Featured Significance of Revelation’s Blessings

Greetings again DHK and Protestant,

I am not ignoring your logic, but as I have pointed out that if you say A=B and B=C, this does not prove that C=A. It may be applicable in Mathematics, but not in the realm of Divine ideas, thoughts and revelations. All factors must be kept in perspective.

Neither am I ignoring DHK’s few critical Greek grammar lessons. I am accepting his Greek lesson, but rejecting his translation into English. I had a glance at a Hebrew resource and checked the tenses of “word” in Isaiah 55:10-11.
Isaiah 55:11 (KJV): So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
In the Hebrew of this verse my resource stated that “word”, “it” and “it” are all masculine gender. DHK would you also say for this instance “It is a masculine word no matter how it is translated. Live with it”? Does this infer that the word that proceeded out of the mouth of God is masculine, and hence by inference is a person?

I do not make this claim, and as far as I am aware no Christadelphians make this claim. BTW each meeting is autonomous, and there is a fair range of ebb and flow of people and ideas. My personal opinion is that over the 2000 years there has been pockets of true believers, some numerous, sometimes two only in a household, some weak, some strong, some overlapping other groups that have arisen. Perhaps you could compare the period of the Judges, where the cycle of sin, suffering, supplication and salvation occurs, but with the spread of the gospel throughout the world this can occur in numerous locations. I reject the need to have a continuous line – this reminds me of the claim of the RCC and perhaps others.

I have shortened this part, but I hope this will be sufficient to answer. God has appointed His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to be both Ruler=Lord and Christ. Psalm 110:1 calls Jesus Adonai=Lord=Ruler in distinction to Yahweh who is speaking. Jesus as representing God the Father also bears the Name Yahweh, and shares God the Father’s Name. I tried to show in the “Trinity” thread how that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Yahweh Name. The Name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name - Yah-Oshea, or similar spelling, and Acts 4 speaks of salvation in the name of Jesus. See also Matthew 1:21, Acts 8:5,12. I reject your last comment above, because it does not differentiate between Adonai and Yahweh, and it does not take into account why it is acceptable to address Jesus as Yahweh. I think that Adonai and Yahweh are both translated as Kurios, but there may be some differentiation when this occurs in the Greek - ask a Greek expert (DHK?)

Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV): 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Please note the glory is attributed to God the Father. This is the subject of God manifestation. Jesus reveals the Father and represents Him. Please note this verse does not say “to the glory of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Translations differ. You don't have the luxury of using a translation in this case. Translations are not inspired. God inspired the NT in the Greek language. Therefore the translation is weak and loses meaning. It is not a pick and choose what I think is best, process. It comes down to "what do the actual words say and mean," and you are not paying attention to that.
English (and other) translations are not inspired!
No translation is.
o logos (the word) is a masculine noun and must be treated that way at all times. There is no other argument to be made. It cannot be refuted. The simple fact that we don't have a masculine "it" does not negate the fact that "the word" is still masculine. It is still referred to as "he" in the Greek, the inspired language which the Lord used, no matter how it is translated in any other language.

 

Greetings again DHK,

I agree with what you say, but I disagree that the masculine in the Greek proves that “The Word is a person” as you have claimed in an earlier post. You could be using the idiom of the Greek to press support for your Trinitarian belief, where the Greek usage does not prove or even support this conjecture.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (by the Word)

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--John saw the Word.
--The Word was made flesh (the incarnation of Christ), and therefore John could see Him.
--HE was full of grace and truth. There is no "it" here. What John saw was a man. He was baptized.

And yet we have this enigma:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--As it is stated in the OT, no man can see God.
But John saw God in the person of "The Word," God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, manifest among men. Christ, in the flesh, declared the Father. As part of the trinity they are deity, the same God.
o logos is masculine reflecting back on Christ, a masculine God. There is no "it."

 

Greetings again DHK,

I appreciate your latest response. You have given perhaps the normal Trinitarian view of John 1:1, 3, 14 and 18. For my part I have tried to present the view that there is one God the Father, and Jesus is the Son of God. I rely mainly on other passages to prove this first. When I come to John 1 I read this differently to your presentation. I do not believe in the “incarnation”, at least in the sense that God the Son became Jesus. Also the fact that John and others saw Jesus proves to me that Jesus was not and is not God. I am not sure how Trinitarians consider “begotten” in John 1:14 – some translations alter this, but your citation has “begotten”.

As a result of your explanation of the “Word” in Greek being masculine, I have progressed by your help in this thread to tentatively accept that God who is in control of all things, and the closer we look at His Divine record in the Scripture, the more of his design is revealed. I can accept that when he fashioned Hebrew and Greek He chose that the word “word” would be masculine and Isaiah 55:11 and John 1 and 1 John 1 “The Word of Life” were anticipated. I am not sure how you view Isaiah 55:11, especially the masculine gender of “word”. I am not sure if Trinitarians consider the usage of “The Word of Life” to support the Trinity in the same way as they emphasise John 1 “The Word”. I can accept the idea that his design in this was to anticipate that Jesus would ultimately be born, and in him the greatest revelation of God’s word would be revealed Hebrews 1:1-2, so that he could be called “The Word of God” Revelation 19:13.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Trevor,
Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
--This is the Lord's Word.

In context:
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
The LORD here is Jehovah. LORD יְהֹוָה. The word is "Jehovah"
Jehovah: ; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:—Jehovah, the Lord (Strongs)

Jesus: Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

The Jehovah of the OT is the Jesus of the NT. The word Jesus comes from the OT Jehovah. They both have the same root word.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

In the OT the Bible definitely teaches there is only one God.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
--There is only one God. There was no God formed before Him; neither will any God come after Him. There is only One God.
In addition, He is the only Saviour. In the NT that Saviour is known as the Lord Jesus Christ. They are the same person. There is only one God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--An accurate term that describes the trinity: three persons in one God--the eternal Godhead.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--God was made flesh (from verse 1). The Word was God.
From Adam Clarke:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
--This is very clear isn't it? This again speaks of his incarnation. It is God (Christ) that is manifest in the flesh.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--It is God, who purchased the Church with his own blood. Again, a very clear statement of the deity of Christ. These statements cannot be ignored.

 

Greetings again DHK,

I appreciate your latest response. In each of the following you present most probably the normal Trinitarian view. My aim is to briefly comment without going into detail.

My reading of the NT is that God the Father is separate from Jesus when he was on earth. God the Father was in heaven, while Jesus lived on earth for 33 years, and the latter 3 ½ years were his public ministry.

I believe that the OT and NT teach there is only one God the Father, often referred to as “Yahweh” in the OT, including the KJV vv10-11 as “LORD” above. Jesus is also termed the Saviour because God saves by means or through His Son, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. God the Father is Saviour, Jesus is Saviour. The contrast is between the many gods and idols and the One God of Israel, Yahweh. He is not three persons “we” but speaks in the singular “I”.

There is no mention of three persons in Romans 1:20. Other translations of this word are “Divine nature” ESV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, NET, NIV, NASB95, “Divinity” ASV, Darby and “Deity” RSV. There is no hint of one head and three persons or whatever you are claiming by accepting “Godhead” here.

No, it says that The Word was made flesh. You then quote from Adam Clarke – I cannot accept his comments.

God manifestation is a large subject. I have briefly introduced this in the “Trinity” thread by considering the Yahweh Name as “I will be”, or “I will become”. God the Father has become the Lord Jesus Christ, while still remaining as God the Father. In other words God the Father has given birth and developed a Son, Jesus Christ the Son of God.

This shows the intimate bond between Father and Son, in the death and resurrection of Christ. They are separate persons, and there is only One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

This is a J.W. argument in a warped translation of John 1:1.
God gave birth and developed a son.
--It is also the counter-argument of Islam to the Trinity which they find abhorrent--to relegate Jehovah to the physical and sexual realm. So do I.
The "Son of God" is a term used specifically to refer to deity as the "son of man" is a term specifically used to refer to His humanity. Unless that is realized one will be forever confused.
The word "son" has many meanings. It does not always refer to a physical and sexual nature. I point this out to Muslims. In the nation I went to the founder of the nation was also called the "Father of the Nation." As the "Father of the Nation," who then was his son? The land? That hardly makes sense. There is not always an automatic father/son physical relationship. In that culture a guest may come to visit, see a child playing, and say: "son, come here." But the son is not his. Why should he say that? It is an idiom. He is addressing another man's son as his own, a term of affection.
In our own culture an older person may address a young man: "Son when you get to be my age..." He is addressing a youth, one who is immature.
--The word "son" is not always used in a physical/sexual sense.
Neither is it used that way in its relation with God the Son and God the Father. To think that it is, is blasphemous. For God the Father is a spirit. So was God the Son before he came to this earth. There was no sexual union.
"Begotten" may have two meanings.
1. It may refer to the fact of how he came into this world--his birth through through a virgin becoming fully human and fully God at the same time.
2. However, in many other translations it is simply translated "unique," and certainly he is the unique Son of God. He is deity.

(ISV) "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

A.T. Robertson refers one back to John 1:14 to the definition of "only begotten." That is "the word became flesh." That is what happened. Jesus Christ, formerly God the Son in Spirit, the Second person of the triune Godhead, became man and dwelt among us, and we (as John testifies) beheld his (God's) glory, full of grace and truth.

When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," the Jews did not take it as an intimate bond. He claimed to be deity. He claimed to be God. Therefore they took up stones to stone him. Why?
The record makes it clear. Not for his works, but because he, being a man, had declared himself to be God. This was blasphemy. That was their accusation. They were right for they considered him simply a man. But he wasn't. This is where they were wrong. He was actually God.

 

Greetings again DHK,

I appreciate your latest response, but I will only be brief.

Firstly I reject the JW translation of John 1:1. Secondly as I understand the JWs have a different view of Jesus, as they consider him to be the pre-incarnate Michael, the archangel. Apart from this I do not know how they understand Jesus, his birth and growth, but over the years this has been sufficient for me to keep well clear of the JWs.

Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
One aspect of the term “The Son of God” is given in Luke 1:35 above and this reveals that Mary was the mother of Jesus, and God the Father was the father of Jesus by means of the power of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians seem to ignore Luke 1:35, because it does not in any way match the Trinitarian concept. The Matthew record gives similar information as Luke’s record, and John’s Gospel uses begotten and this is the same concept. John 3:16 is also an important verse.

I was interested in your comments in response to what I stated about Acts 20:28. I found it interesting to read a few Trinitarian Commentaries concerning this verse and some of the alternate translations that have been suggested. I believe in the unity between God the Father, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God. I have explained my understanding of John 10:30.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Protestant,

I appreciate your latest response, but you apparently do not understand why I claim that there is One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I have answered many aspects of your “many substantial reasons” but I have not seen any substantial or reasonable replies that in any way answers some of the detail that I presented. For example, concerning worship of Jesus you did not adequately respond to Philippians 2:11 as why to bow to Jesus is “to the glory of God the Father”. Also in this thread and the “Trinity” thread I have given a thorough explanation of John 10:30 and the Jews accusation of blasphemy. Yes, I do believe that Jesus was Yahweh, but not in the sense that you claim.

I have addressed the rest of this Post to you as it reverts in part to the original theme of the thread, the Historicist view of the Book of Revelation. Starting at Post #2 (Page 1) I tried to gain some understanding of how you interpret some of the elements of the Book of Revelation. My motivation was to see if we could compare notes, and possibly both learn from some of this detail. In Post #4 (Page 1) I specifically mentioned the 6th Vial Revelation 16:12-16. Again I was interested in obtaining some indication of other people’s view of these verses, including your view.

It was not until the last paragraph of Post #30 (Page 3) that I briefly returned to this, but again there has been no response on this subject.

I would like then to briefly clarify a few aspects of my understanding of Revelation 16:12-16. As stated, at present I believe that Russia will eventually take Turkey, and Russia’s move into Crimea is the first step in this direction. Please notice that Revelation 16:13 speaks of three powers that influence the nations to gather at the Battle of Armageddon. These are the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. I identify the dragon as the military power that rules from Constantinople, and on the basis of Daniel 11:40 and Ezekiel 38 many in our fellowship identify this power as Russia. This view is not new in our community as John Thomas in his preface to Elpis Israel written in 1849 stated:

The other powers that are mentioned in Revelation 16:13 are the false prophet and the beast. We identify the false prophet as the Papacy, and the beast as the Central European Powers, and this could refer to Germany and France and perhaps the rest of the EU but especially the dominance of Germany, in the sense of the former Holy Roman Empire.

I found it interesting when one of our UK brethren drew our attention to the political cartoon on the cover of the March 28th-April 3rd 2014 New Statesman magazine. It depicts a globe with the Russian bear, with mouth menacingly open, looking down at the South, with arrows pointing to Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Africa, Syria, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Thailand, Vietnam. Standing below is David Cameron with the UK flag, Obama with the US flag and Merkel with the German flag. The title at the top is “Time to Re-arm?” and then it indicates two articles “The West must stop appeasing Russia” and “The mood in Russia turns nasty”.

Another feature is that the most prominent arrow that goes down to Africa passes directly through Israel. This may be significant, as apart from her recent discoveries of oil, there is not much to attract Russia to invade Israel where the Battle of Armageddon will be fought. Another feature is that Merkel stands in opposition to Russia’s advancement in the cartoon, but in Revelation 16:12-16 it appears that Germany will be united with Russia and the Papacy when they venture South into the Middle East. It will be interesting to see how the present situation changes to fall in line with prophecy if my understanding is close to being correct, and how quickly these events will happen. I believe that Russia backed by Europe and the Papacy will invade the Middle East because of Economic, Political and Religious motivations.

John Thomas and many other Biblical scholars identified “the Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” Ezekiel 38:1 (NASB) as Russia. Also based upon Ezekiel 38 and other Scripture, John Thomas wrote the following in Elpis Israel in 1848.

Where John Thomas used the Scripture he was accurate in the above. Where he tried to fit this Scripture into the circumstances of the time, especially India then it was speculation. Like most prophecy, we can gain a reasonable impression of what must happen, but it is not until the prophecy is fulfilled that we can appreciate the detail.

I would be interested in any comments on the above. Does any other community have a similar assessment of these prophecies and relate them to current and future developments? I believe in line with the title of this thread, it is a blessing to understand the prophecies of the Book of Revelation and to discuss and share these things with others.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

It is an irrelevant point. Look at an older translation (Geneva)
Php 2:10 That at the Name of Iesus shoulde euery knee bowe, both of things in heauen, and things in earth, and things vnder the earth,
Php 2:11 And that euery tongue shoulde confesse that Iesus Christ is the Lord, vnto the glory of God the Father.

First, the point is made in verse 10. "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is "the Lord."
And this is unto the glory of the Father. It is unto of for the glory of the Father. It is the worship of the Son. This much is obvious. The worship of the Son is the worship of the Father for they are one God. The worship of the Son is received as God, for only God can be worshiped. There is no other answer for this.

You have never given an adequate answer to this. You simply go to the rest of the chapter. Never mind the rest of the chapter where some quotes and references are made from David in the Psalms. That is irrelevant. Deal with these very few verses:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Nevermind verses 34 and following. Just answer from these verses and from these alone.
Here is the dialogue.
1. Jesus claimed deity.
2. The Jews knowing this is a claim to deity begin to stone him.
3. Jesus, making sure of their intent, asks the reason for their attempt to stone him.
4. They answer him plainly: "Because thou being a man makest thyself God.

They knew it was a claim to deity. They knew he was claiming to be God. And therefore they called it blasphemy and began to stone him. That is all the information that we need. How do you account for this?

 

Greetings again Protestant,

There is nothing much in your post that I would like to respond to. I appreciate your sincerity and strong feelings. You seem to be using a style of syllogism by aligning my beliefs with Muslims and Jews. Are you a mathematician using logic in your work? A=B, B=C, therefore C=A. Or is this simply guilt by association. An example of the repetition that was occurring is in a recent post where Acts 20:28 is cited.

I was curious about the Geneva Bible, as I do not own a copy. I understand that this was one policy and feature of the KJV that no notes would be added to the margin if they were in the sense of a commentary. Evidently some of Tyndale’s marginal notes offended some of the Anglican clergy. I had imagined that Calvin and others influenced the Geneva Bible and they were strong Trinitarians, so the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible are consistent with this. This is still interesting that the Geneva translators still decided on "it" rather than "he".

I was disappointed that you did not share some of your present understanding of prophecy aspects of the Book of Revelation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Instead of presenting long posts that people will not labor over why not quit beating around the bush and simply confess that you deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

 

Double Post

 

Greetings again Protestant and OldRegular,

You seem to be in a good mood. I am willing to share Thomas’ confession and John’s summary of Jesus’ ministry and John’s purpose in writing his gospel account. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
John 20:28-31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Seeing OldRegular has revived this thread, when I was at work a Baptist friend invited me to go to his church. He said that his pastor or similar was considering the Book of Revelation, and that he recommended this series of talks. I did not have opportunity, possibly other commitments, but does your church ever have such a series? I respected this Baptist as he seemed very sincere. He was a singer along with his wife. He encouraged me when I met him two weeks before his death, when I should have been a help in his distress.

Kind regards
Trevor