Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mharrell08]

What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?

[John from Kentucky]

What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?

Some of us believe that Ray is saying the Father and Jesus are One.  Jesus is God's autobiography because God is writing about Himself.  Jesus is the Word of God and through Jesus, the Father is expressing Himself to mankind and the entire universe, both spiritual and material.


Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."  John 10:30

As Ray brought out in an email:  "yet for us there is one God: the Father...and...Jesus Christ...  1 Cor 8:6

But not everyone knows this...  1 Cor 8:7

Ray himself admitted in his April 2, 2011 email that his paper on the trinity and the nature of God did not fully explain all the scriptures concerning the nature of God.

There are scriptures after scriptures after scriptures that show there is only one God.

However, I won't take the time to list them because this post will have the life expectancy of a mouse dropped in a room full of cats.   

You and I both know this is a controversial topic and will not be allowed to go much further.

[mharrell08]

What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?

Some of us believe that Ray is saying the Father and Jesus are One.  Jesus is God's autobiography because God is writing about Himself.  Jesus is the Word of God and through Jesus, the Father is expressing Himself to mankind and the entire universe, both spiritual and material.

Here's an excerpt from the last bible study that Ray did. He talked about the word God as more of a title or surname than a proper name:

Excerpt from 'Is Jesus God?' March 2011 bible study (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,12896.0.html):

How do we know all these references are not speaking about God the Father though? How do we know that? Because Jesus Christ said, nobody had ever seen or heard Him. So either that statement is true or it’s not.

Now I know some theologians argue that where He said that, there was other ways, He was just talking… no, we just blew that out of the sky. It isn’t that this is just said in one place, this is mentioned at numerous times.

I’m not suggesting that there are two Gods, I’m saying that the one God said, “let Us,” that's all that I am saying. I’m not saying that there is more than one God. We have all kinds of examples of how that is possible.

I think we should do away or should have done away… well it’s pretty hard to do it now... but we should have never got in the habit of translating in English Yahweh and Elohim and Adonia, we should have never translated it God. God is a pagan heathen title. Why should we call the God of creation after some pagan title? Why should we? After all we know He’s not a pagan god, yet we’re strapped with the idea that the word Elohim is translated the true God and the god of the pagans. God of creation that was Elohim and Mohoc of the Canaanites that was elohim too.

I would have made a distinction. I would have translated it something like this, since we know what God is from other Scriptures and so on. I would have translated it something like this, in the beginning the Almighty Family created the heavens and the earth. What’s wrong with that? To me that’s what God is. Takes care of the ‘one,’ family, takes care of the plural, family has more than one unit.

Or we could say, the Almighty Divine Family, saying let Us make man in Our image. You could throw the word divine or divinity in there, that okay that’s a good word. It takes care of the plurality of the word Elohim. We could call Him the Almighty Divine Family. What’s wrong with that?

To me the pagan title god or in Germany gott, it doesn’t do justice to the God of creation. 

We are familiar with lots of words anyway that are used with a singular pronouns and so on, but consist of multiple units. We speak of the United States of America, United States, plural. One nation under God or it used to be one nation, I don’t know what it is now. One nation, united, states plural. One nation, okay. This isn’t rocket science, it’s not hard to understand.

What I really liked about Ray's comments is they eliminate the confusion about one or plural for the word God. When I take this teaching into account with the creed listed, it does not seem to be confusion but rather harmonious.


Marques

P.S. Just noticed that Ray doesn't even have the word 'Father' in his creed.

[John from Kentucky]

What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?

Some of us believe that Ray is saying the Father and Jesus are One.  Jesus is God's autobiography because God is writing about Himself.  Jesus is the Word of God and through Jesus, the Father is expressing Himself to mankind and the entire universe, both spiritual and material.

Here's an excerpt from the last bible study that Ray did. He talked about the word God as more of a title or surname than a proper name:

Excerpt from 'Is Jesus God?' March 2011 bible study (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,12896.0.html):

How do we know all these references are not speaking about God the Father though? How do we know that? Because Jesus Christ said, nobody had ever seen or heard Him. So either that statement is true or it’s not.

Now I know some theologians argue that where He said that, there was other ways, He was just talking… no, we just blew that out of the sky. It isn’t that this is just said in one place, this is mentioned at numerous times.

I’m not suggesting that there are two Gods, I’m saying that the one God said, “let Us,” that's all that I am saying. I’m not saying that there is more than one God. We have all kinds of examples of how that is possible.

I think we should do away or should have done away… well it’s pretty hard to do it now... but we should have never got in the habit of translating in English Yahweh and Elohim and Adonia, we should have never translated it God. God is a pagan heathen title. Why should we call the God of creation after some pagan title? Why should we? After all we know He’s not a pagan god, yet we’re strapped with the idea that the word Elohim is translated the true God and the god of the pagans. God of creation that was Elohim and Mohoc of the Canaanites that was elohim too.

I would have made a distinction. I would have translated it something like this, since we know what God is from other Scriptures and so on. I would have translated it something like this, in the beginning the Almighty Family created the heavens and the earth. What’s wrong with that? To me that’s what God is. Takes care of the ‘one,’ family, takes care of the plural, family has more than one unit.

Or we could say, the Almighty Divine Family, saying let Us make man in Our image. You could throw the word divine or divinity in there, that okay that’s a good word. It takes care of the plurality of the word Elohim. We could call Him the Almighty Divine Family. What’s wrong with that?

To me the pagan title god or in Germany gott, it doesn’t do justice to the God of creation. 

We are familiar with lots of words anyway that are used with a singular pronouns and so on, but consist of multiple units. We speak of the United States of America, United States, plural. One nation under God or it used to be one nation, I don’t know what it is now. One nation, united, states plural. One nation, okay. This isn’t rocket science, it’s not hard to understand.

What I really liked about Ray's comments is they eliminate the confusion about one or plural for the word God. When I take this teaching into account with the creed listed, it does not seem to be confusion but rather harmonious.


Marques

P.S. Just noticed that Ray doesn't even have the word 'Father' in his creed.

Hi Marques,

It was after the March 2011 bible study that I noticed a change in Ray's thoughts.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,12934.0.html  Specifically this April 2, 2011 message from Ray.  Check out the bottom half of the message.  Third paragraph from the bottom.  Ray states that his trinity paper didn't harmonize all the scriptures regarding God.  Note that Ray told Dennis in the last paragraph that this topic may be the most amazing thing in all the scriptures.

There was an email to Kat.  Then an email to another member.  Then a few more emails.  Then he wrote his creed.

I wasn't looking for a change in what I thought about God's nature.  But I couldn't disregard those emails from Ray over about the last year of his life.  Unfortunately, Ray wasn't able to put his thoughts together on this Enigma of God matter before his death.

When I was a child and teenager, I thought there were three God's, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from my Catholic school teachings.  The Father looked like an old man with white hair and a beard.  The Son was a young man with dark hair and a beard.  The Holy Spirit looked like a dove.  We children prayed to all three as separate and equal God's.  The Catholic priests told us that was wrong, that God was One.  But we couldn't understand three being one.

When I joined the Worldwide Church of God and up to a year before Ray's death, I believed there were two Gods: God the Father and God the Son, Jesus.  I had learned that the Spirit was not a separate sentient being, but rather the power and nature of God.

Now, I believe that there is One God. 

Now that I have studied the scriptures, I cannot believe in three or two Gods.

But I know it is hard for people to change their ideas on God.  And truly, I have no desire to debate the matter.  Only God can reveal Himself to those He wants to, when He wants to.

John

[Gina]

Marques,

What is JFK trying to say?  For the life of me, I can't figure it out.   Is he trying to make you look like an idiot?  Because it's not working.

[onelovedread]

Here we go again.
A timely reminder:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,14757.msg130521.html#msg130521

We all have our individual, pet views, but ultimatelythe truth will be revealed.
Blessings

[theophilus]

Hey Theophilus,

Welcome.

That creed is difficult to understand because it's difficult to believe.   I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so here's my two cents:


I Believe that the Holy Scriptures are God's Authorized Biography, and

What's the definition of biography:  An account of someone's life written by someone else.

Best I can figure, this simply means God inspired people to write the old or the new testament scriptures.  God didn't come down himself and  write them.  I'm not sure who chiseled the ten commandments on stone tablets, or the writing on the wall, though.  I'm sure someone did it; I just don't know who actually did the chiseling/writing.

I Believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God's Authorized Autobiography

What's the definition of autobiography:   An account of a person's life written by that person.

Jesus Christ didn't personally write the scriptures.  So what does that mean? He was given authority to tell the whole world what God the Father is all about.  He did that in the life that he personally lived here on earth 2000 years ago, and continues to, as He does the works of the Father through the hearts of all believers.

Ray said, you won't understand anything until you begin to obey God.  Just obey Him, follow Him, and it will become abundantly clear what Ray means.

I hope that helps.

Gina

Thank you for your input Gina. Something to think about indeed.

I've run into several bible verses that lead me to believe that:

1. Elohim is a divine family
2. We are their offspring
3. Jesus is the firstborn
4. Jesus is our elder brother and isn't ashamed to call us brothers
5. Jesus and us have the same father
6. We are being shaped in the image of Christ
7. We were created in God (Elohim)'s image: male and female

One such passage is Hebrews 2:8b-12

In subjecting everything to him, he left nothing unsubjected to him. However, at present, we don’t see everything subjected to him — at least, not yet. 9 But we do see Yeshua — who indeed was made for a little while lower than the angels — now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he might taste death for all humanity. 10 For in bringing many sons to glory, it was only fitting that God, the Creator and Preserver of everything, should bring the Initiator of their deliverance to the goal through sufferings. 11 For both Yeshua, who sets people apart for God, and the ones being set apart have a common origin — this is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers 12 when he says,

“I will proclaim your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”

Since my past conviction was trinitarian, I had my reservations when reading these passages when I was much younger. But the verses stuck with me. I might be wrong, but this is what I seem to get from my reading. You might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least you are in the drawer! I'm not even in the kitchen! I'm in the trash can. Not sharp at all--in fact, slow.

Thank you all and God bless you always.

[Gina]

ha, Well, I know for a fact internet connections can't be gotten in a trash can.  Maybe you're in the trash can in the kitchen?  hehe  Just kidding.  

I wouldn't want to puff you up but from the looks of things, you're observations are sound and you asked some very good questions.  At least you're being honest.  That's good enough for me.   

[theophilus]

Thank you for your advice. But the more we learn about our Father and his plans, the more we realize that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface. I don't believe we will fully apprehend God in this lifetime.

[Gina]

There's absolutely no way to completely comprehend a being Who has been around since time immemorial in the span of a short lifetime.  And if you say you haven't begun to scratch the surface, then you probably haven't.

And with that, I'm out.   All the best to you, Theo.

[theophilus]

There's absolutely no way to completely comprehend a being Who has been around since time immemorial in the span of a short lifetime.  And if you say you haven't begun to scratch the surface, then you probably haven't.

And with that, I'm out.   All the best to you, Theo.

Sorry I included you. I should have spoken for myself. My bad. All the best to you too.

[Dave in Tenn]

I also had 'problems' with this idea, theophilus.  But in my case, they came about before the Nashville conference in 2008.  Since I could no longer see 'creation' itself as an easy and instantaneous event but a full on demostration of the power and 'Godliness' of Jesus it was easier to accept the 'creation' of the Son.  The underlying message of Scripture is that God is creating mankind in His Image.  That's the Parable of scripture. 

Ray also taught that it is axiomatic that in order for there to be a 'Father', there first has to be a Son.  So to my mind, when the Creation of the family of God began, it began with a Son.  The family "business" is Creation.  And it is the First Born who marshalls the resources provided by the Father to do this 'family business' and be the Creator and Sustainer of All things Seen. 

It could be that when Jesus said He came to declare the Father, He was declaring the Family.  If a woman gives birth to her first child, something other than a new unique individual happens (though that does).  A new 'creation' happens--the creation of a family.  It also changes the 'name' of the woman to 'mother'.  Of course, God does things in a big way, leaving nothing undone.

Where does that leave us--especially those who believe?  I think somewhere still in the birth canal, the sure promise of Sonships, but not yet completely delivered.  Still in 'travail'.  Adopted in the womb. 

Anyways, there isn't a 'relationship' mentioned in Scripture that completely explains this 'relationship' of The Lord Jesus to His creation.  He is Father, Elder brother, Husband, Ruler and Lover.  And He is also Potter to our clay.  It's good to embrace all of these, and then some, if we want to get a taste of 'family life'.         

[theophilus]

Hello Dave, I understand what you're saying. I would add that for there to be a Son, there has to be a Father AND a Mother. Is there any scripture that references this 'mother'? Meditating on the scriptures, I've wondered if the Spirit of God might be the one playing the mother role.

In Genesis 1:1, we read that after God created the heavens and the earth, the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. Why was God's spirit "hovering" over the surface of the waters? Was it to create the right conditions for the first forms of life to develop in the waters? Evolution explains that it was in the oceans that the first forms of life emerged.

It's only at this point of the narrative that God's spirit is said to be involved in the creation. The spirit HOVERED over the surface of the waters. Young's Literal Translation of the Bible states that " the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,"

Notice the verb 'fluttering'. This fluttering had to be significant and had to have an effect on the water. It's as if this was one step of many in the preparation of our planet for it to sustain life.

Genesis 1:1-2 (YLT):  In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

What do you think? Blessings. Have a wonderful day.

[indianabob]

Hi Theo...

I have to disagree on principle with your statement below: "and a Mother"
God is NOT said to have begat Adam and Eve. God "created" Adam and Eve without any other "personage" being involved. Also it may be incorrect to view God as a person in the sense that we usually use that word. God is "spirit" and any anthropomorphic description is to help us relate to the lesson being given rather than to demonstrate a fact about God.
God speaks, has a thought etc. and the thing spoken begins to exist.

Kindly offered, Indiana bob

"Hello Dave, I understand what you're saying. I would add that for there to be a Son, there has to be a Father AND a Mother. Is there any scripture that references this 'mother'? Meditating on the scriptures, I've wondered if the Spirit of God might be the one playing the mother role."

[Kat]

Hi theophilus,

If you haven't gotten to the 2008 conference you might find it very interesting, as it deals a lot with the creation. Here is a excerpt from it.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9502.msg80843.html#msg80843 -------

When in the Big Bang, according to scientists there was for so long this explosion spread out, but it was a considerable time before there was light. Because it was so dense… I mean you pack one hundred billion galaxies with one hundred billion stars into a grapefruit - mustard seed. It was in a since an exploding black hole. There was no light. Scientists will say there was no light… light could not escape and there were no heavy metals. There was no iron or tin or led or gold or silver, it was the hydrogen atom. So not only do you condense the whole universe down to the size of a grapefruit or a mustard seed, you condense the whole universe down to hydrogen. This is mind boggling.

But scientists will tell you not only was everything that exists in the universe, in that exploding central point, not only was it all in there, it was infinitesimally timed to the trillionth of a mega second. It had to be perfectly timed. The timing had to be flawless beyond imagination or it wouldn’t have worked. We wouldn’t have what we have today.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form (or more like formless, not that it didn’t have any form at all, it was formless) and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now I’m not completely sold on the idea yet, that this is totally speaking about water covering the earth, although it certainly did. But I think it has a larger meaning. Remember that old song, Bridge Over Troubled Waters? In a sense I think that is what this is talking about. This is the beginning of the creation and its troubled waters. You get the idea that something is not right here.

Some will say, ‘it should read and the earth became without form and void.’ Well, actually yes it did in a sense ‘became,’ but not at this point.  Again, the Hebrew here is pluperfect in English. It would more accurately be translated, “and the earth,” and is correct, the word ‘and’ is in there. “And the earth” is one word in Hebrew, it’s erets. There is the word earth and then a sign for ‘and,’ and a sign for ‘the.’ So that’s all in there. It isn’t just the word there, only earth. No, it’s “and the earth.” It’s in there, and the earth was…

Now the only way you can translate that “was,” is if you translated and the earth was - already. It was already void (and vacant) and darkness was upon the face of the earth. But a better translation would be, “and the earth had existed.” Pluperfect English, past tense, had existed. The earth was already this way or had existed in this condition.

Notice what God says next.

Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light:

Let there be light. What do scientists tell us happened after the big bang? It took awhile before there was light. In the beginning He had created the heavens and the earth, but there was no light. Three verses later He tells us in the third verse “let there be light,“ and it should read, “and there became light.”

So you see how this idea of a big bang is not that stupid and atheistic and evolutionary nonsense and all of that. Millions of scientists work with the laws of physics and quantum math and all of these things, cosmology and astronomy. All of their knowledge of all of the laws of physics fit into the model that the heavens and the earth had a beginning from a central point that exploded out very rapidly. It’s the only thing that fits, nothing else fits. There is no other theory that fits except this thing that they’ve come up with, the Big Bang. You could call it the big spreading out and it would sound more scriptural. The fact of the matter is, it is scriptural.  Christ calls it the spreading out, scientists call it the Big Bang, which is just another term for spreading out rapidly and powerfully from a central beginning.
------------------------------------------------------

Here are the links to the audios and transcripts.
2008 Nashville Conference audios
Saturday morning part #1: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession1.mp3
Saturday morning part #2: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession2.mp3
Saturday morning part #3: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession3.mp3
Saturday morning part #4: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession4.mp3
Saturday morning part #5: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession5.mp3
Saturday morning part #6: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession6.mp3
Saturday afternoon part #7: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession7.mp3
Sunday morning part #8A: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession8A.mp3
Sunday morning part #8B: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession8B.mp3
Sunday morning part #9: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession9.mp3
Sunday morning part #10: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession10.mp3

Transcripts
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9502.0.html
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8385.0.html

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[theophilus]

Hi Theo...

I have to disagree on principle with your statement below: "and a Mother"
God is NOT said to have begat Adam and Eve. God "created" Adam and Eve without any other "personage" being involved. Also it may be incorrect to view God as a person in the sense that we usually use that word. God is "spirit" and any anthropomorphic description is to help us relate to the lesson being given rather than to demonstrate a fact about God.
God speaks, has a thought etc. and the thing spoken begins to exist.

Kindly offered, Indiana bob

"Hello Dave, I understand what you're saying. I would add that for there to be a Son, there has to be a Father AND a Mother. Is there any scripture that references this 'mother'? Meditating on the scriptures, I've wondered if the Spirit of God might be the one playing the mother role."

Hello Indiana bob, thank you for your thoughts. Like I said, I've "wondered" about this. Since

26 And God saith, `LET US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness,'
27 And God prepareth the man in HIS image; in the image of God He prepared him, A MALE AND A FEMALE HE PREPARED THEM. (Young's Literal Translation)


[In the image of God] He prepared them
[A male AND a female] He prepared them.

Image of God/likeness == male and female

Image of God/likeness appears to equate to male and female.

And I'm not thinking about God as being a person. I'm just taking his words about making us in his image or likeness. Nothing else is mentioned about this image. Only the mention of male and female.

About the begetting part, we can now make babies without begetting; without the intervention of a male and a female. I'm sure God can too. After all, He said LET US MAKE, not LET US BEGET.

Let me add that I am not emphatically stating that this is a biblical teaching. I'm just saying that these verses appear to allude to this possibility. And I do it with reverence, so help me God.

Kindly accepted.

[theophilus]

Hi theophilus,

..........

Some will say, ‘it should read and the earth became without form and void.’ Well, actually yes it did in a sense ‘became,’ but not at this point.  Again, the Hebrew here is pluperfect in English. It would more accurately be translated, “and the earth,” and is correct, the word ‘and’ is in there. “And the earth” is one word in Hebrew, it’s erets. There is the word earth and then a sign for ‘and,’ and a sign for ‘the.’ So that’s all in there. It isn’t just the word there, only earth. No, it’s “and the earth.” It’s in there, and the earth was…

Now the only way you can translate that “was,” is if you translated and the earth was - already. It was already void (and vacant) and darkness was upon the face of the earth. But a better translation would be, “and the earth had existed.” Pluperfect English, past tense, had existed. The earth was already this way or had existed in this condition.
If you haven't gotten to the 2008 conference you might find it very interesting, as it deals a lot with the creation. Here is a excerpt from it.


........................

mercy, peace and love
Kat

And this is how it reads in Young's Literal Translation:

Genesis 1:1-2 (YLT):  In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

I still subscribe to the Big Bang theory. I'm currently reading about "the divine matrix". It has to do with quantum mechanics. Scientists have discovered A FIELD. Space is not empty after all. There is an invisible medium through which waves travel. This field permeates EVERYTHING. Scientists are describing this field as a field of infinite possibilities and of pure intelligence. Furthermore, this discovery shows that WE ARE ALL CONNECTED, even things.

Check it out on youtube. There are several videos on this topic. Thank you for the links. I will check them out. Have a good day.

[Joel]

Genesis 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Some teach that God is talking to the angels when he made this statement. any comments on that belief?

Joel

[Ian 155]

You all lost me

To me......, I have in me, the word that became flesh I am living the bible every day this is personal, many OT happenings have happened to me and I relate, this word is in me I am it, I am Paul and Peter and James and Mary and at a stage Jesus is revealed to us by the father,[that would be once we are given understanding of the sum of Gods word or we have walked the path of salvation in this life or in the Resurrection] some even in the twinkling of and eye,  and all the while God the Father is helping or pushing or directing us to this knowledge.

The whole parable we call the bible is me that is how I am experiencing the born again realization my first fathers sinned this carried down from generation to generation and one day I was born and God had a different plan for me and certain few [the disciples]and God saw fit to strip away the ways I was taught by my forefathers, and schools and universities and all that puffed me up or has indoctrinated me.


or am I the biggest dumbest unbeliever under the sun

Ian

[gregorydc]

Ian, me too, exactly.
Greg