Trinitarian terminology

Originally posted by menace71
We are to pay homage to Christ. To kiss his hand so to speak. To bow down before him. Kinda sounds like worship to me? The argument then can be made why is God Almighty allowing there to be a god before him? The God of the Old Testament was a jealous God. He said you shall have no other gods before me. It sounds contradictory the O.T. god and then the new testament? Or maybe we are missing something here.


Manny

yes he is jealous desiring exclusive devotion, but Christ is worthy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes he is jealous desiring exclusive devotion, but Christ is worthy!

Forgive for my block headedness but do you not see the contradiction there? I was thinking also if Christ is just an mere angel so is Lucifer the angel of light?





Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Forgive for my block headedness but do you not see the contradiction there? I was thinking also if Christ is just an mere angel so is Lucifer the angel of light?





Manny

its not block headedness but quite a reasonable question, at least i think so, it just seems that because Christ exemplified in such a wonderful way Gods qualities, God exalted him to a superior position above all others, thus the angels honour, pay homage, do obeisance to him because as Hebrews states, he reflects the glory of the father. Now we know that Christ himself states, as do many other passages that it is God alone that should receive worship, therefore how are we to understand this verse? Here we see angels honouring Christ, and why not? there seems no reason to assume that God would disapprove of this, the only way it can be construed as idolatrous is that they are actually worshipping Christ instead of the Father, which i dont think is a possibility. Therefore this giving honour is not an idolatrous act, but simply paying homage because Christ is worthy! and why not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes, quite, however you asked for the Biblical reference and here it is, dada! Now why would the Lord have an archangels voice, and not be an archangel? Are you a man and yet have a lions voice? The point is, that an angel simply means a sent one, or a messenger or a spirit son of God, quite far removed from the ideas that are conjured in ones mind ...[text shortened]... Which you may of course not accept and probably wont, but dont you think its interesting anyway?

Yes, quite, however you asked for the Biblical reference and here it is, dada! Now why would the Lord have an archangels voice, and not be an archangel? Are you a man and yet have a lions voice?

But it doesn't say that Jesus has the voice. It simply says that he descends with an angel's voice. Surely you don't that Jesus is God's trumpet as well? Perhaps it simply means, as everyone else has ever interpreted it, that Jesus will be heralded by an archangel (just as he was heralded by the angel Gabriel)>?

Are you a man and yet have a lions voice?

Well, yes.

As for other references to Michael, you shall need to give me time Conrau, suffice to say that we hold that he is the glorified and resurrected Jesus Christ! Which you may of course not accept and probably wont, but dont you think its interesting anyway?

How come it took 1900 years to figure that out?


I also wonder how the Sahidic text renders 'an archangel's voice'. Surely if there is only one archangel, the proper rendering would be 'the archangel's voice''. Surely, as in John 1:1, the indefinite article would invite a qualitative reading.

Originally posted by Conrau K

But it doesn't say that Jesus has the voice. It simply says that he descends with an angel's voice. Surely you don't that Jesus is God's trumpet as well? Perhaps it simply means, as everyone else has ever interpreted it, that Jesus will be heralded by an archangel (just as he was heralded by the angel Gabriel)>?

[b]Are you a man and yet have a lions vo '. Surely, as in John 1:1, the indefinite article would invite a qualitative reading.[/b]

More on that, the original Greek does not say 'with an Archangel's voice' but literally 'in' or 'amongst' an Archangel's voice.

Thess 4:16. hoti hautos, o kurios, en keleusmati, en phone archangelou kai en salpiggi theou katabesetai

Then the Lord by his order will come in the voice of an archangel and in the trumpet of the Lord will descend.

The Latin is exactly the same:
ipse Dominus in jussu, et in voce archangeli, et in tuba Dei descendet

The idea is clearly 'amongst', as in amidst the calling of an archangel and the sounding of God's trumpet. It is telling the circumstances in which the Lord will appear -- heralded by an archangel -- and not telling that Jesus will have an archangel's voice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not block headedness but quite a reasonable question, at least i think so, it just seems that because Christ exemplified in such a wonderful way Gods qualities, God exalted him to a superior position above all others, thus the angels honour, pay homage, do obeisance to him because as Hebrews states, he reflects the glory of the father. Now we kn ...[text shortened]... onour is not an idolatrous act, but simply paying homage because Christ is worthy! and why not?

I agree Christ is worthy!! The contradiction remains or just maybe there is a resolution to this. I don't know the Greek but in the book of Colossians it says

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him.

17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,

20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

How can all the fullness of deity dwell in Christ? If He is not indeed God? He is the very image of the invisible God it reads? Not just image but very image?

Manny

Originally posted by Conrau K
More on that, the original Greek does not say 'with an Archangel's voice' but literally 'in' or 'amongst' an Archangel's voice.

Thess 4:16. hoti hautos, o kurios, en keleusmati, en phone archangelou kai en salpiggi theou katabesetai

Then the Lord by his order will come in the voice of an archangel and in the trumpet of the Lord wi ralded by an archangel -- and not telling that Jesus will have an archangel's voice.

wow, now you are really trying to stretch it Conrau, the scripture states that Christ shall come with a commanding call, with an archangels voice, (singular).

that you're exegesis should attempt this spiritual contortion is really quite amusing, if it were not so serious, mind you! If i speak IN the tongues of angels but do not have love i have become a crashing symbol? is Paul making reference to voices emanating elsewhere? no, it is perfectly valid to state that coming IN a voice, is with reference to the person from which the sound emanates. He sang 'IN a baritone voice', the sound was coming from the baritone, thus your gymnastics, while creative, does not merit an outright refutation.

Originally posted by menace71
I agree Christ is worthy!! The contradiction remains or just maybe there is a resolution to this. I don't know the Greek but in the book of Colossians it says

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or domin ...[text shortened]... d? He is the very image of the invisible God it reads? Not just image but very image?

Manny

i dunno? ask the trinitarians, its their belief 🙂

Originally posted by menace71
I agree Christ is worthy!! The contradiction remains or just maybe there is a resolution to this. I don't know the Greek but in the book of Colossians it says

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or domin ...[text shortened]... d? He is the very image of the invisible God it reads? Not just image but very image?

Manny

The point that I think needs to be understood as much as humans can understand who Jehovah and Jesus and the rest of the angels really are compaired to humans is that Jehovah is the utmost in everything wether it be power, might, wisdom etc. Then you have his Son who is a spirit just like his Father and also like the angels. As was mentioned the Devil and the demons are also spirits.
Now the issue of the problem is what was Jesus like before he came to earth and then after he was resurrescted to heaven. There were apparently changes in the way his Father viewed him for what he had did by first even accepting this assignment, then remaining faithful while here and then fuinally going thru a horrible death. He really didn't have to do any of this. But because of his love for us as he was extremely involved in our creation, he wanted to do what ever it took to get us back to what his Father originally planned for humans.
So because of this his Father Jehovah blessed Jesus with much higher, stronger, influencial of a position then he had before. Also with more responsability. And he now demands that all in creation admire and respect his position even more.
Remember before he came to earth and died for us all Jesus in reality was not mentioned near as much as he was later after his apperance here on earth.
Jesus has earned the praise that his Father has given him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow, now you are really trying to stretch it Conrau, the scripture states that Christ shall come with a commanding call, with an archangels voice, (singular).

that you're exegesis should attempt this spiritual contortion is really quite amusing, if it were not so serious, mind you! If i speak IN the tongues of angels but do not have love i have om the baritone, thus your gymnastics, while creative, does not merit an outright refutation.

wow, now you are really trying to stretch it Conrau, the scripture states that Christ shall come with a commanding call, with an archangels voice, (singular).

Yes, I am very well aware of that. However, what I am arguing is that there needs to be a clarification of what the preposition 'with' means. 'With' can be commitative, indicating accompaniment (I came with a man), or it can be instrumental (I killed him with a sword), or descriptive (The man with the sword came). Only the last could possibly indicate that Jesus is an archangel because it would be describing a quality of Jesus. The meaning in Thess 4:16 however is quite clearly accompaniment, telling the circumstances which will accompany his descent: a command, an archangel's voice and God's trumpet. It is not a statement that Jesus is the archangel Michael but a statement of what will accompany Jesus' return.

that you're exegesis should attempt this spiritual contortion is really quite amusing, if it were not so serious, mind you! If i speak IN the tongues of angels but do not have love i have become a crashing symbol? is Paul making reference to voices emanating elsewhere? no, it is perfectly valid to state that coming IN a voice, is with reference to the person from which the sound emanates. He sang 'IN a baritone voice', the sound was coming from the baritone, thus your gymnastics, while creative, does not merit an outright refutation.

You can also say 'The Queen arrived with shouts of joy and in a fanfare of excitement.' Who is shouting do you think?


Anyway, there is a lot of hypocrisy in your argument. When we discussed John 1:1, you fanatically insisted that the Sahidic texts were an authority. Yet when we discuss Thess 4:16 now, there is no mention of them even though they could provide a clarification.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]wow, now you are really trying to stretch it Conrau, the scripture states that Christ shall come with a commanding call, with an archangels voice, (singular).

Yes, I am very well aware of that. However, what I am arguing is that there needs to be a clarification of what the preposition 'with' means. 'With' can be commitative, indicating accompani :16 now, there is no mention of them even though they could provide a clarification.[/b]

this is not hypocrisy, these are the extant fragments of the sahidic text, as you can see, the verse in question is not present, how i can therefore comment upon it and belay the charge of hypocrisy i do not know. there are sahidc versions of the Bible but i do not as yet possess a copy in my library.

Sahidic:

Crosby 1Peter III complete
Brit. M. 7594 Acts III/IV fragmented
Mich. 3992 John 1Cor. Titus III/IV fragmented
Berlin 408 Rev. 1John Philemon IV partial
Kahle 22 Eph. 1Pet. 1John James IV fragmented
Lectionary 1604 Matthew IV fragmented
Berlin 15926 Acts IV fragmented
Garrido Matthew IV fragmented
Rainer V(p41) Acts IV/V partial
Bodmer XIX Matthew Romans IV/V fragmented
Kahle 21 1Timothy Titus IV/V fragmented

yes i insisted on using the sahidic coptic text when discussing the Word, for the charge was made, that the new world translation had no substantiated basis with which to render the verse as we do, it was not a case that it was simply expedient to do so. The context of John 1:1 is enough in my opinion.