Who does the Bible declare to be the Creator of the Universe?

Lilel01 said:
If Jesus were the Creator of the world, he would not be an heir. Simple logic. :)

Heb. 1:2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.
Click to expand...
If scriptures were a simple logic then everyone would have been saved but it's never God's will to save everyone and thus scriptures are off limits to them.

God chooses His lost sheep based on the promises made to Abraham. Salvation is as per Abrahamic covenant in Yahusha Messiah.

The heir to the promises of God is Israel:

Gal 4:
1 And I say, for as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, though he is master of all,

2 but is under guardians and trustees till the time prearranged by the father.

3 So we also, when we were children, were under the elementary matters of the world, being enslaved.

4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,

5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons.

It was obvious Israel needed Someone to stand and represent them because they couldn't receive the promises directly and it's THROUGH Heirship of Yahusha Messiah

Yahusha didn't need the promises of God for Himself but on behalf of those chosen according to the Abrahamic covenant.

He came to be The Son by His own decree as Yahuah.

The carnal minded people see only from historical account of the fulfillment of Abrahamic covenant by which they build strongholds in their mind that Yahusha Messiah and Yahuah as The Father are two distinct entities. Everything was determined and accomplished by God before the historical events happened as we see from our perspective.

When people read scriptures from their fleshy mind so many doctrines come about resulting in various theological schools like all 'isms' of Christianity, Jehovah witnesses, Christodelphians, mormons, etc.
 
Anthony said:
If scriptures were a simple logic then everyone would have been saved but it's never God's will to save everyone and thus scriptures are off limits to them.

God chooses His lost sheep based on the promises made to Abraham. Salvation is as per Abrahamic covenant in Yahusha Messiah.

The heir to the promises of God is Israel:

Gal 4:
1 And I say, for as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, though he is master of all,

2 but is under guardians and trustees till the time prearranged by the father.

3 So we also, when we were children, were under the elementary matters of the world, being enslaved.

4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,

5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons.

It was obvious Israel needed Someone to stand and represent them because they couldn't receive the promises directly and it's THROUGH Heirship of Yahusha Messiah

Yahusha didn't need the promises of God for Himself but on behalf of those chosen according to the Abrahamic covenant.

He came to be The Son by His own decree as Yahuah.

The carnal minded people see only from historical account of the fulfillment of Abrahamic covenant by which they build strongholds in their mind that Yahusha Messiah and Yahuah as The Father are two distinct entities. Everything was determined and accomplished by God before the historical events happened as we see from our perspective.

When people read scriptures from their fleshy mind so many doctrines come about resulting in various theological schools like all 'isms' of Christianity, Jehovah witnesses, Christodelphians, mormons, etc.
Click to expand...
The Son NEVER came to be The Son; He is the eternal Son.
 
Towerwatchman said:
Every rendering of Ho Theos is identifying YHWH unless modified. That’s fact.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with Murray Harris on this one who I quote as a hostile witness. Of course Harris does not disagree with your statement but he's more specific.

It's always the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

- Murray J. Harris in Jesus as God​

Who is "God" in the NT?​

Murray J. Harris in "Jesus as God," page 47 says, "When (hO) QEOS is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have hO PATHR in mind unless the context makes this sense of (hO) QEOS impossible (fn 112)
Click to expand...

Who is YHWH in the OT?​

112. A related question demands brief treatment. To whom did the NT writers attribute the divine action described in the OT? To answer "the Lord God" (YHWH elohim) = LXX KURIOS hO QEOS) is to beg the question, for the authors of the NT wrote of OT events in the light of their Trinitarian understanding of God. A clear distinction must be drawn between what the OT text meant to its authors and readers and how it was understood by the early Christians who lived after the advent of the Messiah and the coming of the Spirit. Certainly the person who projects the Trinitarian teaching of the NT back into the OT and reads the OT through the spectacles of the dynamic or Trinitarian monotheism of the NT is thinking anachronistically. On the other hand, it does not seem illegitimate to pose a question such as this" To whom was the author of Hebrews referring when he said (1:1), "At many times and in various ways God spoke in the past to our forefathers through the prophets"? That it was not the Holy Spirit in any ultimate sense is evident from the fact that in neither the OT nor the NT is the Spirit called "God" expressis verbis. And, in spite of the fact the LXX that the LXX equivalent of YHWH, viz., KURIOS, is regularly applied to Jesus in the NT so that it becomes less a title than a proper name, it is not possible that hO QEOS in Heb. 1:1 denotes Jesus Christ. for the same sentence (in Greek) contains "(the God who spoke...) in these last days has spoken to us in a Son (EN hUIW)." Since the author is emphasizing the continuity of of the two phases of divine speech (hO QEOS LALHSHS... ELALHSEN), this reference to a Son shows that the one who speaks in both eras and hUIOS as his final means of speaking shows that in the author's mind it was not the Triune God of Christian theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may suggest) "the God of our fathers," Yahweh, was no other than "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33; 3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; note also 5:30). Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with the regular NT usage of hO QEOS. It would be inappropriate for elohim or YHWH ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT QEOS regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity.
Click to expand...


 
Last edited:
Roger Thornhill said:
Actually I agree with Murray Harris on this one who I quote as a hostile witness. Of course Harris does not disagree with your statement but he's more specific.

It's always the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

- Murray J. Harris in Jesus as God​

Who is "God" in the NT?​


Who is YHWH in the OT?​




Click to expand...
And in The NT God frequently refers to Jesus Christ.
Who is God in The NT???Matthew 28:19 provides the answer.
 
1 Cor. 8:6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him (...)

:)
 
Paul was not trinitarian:

Rom. 1:9 For God, to whom I render sacred service with my spirit in connection with the good news about his Son, is my witness of how without ceasing I always mention you in my prayers

He did know one God, one Jehovah, the God of the Jews:

Rom. 3:29 Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of people of the nations? Yes, also of people of the nations. 30 Since God is one, he will declare circumcised people righteous as a result of faith and uncircumcised people righteous by means of their faith.

No trinity :)
 
Roger Thornhill said:
Actually I agree with Murray Harris on this one who I quote as a hostile witness. Of course Harris does not disagree with your statement but he's more specific.

Murray J. Harris in "Jesus as God," page 47 says, "When (hO) QEOS is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have hO PATHR in mind unless the context makes this sense of (hO) QEOS impossible (fn 112)



Click to expand...
Really! This is great, basically translate based on personal doctrine vs context.

This is rich. Do you have any examples of this?
 
Lilel01 said:
1 Cor. 8:6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him (...)

:)
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 8:6 If the reference that the Father being “one God” proves that Jesus is not God, then by the same logic the reference that Jesus is “one Lord” means that the Father is not “Lord”. Matt 11:25 Jesus refers to the Father as God and Lord. It is illogical to conclude from this vs. that Jesus is not God as to conclude that the Father is not Lord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top