• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Jesus---Messiah not God

Well I am completely willing to give up the word "trinity". I might prefer it since I wouldn't feel guilty about my favorite spaghetti western trilogy. But I can't give up the first chapter of John or Romans 10:9. Whatever phrase means that I'm content with.
 
Maybe but we are only shown one individual and He never seems to be singled out and quite completely identified. In Revelation 16 when Jesus comes back at the head of His armies He's called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. You certainly don't have the clear separation you see at His baptism for instance.

Revelations 5.
 
Also Rev 7:17.
I see what you see but this is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. The "lamb at the center of the throne" is kind of conflating the role of suffering Christ and Conquering King. There seems to be a blurring and a blending going on in Revelation that kind of ends with imagery of only one Entity. It's crazy, random speculation on my part. I can't really back it up and I would never call it doctrine or theology, but it's some interesting brain candy.
 
Just a thought here; Stephen would appear to be praying and ended his life calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59)
I've considered this also, but I think it's more akin to Yeshua appears to him so he's talking to the presence who is right in front of him just as Moses spoke to the "angel of the L-rd" as did Avraham, etc. when he manifested in front of them.
I don't think any Unitarians would make the claim that you can't talk to Yeshua if he chooses to appear to you.
Another way of looking at it is, the disciples were constantly talking to Yeshua in his resurrected form before he ascended so ... what's the difference between that and what Stephen did?
 
Good point @IshChayil. The presence of the vision means that either interpretation is possible, so this could be seen two ways and does not necessarily change anything. It could even be seen as the exception that proves the rule.
 
I think it's more akin to Yeshua appears to him so he's talking to the presence who is right in front of him
I hadn't thought of that or come across that as a possibility before so thank you for that. Is there any way from what is written that you would consider this a personal presence or vision? Cheers
 
@cnystromIn the same way, it's not that worship of the Spirit is forbidden either, but the sort of songs that are sung to the Spirit are rather questionable. For instance, I was at a church yesterday where a song featuring the lyrics "Holy Spirit you are welcome here" was sung.

I hate that line, too, but I think for a different reason than you. One would never tell a king in his own kingdom that he is welcome here. The butler does not tell the master of the house he is welcome here. No, rather it is the other way around. I hope I am welcome in God's presense.

I mean when someone comes face to face with an angel no one says, "You are welcome here!". It is more like, "Please do not kill me". How much more so with God himself?
 
I hate that line, too, but I think for a different reason than you. One would never tell a king in his own kingdom that he is welcome here. The butler does not tell the master of the house he is welcome here. No, rather it is the other way around. I hope I am welcome in God's presense.

I mean when someone comes face to face with an angel no one says, "You are welcome here!". It is more like, "Please do not kill me". How much more so with God himself?
There is an old story how God wanted to bless a pastor and the pastor told God about the programs he had put in place and they were working. God left to find a pastor that would allow Him to work in the church’s and the pastor’s life. As I see it, the Holy Spirit is a gentleman, he will not intrude on someone or force his will on someone but will work with a willing vessel. I have been in too many church services that were nothing but a country club from the first words said to the last Amen.

A minister friend of mine was filling in for a pastor on vacation. At the end of the service, the chairman of deacons told my friend not to come back for the evening service. My friend was told he was not preaching the word of God. My friend explained he backed everything he said with scripture. The chairman of deacons told him ‘it may be scriptural, but it ain’t Baptist’.

God gives us free will to worship Him or have a country club.
 
My friend was told he was not preaching the word of God. My friend explained he backed everything he said with scripture. The chairman of deacons told him ‘it may be scriptural, but it ain’t Baptist’.

Years ago on another forum hubby and I were told what we believe is not biblical. We were standing on an astounding number of verses, so we asked why he/they said that only to be told that "Just because it's from the bible doesn't mean its biblical" no other explanation, or definition, even though we did ask for their definition of "biblical "
People like to just deny and defame what they cannot refute/disprove.

Churches are all basically man designed social clubs.

I had a moment once of astounding clarity. We were in the big city, and there was a church on every corner. A church for every language even....but I could only think they were worthless as all these churches have either caused the ruin on our nation, or been powerless to stop it.
Later I heard an audio sermon that for me explained why it is so. They are all baal churches, 501 c3 state churches, that substitute man's changing ideas of morality for the never changing standard of YHWH.
Could you be a disciple of baal and not know it? Was the message. Here is a link to it. After hearing it I'm convinced a lot of professing Christians are.....ignorantly for sure, but affirming another authority... changing the rules....means you support another god.
 
Years ago on another forum hubby and I were told what we believe is not biblical. We were standing on an astounding number of verses, so we asked why he/they said that only to be told that "Just because it's from the bible doesn't mean its biblical" no other explanation, or definition, even though we did ask for their definition of "biblical "
People like to just deny and defame what they cannot refute/disprove.

Churches are all basically man designed social clubs.

I had a moment once of astounding clarity. We were in the big city, and there was a church on every corner. A church for every language even....but I could only think they were worthless as all these churches have either caused the ruin on our nation, or been powerless to stop it.
Later I heard an audio sermon that for me explained why it is so. They are all baal churches, 501 c3 state churches, that substitute man's changing ideas of morality for the never changing standard of YHWH.
Could you be a disciple of baal and not know it? Was the message. Here is a link to it. After hearing it I'm convinced a lot of professing Christians are.....ignorantly for sure, but affirming another authority... changing the rules....means you support another god.

He took the founders words so completely out of context it actually makes me sick. Our founders were definitely not perfect but the idea that they attempted to establish law that rejected God as the authority is ridiculous revisionist history. Those statements are made in context and in comparison to an earthly monarchy which is what they were rejecting at the time. The fact that God is the one Authority ultimately in charge is exactly what our founders believed at least the majority of them.
I notice he did not mention the declaration of independence.
 
Back
Top