusion can come from many sources. To this I would only now add that I happened across yet another biblical contexts that show this, and it is in Hebrews. 2 and Ps. Eighth In Hebrews. the author says of Jesus that "a small time made him lower than the angels." And the phrase is a quote from Psalm 8:5, where it says: "But you did him a GOD." (Ps. 8:5) In English, it says: "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." But in Hebrew it says here, verbatim transcribed: "And you are making him paint little from Elohim" Here we find, first, that when the author of Hebrews for the quote to his time, so he maintains, led by the Holy Spirit, the interpretation that Elohim here is understood angels, despite the words in Hebrew were gods. Thus equation between Elohim and Angels. The word Elohim which is also, most often, used for God in the singular in the OT. So if the gears in your brain is not spinning up already in full swing, so let me help. ONE IS that a review of all other passages where the word Elohim is used, is required. For there are other places where it also should or may be called angels / gods rather than God in the singular. As an example in Genesis 1. 1:26. That is to say that we are the image of God does not mean that it is God in his angelic form provided, that when God the Son angelic figure, which we were created in the likeness of. To clarify: It is God the Son, in his angelic figure, which says to the other angels, Sons of God, his servant and co-creator [in the sense of artisans]: Let U.S. make man in OUR image. It is therefore not about the Trinity, the Trinity can be argued and defended in other ways, and do not you think the apostles had used this if it would tydits so? Rather it is about what we are in the image of, and what it tells us about the original, ie, if the angels. Because if you do not mind, it would be well in the image of the invisible God, the one who lives in a light where no man can come, be like? But now we were not there, but we got the figure, and planetary purpose, with arms and legs and noses, and so on, and who the Godhead is the one with the figure? Father? Spirit? No, the Son, but the Son of His creation figure, the angels, in turn, before us, was a reflection of and why they were called the Sons of God. Another such place is Psalm 68:15, which I discovered and wrote some articles about, and also received indirect support from an american jew professor of Semitic languages of (he pinched the idea for an email contact and took it in his upcoming book, without mentioning the source of [the book could be read prior awhile]) - where the words of Bashan mountain get much more logical if one interprets a mountain of God, as a mountain gods. But the number of such places, and now that we have this prominent contexts, this between the Hebrews. 2 and Psalm 8 to base it all on, it becomes so much stronger, and even impossible to argue therefore that the NT sets a DONE equal sign between Elohim and Angels, you've just read it - so let us proceed, and let also the other scriptures become clear, to see if there are more obscured passages (and do it there, that are obscured passages, so you can easily figure out that it does so with a purpose, and that we are just where can find very important things , such as the gods rock, which of course opens up a whole new autostrada into biblical understanding in the post-flood period angelic descents and how this explains tons of both biblical and secular history - as I said, just such obscurations suggests, of course that there are important truths, otherwise it would not have been worth the effort to obfuscate them, so to speak. And you know who I'm referring to.) One implication of this you can think of, is that the term "Sons of God" words could be translated 'gods' sons. " That is, it could be that those who step down, which in Genesis 1. 6, was not the first generation of angels, but the sons of angels, perhaps a former hybridart. However, since both the Book of Enoch and the Septuagint calls them angels, then well that idea may be abandoned. Or? Unless we go to what the word angel, malak, meaning, it means just messengers, or something similar. As seen from this perspective does not contradict neither Enoch or the Septuagint that idea. And what would in that case have? Well, it would show us that it is also among the angels there are generations, and hit another nail in the coffin of the religious tradition of angels as sexless, formless consciousness that just floats around in the "spirit world". But, we also have the witness and I feel that the Spirit bears witness to the tank, and it does not matter for the argument against substanslösheten as even a first-generation angels, with fertility, hitting nails into its coffin. So I will not argue, but still wanted to show how words can have different interpretations, and how we must take into account several different instances, before we come to a conclusion. So we have both the NT interprets the OT, and how the Book of Enoch does, and how the Septuagint does. And in addition, the Holy Spirit's testimony. Without the witness in this case had this thought then led wrong, showing that "Sola Scriptura" can be a very dangerous principle. "Scripture alone" can not lead us right, we've also got a scripture interpreters, the Holy Spirit, which is superior to our thoughts and what we believe is the writing. Scripture is therefore what the Holy Spirit reveals to us from Scripture. Anything else is just our perceptions of scripture, what we, with our limited sense believe is written. Without the Spirit's confirmation, which we must always seek and wait, before we do get an idea, we will stand us smooth and should only relate still and not run away and interpret things for his own sanity, or attendant of ingrained traditions and ways of thinking, imaginations and fancies. So just sit down and "study" the Bible is not leading anywhere. Unless the writers of the Bible are present, with you and in you, the reading becomes unfruitful. It may possibly storing skriftord in you, the Spirit later, if / when you let Him lead and take over, take out, but it's Plan B. Plan A is to also magasinerandet should be in and with and of the Spirit, so that everything ends up where it should be and you get space for that is what God wants to work right in you. I have no more "Elohim" places in your head right now, but will come back if / when I found several, if they are interesting and seem to need, perhaps, reinterpreted. So see this as an introduction to the subject.
I AM A GOD
If I say this: I am a god, then you will be shocked and ready to call the Inquisition Court in modern form. But it just depends on our word God had a different meaning than it had from the beginning. Man is no God, we think, for God is in heaven and he is unique and no one can reach up to his level. No, that's right, but then are you referring to the supreme God. Note the phrase: the supreme god. If there is a supreme god, there are also lesser gods. And if we go back in time to when these concepts had a different meaning, we find that both in our language and in the biblical languages, Hebrew, so share several creatures on the concept of god. So you can put down the torch to ignite the fire of thought, at least if you want to read the Bible as the Bible was written once. That the supreme god is unique and found only in a "copy" so to speak, as I said, really. But since he also has other gods under him - not together, because then it becomes wrong - then we realize that the word God is not against a single unique creature, but a collective of beings. Do we want to give a name to the supreme god, it could be the creator, but it turns out to be difficult to find a word that truly accommodates his unique position and existence. He has a proper name, Yahweh, as he gave Moses to proclaim. God is thus not his name, even if it has become in recent times, when monotheism made such an impact, that the idea of other gods faded. But it also has a lot of insights have been lost. It is never good to deviate from the biblical language and biblical reality. Does the Bible say that there are multiple gods, and that more than the chief may have the name, then there is precious truth and insight into this. The Hebrew word for God really means just power, or powerful, strong. So you know that it can hardly have been a unique name for the Creator from the beginning. There are many who can be called mighty and strong, and in the Bible as both angels and men (but not all people) to elohim. And just the fact that the word is in the plural shows of course its importance. What does the Swedish word god? Etymologically, it come from the PRIMITIVE GERMANIC word Guthan, which is related to something, that people name götarna. It is believed to have meaning (out) cast and would then designate it, compare with the Norwegian gutt. The word is also in the river, and the river pours out the water. How has it come to be used of God in heaven? It is believed to have been used in the effusion of drink offerings to idols (?) And then transferred in any way. Linguists are not quite sure of the word meaning. A similar word was also used of priests, Godar. A priest = a Trustee. * Oden, who was counted as the chief of Asatru, also called Gaut. The roads to our modern word may have been many apparently. When the first Bibles translated into the Nordic languages (and there are also counted old English), so had a shift in meaning has occurred. To dilute the confusion even more so the Romans used the word deus of God, akin to the Greek theos. This word meaning is light. I'm no expert on the word's meanings in different languages, and as I said, this word seems to have a special story in itself that would certainly be interesting to explore, and also probably necessary in view of what I have already mentioned above, but it may be until further notice. Can we trace anyone who tried, and even managed pretty well with that as confusion about the concept? Or is this the confusion of tongues to do? And besides, whose language was what would förbistras? Not the most high god's children, right? But we have experienced it as well, though we could have escaped it if we were awake it over. Do you realize now how ridiculous it would sound if someone said I believe in God before the word got its present meaning? Do you believe in god? Which god, then, would they ask? Well there is only one god, would a modern European or American say. No, there are many, would the ancient answer, and they would get the right of a Hebrew if he was asked. They would get the right of Moses and Abraham. And by Jesus. It's really very strange how much there are mistranslations in the Bible. And it's not as if there has or has had any significance. It has GREAT meaning to every word and the dot in the Bible is translated correctly. And then you have to dig deep in the layers of religious traditions that are above the people's understanding of words and sentences. So when modern people read the Bible and see where the word God, as they perceive it in the sense of creating the unique God. But then they meet the word in other contexts, where it is used for other creatures, and will then have to turn to these scriptures, so that they will fit with the ingrained perception, rather than letting scripture itself explain the word's meaning and so few make us see, or wiser. Now it may be argued that the Bible itself uses the word God as a unique identifier of the creator, both in the OT and NT. Yes, it is true, but it does it anyway, knowing that there were also others who were called God. It's like when we use the word Bible. Bible means book. When we say the Bible we do not mean that there is only one book but the Bible book of books, the outstanding and unique book that stands above all other books (except the Book of Enoch, but that's another article, and where I feel smell of smoke again). Bible writers did not mean that there was only one existing being who went under the name of God, it is evident only you think of how Jesus quotes Psalm 82, where a group of lesser gods addressed by the chief. Forget the word god's own name for the creator. It's not what it means. But rather, it means the gods god or god with a big G, as they say. Creator Bob is said that Yahweh, or anyway it's the name he gave Moses. When a Hebrew reading the Bible and come to the word Elohim, as he sees thus the word mighty or something similar. Only the context of the text determines which of the mighty referred. Much like when we speak of the king or the president. It can refer to the supreme earthly ruler in the country we live in, but it can also mean a lower person. In the U.S., almost every man to be president, because it just means chairman. Eventually, maybe the word ceases to be used for other than the chief. Here someone say: I saw the king today! Which when King? Laundry King! Not until the context is clear, we understand who is referred to, and so it is with the word God in the Bible. Try to find a word that truly represents the supreme god in a unique way, and you will see how difficult it is. It's as if he surrounds himself with mystery, and ouppnåelighet, just there. It is as well not to give him a name, he slips away from us, becomes invisible - as he is also. So he had to come to us instead, he had to stoop to our level, he could be one of us, that we could begin to understand who and what he is. Now we have a name, a name that is unique, and that is Jesus. I find it interesting that it is so difficult to find a proper name for the creator. As if he is Lord even of our language ability and not let us give him a name. Are we trying to get it wrong. He reserves that for himself, and it comes not only as a word but as a revelation. Maybe he lets us once to know his real name, in a way so that there is no doubt as to who is meant. The Creator is the closest I can come, but it does not feel like it's enough to really anyway. We can find the name of creatures, like cats and dogs, and the ability, we have, but what 'kind' shall we say that the Creator belong? He is no art, no, but what is he? He is the one who has no beginning. As never been to. For that he has always been, and also was there all the time. Eternity Creature is not enough as a concept, for all men and angels are eternal beings. But we have once again come to. To call him the Eternal is not enough. I am also eternal. The chief is not enough either, it identifies him but that does not make him unique. He would be the chief of the same kind as the other. Not even his own name as he introduced himself with enough thought to, and I write that with some hesitation. It is, it does, but it is we do them all. We are. But we are not like him. There's word that the omnipotent, the omniscient, the allgode, etc.. Omnipotence may have only one. It is a fine and beautiful words. In Hebrew it is called Shaddai, especially with El, El Shaddai is. So he introduced himself to Abraham during a visit. The word is also outstanding, but El front. But it turns out that the Hebrew word has a more ambiguous role than the Almighty, it means rather just powerful, as El and Elohim. There, he slipped away again. We must realize that it is only through Jesus we can reach him and see him. He is not such that he can be captured in a concept, artbestämmas man, placed in a tray. But he has come to us. __ Finally: But that king who said he was a god then, and who was convicted of pride for it - I do not do the same thing now? No, check the context, Ezek. 28th Firstly, it is a little doubtful whether he believes in God as the supreme or only in one of the gods. The Prophet (and prophecy Spirit) rejects him as one of the gods of the mountain of God, it seems. This was so, a king who was not related to the true gods, ie the angels descended. But this king of Tyre seems to have been the one who wanted to take their position, wanted to make himself like the gods, which then has its parallel in the other person who wanted to make himself like the Most High God. For the gods in Psalm 82, those on Hermon dare I say now, 'said the chief Ye are gods, and they were there, but he says you're not a god. So there is a difference. Therefore, they should not claim to be something you are not. But for us who are children of God, scripture says that we can call ourselves that. If we do not deny that we are. Children of God, yes. It's not the same thing as God. Well, that's it. We are born of God, the Most High Elohim. It makes us as much Elohim, the angels. We belong, and will do so fully in eternity, gudakollegiet or gudarådet, where the chief resides. The highest power, with the other powers. But an unsaved man can not say that about herself. Only those who have once been born of the Father can say it, either sometime in the beginning of the heavens, or here on this earth, in touch with the work of salvation in Jesus. Note that it is only in the NT that we should be called the sons of God. GT people were not born again through the incorruptible seed. In GT could only angels are called the sons of God in its biological significance, for it is the sense of the term, it's not about adoption as some try to explain it away with. Then loses all its meaning salvation, and we do not get more than followers of a religion. Let no one deceive you with lies. Our spirit is BORN of the Father, not created, as it was from the beginning, at our inception as a child. In Jesus we are BORN, by a divine förökelseprocess. We are CHILDREN, not subjects, and we have adoption as sons. So there you have it. You belong, if you are saved and preserved, the divine dynasty, the Most High, kin, and therefore it says WHOLE CREATION yearn and long for our revelation, for when we emerge, when we get to come forward, then all of creation to life, and part of our lives with Jesus. Therefore, we confess: we are gods, we are gudavarelser, and our true path is high and wonderful, as Dan Andersson caulked. I think he had about the same insight as the one I wrote about above, although it may lay more in his subconscious or unspoken thoughts, impossible at that time to express, in no uncertain terms. Read beggar from Luossajärvi, it appears to be related, it is like a poetic parallel to what I have written here.
We Gudavarelser
An artist's conception of the glorified / angelic man. Perhaps not too far from the truth of Scripture. et are many who responded to the proclamation (the faith movement ¹) "We are Gods." It is understandable, considering what kind of people we are, now, in this fallen world and fallen body. But think, however, what the Scriptures say about us: "But you did him a GOD." (Ps. 8:6) "We are his offspring. ' (Acts 17:28) "Ye are gods." (John 10:24) "In the image of God created he him." (1 Deut. 1:27) The question is how we define the word "God". God, as God Almighty? Well, until we could apply it to ourselves, to some extent, in that Jesus, after he had died and been raised in his human body, was awarded all power in heaven and on earth, that he withdrew his divine power; but not as God but as the victorious son of man. And we are his body. We are the people of his partakers of His divine nature, and thus owns, along with him, all this power in heaven and on earth. Not as lonely individuals, but as members of his body, which is the church. This congregation is something so very, large, and unique, we probably will never be able to make it, here on earth. The angels long to look into it, because they too, together with us, be part of this great work, in which Christ is the head of everything. THE FOREGOING TRUTHS from God's word has perhaps ever preached in a way that could be misunderstood, but by themselves, these words that we, as saved people, restored and facing set in heaven, with Christ on his throne (Revelation promises the ), may well be said to be, and even more, to become gods. It was probably the John sensed when he wrote that we are children of God, but what we should be, that we do not know yet. Deity, and the sons of God, there are creatures made in the likeness of God. And if we are created in the likeness of God, what does it do? Gods. No, of course not to the gods of the same nature as God the Father allmäktig, or God the Son or the Spirit of God. But however, likeness, image, family, of his body, the divine nature - who except God himself can then tell the difference? And what, say what, this great universe created, if not for us? Us, and the angels. For we are his images, we are supposed to rule over creation, and creation is a bit more than this earth. And I refuse, for good reason found in Scripture, to believe that we in glory only going to be here on the renewed earth, or on a new renewed earth. Those who want to be sure it gets there, but I want to get out and explore the universe. And it may well be a heavenly calling it too, that God puts in some hearts, while others feel for growing figs or whatever they dream of. "Every place that the sole of your foot treading, I have given unto you ..." (Jos. 1:3) NOTICE TO MAN is to become a gudavarelse is also quite evident already in the fallen man's desire and efforts to conquer space. If man in his fallen state could continue to research and seek, she would sooner or later, despite his talent, very likely to conquer space. God forbid that it will happen, but she would probably do it, only with the gifts she now owns. But the purpose of creation is obviously higher than that. Perhaps the space to continue, albeit in a completely different way, but still, during the Millennium? Anyway, the named crowd will surely get access to and permission to larger excursions than just around this earth. It would be very strange otherwise. Moreover, and this ought to put an end to all discussion about it, Jesus says that he is going away to prepare our room. If he then is gone away to prepare a place for us, then of course, the rooms to be anywhere else than here on earth. Ergo, in heaven. "Unto Us" also means that there is a place for people, that it is a planetary life, for we are planetary creatures, otherwise we would not have arms and legs and such. But we are not confined to just this world. Jesus went away, there, to the heavenly paradise, to prepare another room. And so says the Book of Revelation that there are some who will dwell in heaven. What is it? Bo, in heaven? Himlabor. Earlier this revelation is a crowd pulled up from the earth, the body of Christ, I interpret the child to be born of the woman of Israel, she with the wreath of stars on the head. So now we are in the celestial room, and in the Father's many mansions, and live there, while the world may be with their beasts, they have chosen to associate with, and call. And the beast and the dragon blasphemes them that dwell in heaven. Why? Because they escaped his wrath. They were not destined to suffer from either God or the beast's wrath, they were determined to salvation. "... And a little child shall lead them." (Isa. 11:6) THE MAN IS A GUDAVARELSE we can also understand by putting us in animal welfare. For them, we gudavarelser. Dogs adore people, eg Could they worship, they would do it. But they are aware of it in its interior, as well as other intelligent animals. The subordinates willingly, they know that we are higher than them, not just higher in intelligence, in that case lower animals subordinate to higher animals that way, but they do not. Man has the ability to dominate the animals with his spirit. They come in during our force field, and we are wise and kind to them also, so they do everything for us, and even sacrifice their lives. We are also given a higher age than most animals. While the animals are younger than us, they die earlier than us. They have time to live their entire lives, from childhood to old age, while we only live a few decades. For them, we seem almost to have eternal life. Compared to a cat man becomes almost a thousand years.
Relaterte linker: http://bibeltemplet.net/bibletemple/ http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/ http://blog.janchristensen.net/ http://janchristensen.net/
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar