What does the Godhead really mean?

[danielwoods]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but the beginning of what?
God was at the beginning of this creation, but there is no reason to believe there had never been another creation.

And since we don't only accept the Bible there is absolutely no reason we have to prove something from the Bible alone.

When the Bible talks about the beginning, it's talking about the beginning of this creation. There is no other beginning to reference. 

Once we stray from the Bible, anything can be proved or disproved. 

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is all over the Bible - much moreso than the Book of Mormon actually. The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things of God which Christ revealed. It is the oracles of God. Read Hebrews 5 for more on that. God doesn't do things the way you think He should - He does them His way, which btw was the way of Christ. If He wanted to make everything plain Jane He would have appeared to His prophets, and to everyone so they would be left with no doubt - but He doesn't - why not? Because He showed what He wanted to in Christ - Christ showed the way to the holiest of all as Hebrews says. That wasn't just His path or the scripture would be null and void. If you look back to my comparison between what the Bible actually says and the interpretation of men, you will see a difference on each critical point 

(Well when I inserted that link, I lost some text- I think I suggested getting a Restored Name KJV to help you begin to appreciate the Godhead - one can be had for free from theword.net)

I asked, "Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?"

You answer is that "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things...", because Jesus never progressed to become God. 

You claim that you compared what the Bible says and the interpretation of men shows your point. Yet, I think just in this thread I've pointed out the scripture you've quoted doesn't say what you claimed, what two times specifically. And here, when I ask for a specific statement that states what you claim, and you back track and say that, "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things."

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yep. I'm missing your point. Jesus was YHWH Elohim with the Father per Gen 3:22. That, however, does not make Him El Elyon, the Most High. Scripturally it is not there. If you ever understand that outside of trinitarianism, you will begin to see the nature of God. Maybe try to understand the difference between El/Elim, Eloah/Elohim, and the English "God" for starters. "God" gets used for all those 4 Hebrew words in the English Bibles. But what did they originally mean? The Hebrews had different words for a reason. Just understanding that will help you on your way to perhaps seeing the order of heaven. There are many other things, but that is a start. Just using "God" for everything "hides" the nature of the Godhead/Godhede as your friend put it.

Since John 1 is written in Greek, you point is what again? 

[RevTestament]

On 2/22/2016 at 9:53 PM, danielwoods said:

I asked, "Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?"

You answer is that "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things...", because Jesus never progressed to become God. 

You claim that you compared what the Bible says and the interpretation of men shows your point. Yet, I think just in this thread I've pointed out the scripture you've quoted doesn't say what you claimed, what two times specifically. And here, when I ask for a specific statement that states what you claim, and you back track and say that, "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things."

Sorry, my laptop was down, and I was stuck on my tablet... You haven't shown at all that those scriptures I've referred to don't mean what they say. You just point to the early Catholic Church's interpretation of them, which ignore that Christ's glory and yes even divinity changes. How else does He go from Son to Father? Are you saying He was the Father before He came to earth? Every Biblical passage you can point to will not give you that interpretation. The best you can do biblically is to show both He and the Father are YHWH Elohim together. That is all John 1:1 can give you. All the rest of John makes it clear that the Father sent His only Begotten Son into the world in the person of Jesus. Jesus' baptism leaves no doubt on this point. He is the Son of the Father. If you wish to change that, you are giving up the first tenet of Christianity, and even your dear trinitarian doctrine which confesses that the Father is not the Son. So, no you haven't shown anything of the sort. In order to inherit the title of the Father per Isa 9:6, He must inherit the government of the Father - His Holy Mountains. That is what the scriptures say. Are you saying He somehow inherited the title of the Father in only His human nature?

On 2/22/2016 at 9:55 PM, danielwoods said:

Since John 1 is written in Greek, you point is what again? 

What was yours? The OT also talks about JHWH being the word. Indeed I believe that is what John 1 is telling us - that Joshua Messiach was JHWH with the Father from the beginning of the world. JHWH seems to mean as its root "I am life" or "I have breath" - so tell me again how the Father has that name? Is that a name Christ inherited per Hebrews? You might benefit by remembering Jesus said "my words are life" - to me that results in YHWH meaning I am breath/life/the word.

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Perhaps you need to be clearer. When did He inherit this name?

[halconero]

On February 22, 2016 at 10:53 PM, danielwoods said:

I asked, "Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?"

You answer is that "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things...", because Jesus never progressed to become God. 

You claim that you compared what the Bible says and the interpretation of men shows your point. Yet, I think just in this thread I've pointed out the scripture you've quoted doesn't say what you claimed, what two times specifically. And here, when I ask for a specific statement that states what you claim, and you back track and say that, "The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things."

"Be ye perfect even as..."

"Co-heirs with Christ..."

"Sit with them on the throne..."

You might disagree with the interpretation...but it's not like a basis for ours it isn't there.

Edited February 26, 2016 by halconero

[mfbukowski]

On 2/22/2016 at 9:44 PM, danielwoods said:

When the Bible talks about the beginning, it's talking about the beginning of this creation. There is no other beginning to reference. 

Once we stray from the Bible, anything can be proved or disproved. 

Assuming of course the bible is "correct", and we have no basis for that assumption other than faith.

The only difference between you and me really is that assumption.  And that assumption is really pretty shaky.

If the Bible is verified on evidence in the heart, then so is the BOM and all else.  And it cannot be "verified" any other way.   History?  Nope.  History does not prove the supernatural, all it gives is a geographic location where the legends originated.  It does not show that the legends "happened".

God is the first cause?  Doesn't work. It's an assumption based on faith that causation stops at some point and can be started. But then there was a time before time, before causation was started by God.  So that makes God temporal.

So what is the "beginning of this creation"?   That works for we LDS actually- very well.  

You are actually right- it IS the beginning of THIS creation from pre-existent matter.  Previous creations and previous gods become possibilities with that kind of thinking.

[danielwoods]

On February 26, 2016 at 8:52 AM, RevTestament said:

Sorry, my laptop was down, and I was stuck on my tablet... You haven't shown at all that those scriptures I've referred to don't mean what they say. You just point to the early Catholic Church's interpretation of them, which ignore that Christ's glory and yes even divinity changes. How else does He go from Son to Father? Are you saying He was the Father before He came to earth? Every Biblical passage you can point to will not give you that interpretation. The best you can do biblically is to show both He and the Father are YHWH Elohim together. That is all John 1:1 can give you. All the rest of John makes it clear that the Father sent His only Begotten Son into the world in the person of Jesus. Jesus' baptism leaves no doubt on this point. He is the Son of the Father. If you wish to change that, you are giving up the first tenet of Christianity, and even your dear trinitarian doctrine which confesses that the Father is not the Son. So, no you haven't shown anything of the sort. In order to inherit the title of the Father per Isa 9:6, He must inherit the government of the Father - His Holy Mountains. That is what the scriptures say. Are you saying He somehow inherited the title of the Father in only His human nature?

What was yours? The OT also talks about JHWH being the word. Indeed I believe that is what John 1 is telling us - that Joshua Messiach was JHWH with the Father from the beginning of the world. JHWH seems to mean as its root "I am life" or "I have breath" - so tell me again how the Father has that name? Is that a name Christ inherited per Hebrews? You might benefit by remembering Jesus said "my words are life" - to me that results in YHWH meaning I am breath/life/the word.

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Perhaps you need to be clearer. When did He inherit this name?

Your argument isn't supported by the verses you quote. You claim that Christ's glory and divinity changes (or progresses). 

You point to Isaiah 9:6, yet what Christ inherits isn't divinity but a title or government. Neither of which mentions his divinity changing. 

You quote Heb. 1:4 and again notice what we see here. 

Heb. 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

 

The idea that Christ's divinity is changing or progressing is missing. What we see in this passage is that through the Son God made the worlds (or "all things" as stated in other passages). And vs. 3 continues to disprove the idea that Christ's divinity is progressing, because he is the very express image of God. 

Inorder to demonstrate or support your position you need a passage that instead of stating the above, it would say something like, "Jesus grew to become the brightness of his glory..." Or "Jesus progressed to become the express image of his person..." 

 

[danielwoods]

On February 26, 2016 at 9:02 AM, halconero said:

"Be ye perfect even as..."

"Co-heirs with Christ..."

"Sit with them on the throne..."

You might disagree with the interpretation...but it's not like a basis for ours it isn't there.

I don't see any basis for a progressing divinity in these passages. 

[danielwoods]

On February 26, 2016 at 1:25 PM, mfbukowski said:

Assuming of course the bible is "correct", and we have no basis for that assumption other than faith.

The only difference between you and me really is that assumption.  And that assumption is really pretty shaky.

If the Bible is verified on evidence in the heart, then so is the BOM and all else.  And it cannot be "verified" any other way.   History?  Nope.  History does not prove the supernatural, all it gives is a geographic location where the legends originated.  It does not show that the legends "happened".

God is the first cause?  Doesn't work. It's an assumption based on faith that causation stops at some point and can be started. But then there was a time before time, before causation was started by God.  So that makes God temporal.

So what is the "beginning of this creation"?   That works for we LDS actually- very well.  

You are actually right- it IS the beginning of THIS creation from pre-existent matter.  Previous creations and previous gods become possibilities with that kind of thinking.

As I said, once we depart from the Bible anything is possible and truly there are millions of claims and beliefs out there. 

If the BOM works for you, great. I couldn't ever believe it though. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Your argument isn't supported by the verses you quote. You claim that Christ's glory and divinity changes (or progresses). 

You point to Isaiah 9:6, yet what Christ inherits isn't divinity but a title or government. Neither of which mentions his divinity changing. 

It's pretty hard to get you to confess Christ's divinity changes when all the verses I point to which shows He changes you dismiss as just referring to his human nature....

But anyway I definitely see His divinity changing from being the servant to being the Father. Yes, it is a change of title, but with that title comes additional power and glory it seems. You can say no, but the everything we have in the Bible says the Father is the omnipotent one - He is the one who is El Elyon the Most High El.... You can deny it if you want, but you are merely denying who He has told you He is.....

Well, at this point, I don't see much point in going further. People either see that truth or they dig in their heels.

Again, I wish you well in your endeavors friend

[danielwoods]

On February 28, 2016 at 11:17 PM, RevTestament said:

It's pretty hard to get you to confess Christ's divinity changes when all the verses I point to which shows He changes you dismiss as just referring to his human nature....

But anyway I definitely see His divinity changing from being the servant to being the Father. Yes, it is a change of title, but with that title comes additional power and glory it seems. You can say no, but the everything we have in the Bible says the Father is the omnipotent one - He is the one who is El Elyon the Most High El.... You can deny it if you want, but you are merely denying who He has told you He is.....

Well, at this point, I don't see much point in going further. People either see that truth or they dig in their heels.

Again, I wish you well in your endeavors friend

Your position that the divinity of Christ changed or progressed doesn't square with the statements of Christ, where he uses the exact same statements to describe himself as God does.

For example. Is. 44:6 "I am the first and last and there is no God beside me."

compared to revelation 1:8 "I am the alpha and the omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

and rev. 22:13 "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Your position that the divinity of Christ changed or progressed doesn't square with the statements of Christ, where he uses the exact same statements to describe himself as God does.

For example. Is. 44:6 "I am the first and last and there is no God beside me."

compared to revelation 1:8 "I am the alpha and the omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

and rev. 22:13 "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Sure, they do. I am the first of this creation, and the last, of this creation. In other words I work from beginning to end. Who else can say that? Another way of saying it is "I am the full measure of this creation from one end to the other..." That doesn't mean Christ will not inherit the kingdoms of the Father, and indeed the title and power of the Father like scriptures say. There really is no way to eliminate His inheritance out of the scriptures without stripping Him of His rightful inheritance of the saints, but it seems to me that Trinitarians are determined to do so. I for one plan to help Him gain His rightful inheritance....

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sure, they do. I am the first of this creation, and the last, of this creation. In other words I work from beginning to end. Who else can say that? Another way of saying it is "I am the full measure of this creation from one end to the other..." That doesn't mean Christ will not inherit the kingdoms of the Father, and indeed the title and power of the Father like scriptures say. There really is no way to eliminate His inheritance out of the scriptures without stripping Him of His rightful inheritance of the saints, but it seems to me that Trinitarians are determined to do so. I for one plan to help Him gain His rightful inheritance....

I'm not sure why you add those extra words in there. They aren't implied and do change the meaning quite a bit. 

I'm the first and last the alpha and omega. Period. Meaning eternal. I am everything, I'm it, the whole God there is no other, no limitations, infinite almighty God.

 

I'm also unclear why you think trinitarians are stripping Jesus of his inheritance. Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. 

[RevTestament]

On 3/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, danielwoods said:

I'm not sure why you add those extra words in there. They aren't implied and do change the meaning quite a bit. 

I'm the first and last the alpha and omega. Period. Meaning eternal. I am everything, I'm it, the whole God there is no other, no limitations, infinite almighty God.

That's why I added those words - because that is how I interpret it. You are adding words because that is how you interpret it. You may want to examine your interpretation. If God is everything then you are saying we are God....not even I go that far.

Quote

I'm also unclear why you think trinitarians are stripping Jesus of his inheritance. Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. 

Because Trinitarian doctrine is that Jesus is not the Father, and God is immutable. Therefore, in Trinitarian theology Jesus cannot inherit His title as the Father prophesied by Isa 9:6. As I read Isa 42 only Christ will inherit His glory as He is the servant spoken of. I am interested in how Trinitarians interpret that differently? How can you inherit something you supposedly already have?

[danielwoods]

On March 3, 2016 at 5:00 PM, RevTestament said:

That's why I added those words - because that is how I interpret it. You are adding words because that is how you interpret it. You may want to examine your interpretation. If God is everything then you are saying we are God....not even I go that far.

 

I didn't add words. Jesus is the beginning and the end. I am interpreting it to mean he's talking about one of his attributes. My saying that God is everything, I  don't mean pantheism, because God has clearly taught that he's Spirit and transcends the physical, while holding it together. 

Quote

Because Trinitarian doctrine is that Jesus is not the Father, and God is immutable. Therefore, in Trinitarian theology Jesus cannot inherit His title as the Father prophesied by Isa 9:6. As I read Isa 42 only Christ will inherit His glory as He is the servant spoken of. I am interested in how Trinitarians interpret that differently? How can you inherit something you supposedly already have?

How does this trinitarian see it? Well, Jesus the almighty God, humbled himself and put on humanity. As the only human God-man, he then is able to inherit what is prophesied. Because as the God-man he didn't have those things before. 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/29/2016 at 1:44 PM, danielwoods said:

Your position that the divinity of Christ changed or progressed doesn't square with the statements of Christ, where he uses the exact same statements to describe himself as God does.

For example. Is. 44:6 "I am the first and last and there is no God beside me."

compared to revelation 1:8 "I am the alpha and the omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

and rev. 22:13 "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Where do any of those say anything about progression?

They do not.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I didn't add words. Jesus is the beginning and the end. I am interpreting it to mean he's talking about one of his attributes. My saying that God is everything, I  don't mean pantheism, because God has clearly taught that he's Spirit and transcends the physical, while holding it together. 

How does this trinitarian see it? Well, Jesus the almighty God, humbled himself and put on humanity. As the only human God-man, he then is able to inherit what is prophesied. Because as the God-man he didn't have those things before. 

 

I am bad for asking I know, but do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?  I think it can be done, it's more comprehensible then a mere man or a physical man being a God.  But  you've most likely mentioned this thousands of times, but I am a lazy butt and don't want to go all through the posts.  I have been reading them over quickly as people post though.  Thanks!  

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I didn't add words. Jesus is the beginning and the end. I am interpreting it to mean he's talking about one of his attributes. My saying that God is everything, I  don't mean pantheism, because God has clearly taught that he's Spirit and transcends the physical, while holding it together. 

Sure you did: I'm the first and last the alpha and omega. Period. Meaning eternal. I am everything, I'm it, the whole God there is no other, no limitations, infinite almighty God.

See, everyone has to interpret what that means, which you did. I was merely doing the same. People all interpret what they read. Trinitarians interpret the Bible much differently than I do. They way I interpret your meaning is that you could be pantheist. Trinitarians have been interpreting the scriptures for almost 2 millennia, and I don't accept their interpretation. I strongly feel it is wrong for many reasons I have given. According to scripture Jesus was actually begotten in time - the Nicene Creed says no. That's a stopper right there for me. He was either begotten as the Son or He wasn't. Trinitarianism nullifies every verb pertaining to our Savior because verbs indicate change, and Trinitarians deny He changes and is glorified.

Quote

How does this trinitarian see it? Well, Jesus the almighty God, humbled himself and put on humanity. As the only human God-man, he then is able to inherit what is prophesied. Because as the God-man he didn't have those things before. 

That is still change. To unglorify ones self so you no longer know all the plans of the Father indicates change. A big problem for Trinitarianism is that even when Jesus is ascended and speaks to John in Revelation through the angel, He is deferring to the Father showing Him all things which must soon happen. In fact Jesus nor the scriptures ever indicate He knows or has ever known all things. He is YHWH Elohim with the Father Gen 3:22, but He is not the Most High, but is the Son of the Most High - even the devils knew that which Trinitarians have yet to learn...

 

[danielwoods]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where do any of those say anything about progression?

They do not.

Indeed that was my point. 

 

[danielwoods]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am bad for asking I know, but do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?  I think it can be done, it's more comprehensible then a mere man or a physical man being a God.  But  you've most likely mentioned this thousands of times, but I am a lazy butt and don't want to go all through the posts.  I have been reading them over quickly as people post though.  Thanks!  

Is Jesus God in the flesh? Yes. That is what the "Incarnation" means. In Flesh. He "became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sure you did: I'm the first and last the alpha and omega. Period. Meaning eternal. I am everything, I'm it, the whole God there is no other, no limitations, infinite almighty God.

See, everyone has to interpret what that means, which you did. I was merely doing the same. People all interpret what they read. Trinitarians interpret the Bible much differently than I do. They way I interpret your meaning is that you could be pantheist. Trinitarians have been interpreting the scriptures for almost 2 millennia, and I don't accept their interpretation. I strongly feel it is wrong for many reasons I have given. According to scripture Jesus was actually begotten in time - the Nicene Creed says no. That's a stopper right there for me. He was either begotten as the Son or He wasn't. Trinitarianism nullifies every verb pertaining to our Savior because verbs indicate change, and Trinitarians deny He changes and is glorified.

I am interpreting the meaning to say it's describing his attributes. You added words to change the meaning to reflect your interpretation that he's talking about creation. Creation isn't specified in the statement. 

The words used to describe God are words we humans use and understand, but they are unable to fully describe things we've never experienced. So, when we describe the Son as only begotten of the father, we hear it and think of how humans are begotten, yet that isn't an accurate assumption to make with an infinite being. But, due to the limitation of our minds and language, it's the best we have that comes close to understanding their relationship. 

Quote

That is still change. To unglorify ones self so you no longer know all the plans of the Father indicates change. A big problem for Trinitarianism is that even when Jesus is ascended and speaks to John in Revelation through the angel, He is deferring to the Father showing Him all things which must soon happen. In fact Jesus nor the scriptures ever indicate He knows or has ever known all things. He is YHWH Elohim with the Father Gen 3:22, but He is not the Most High, but is the Son of the Most High - even the devils knew that which Trinitarians have yet to learn...

If you close your eyes have you changed your nature? You're still human, you've simply closed your eyes and now you can't see. What if you closed your eyes and plugged your ears? Now you can't see or hear, have you changed your nature? You're still human. 

There's no indication that Jesus/God's divine nature ever changed nor could it, rather I think of it as one who willingly closes his eyes, and put on human flesh to walk among us, so much so that he demonstrated how to completely trust in the Father through the Holy Spirit. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by danielwoods

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I am interpreting the meaning to say it's describing his attributes. You added words to change the meaning to reflect your interpretation that he's talking about creation. Creation isn't specified in the statement. 

Well you can stand on your head and deny that you are merely interpreting it like me I guess - rather than fess up. Essentially, all you're doing is saying "my interpretation is right and your's is not" rather than admit that you are adding to the words of scripture to understand it.

Quote

The words used to describe God are words we humans use and understand, but they are unable to fully describe things we've never experienced. So, when we describe the Son as only begotten of the father, we hear it and think of how humans are begotten, yet that isn't an accurate assumption to make with an infinite being. But, due to the limitation of our minds and language, it's the best we have that comes close to understanding their relationship. 

Jesus was not "begotten" as the Son in any human or temporal sense. He was begotten with the oath of the priesthood. See Hebrews 5. You see, Trinitarianism doesn't allow for that plain reading although I know at least one trinitarian who saw it, and fessed up that the "eternally begotten" interpretation was wrong, and that Jesus was begotten by covenant. I guess one either sees it or they don't. If you don't I guess trinitarianism is about as good an interpretation as any other. There is no "limitation of our minds" which prevents us from understanding it - only limitations imposed by false doctrines such as trinitarianism which prevent us from allowing us to see what the scriptures plainly state because it is replaced with creeds thunk up by men....

Hebrews 7:20

20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

 

Look up Melchisedek who became like unto the son of man without mother or father, but without beginning as he too inherited an unchangeable priesthood. There you have it. Unchangeable per scripture - without beginning or end. See not so incomprehensible.

Cheers

[danielwoods]

On March 7, 2016 at 6:01 PM, RevTestament said:

Well you can stand on your head and deny that you are merely interpreting it like me I guess - rather than fess up. Essentially, all you're doing is saying "my interpretation is right and your's is not" rather than admit that you are adding to the words of scripture to understand it.

Jesus was not "begotten" as the Son in any human or temporal sense. He was begotten with the oath of the priesthood. See Hebrews 5. You see, Trinitarianism doesn't allow for that plain reading although I know at least one trinitarian who saw it, and fessed up that the "eternally begotten" interpretation was wrong, and that Jesus was begotten by covenant. I guess one either sees it or they don't. If you don't I guess trinitarianism is about as good an interpretation as any other. There is no "limitation of our minds" which prevents us from understanding it - only limitations imposed by false doctrines such as trinitarianism which prevent us from allowing us to see what the scriptures plainly state because it is replaced with creeds thunk up by men....

The statement that, "today I have become your father..." is used many times in scripture and is applied to Christ in the resurrection (Acts 13:33) and in his superiority over angels (Heb. 1:5) and in Heb. 5 his appointment as high priest. This doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't eternally begotten, your point isn't proven or supported by this reference. And obviously we interpret scripture differently. I don't take one scripture as a stand alone proof of this or that doctrine, rather I take the whole context of the Bible, and the many other references and the culture in which it was written has to be taken into account as well. 

Quote

Hebrews 7:20

20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

 

Look up Melchisedek who became like unto the son of man without mother or father, but without beginning as he too inherited an unchangeable priesthood. There you have it. Unchangeable per scripture - without beginning or end. See not so incomprehensible.

Cheers

You appear to be interpreting "this man" in verse 24 as a reference to Melchisedec. I think this is an error. Here's why I think that.

I noticed that you didn't quote verse 22 and 23 for some reason. 

Hebrews 7:22 "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.  23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood."

Notice that in verse 24 "this man" is a reference back to Jesus in verse 22, as juxtaposed to every other priest who can't continue because they die. 

[Maedros]

On 2/15/2016 at 0:52 AM, jayman said:

mfbukowski,

I just checked out your blog "Theomorphic Man." I like your tagline..."If God is a Man, Humanism becomes Theology."

I once chatted with a former Mormon who is now a fully initiated advocate of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. I asked him to share with me his religion's deepest, most secret, secret. He told me: "Man is God."  Fascinating, isn't it.

Truly fascinating - latter-day saints teach that man has the potential to become a god; that man is the literal offspring of God and that God himself is a man, Man of Holiness. It does not surprise me in the least that the Adversary would corrupt this ancient truth and encourage man to worship himself as god - after all if I am god then what need do I have of a prophet or the scriptures; of what use would the atonement of Christ be? This deep secret that was revealed to you is what the scriptures call: "doctrines of devils".

[RevTestament]

On 3/8/2016 at 9:52 PM, danielwoods said:

The statement that, "today I have become your father..." is used many times in scripture and is applied to Christ in the resurrection (Acts 13:33) and in his superiority over angels (Heb. 1:5) and in Heb. 5 his appointment as high priest. This doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't eternally begotten, your point isn't proven or supported by this reference. And obviously we interpret scripture differently. I don't take one scripture as a stand alone proof of this or that doctrine, rather I take the whole context of the Bible, and the many other references and the culture in which it was written has to be taken into account as well. 

I Don't generally either which is why I rely on the multiple scriptures which plainly state Jesus was begotten on a day - not eternally. There is nothing in the scriptures saying He was "eternally begotten." That is plainly an interpretation come up with by the Nicene council - which was btw a minority representation of the church.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered upprayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heardin that he feared;

 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternalsalvation unto all them that obey him;

 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Quote

You appear to be interpreting "this man" in verse 24 as a reference to Melchisedec. I think this is an error. Here's why I think that.

I noticed that you didn't quote verse 22 and 23 for some reason. 

Hebrews 7:22 "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.  23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood."

Notice that in verse 24 "this man" is a reference back to Jesus in verse 22, as juxtaposed to every other priest who can't continue because they die. 

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Hmm. Well, I think this section is clearly speaking of Melchizedek.  See how Melchizedek became without beginning of days there...? He inherited an everlasting priesthood... So I am the beginning and the last can certainly pertain to the word as it is given in this world. 

Again, have a nice day