> Introductions, Announcements, and More of Ray's Teachings
Jesus--God's first creation--HOW/WHO?
mharrell08:
What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?
John from Kentucky:
--- Quote from: mharrell08 on January 04, 2013, 03:08:04 PM ---What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?
--- End quote ---
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. ;D ;D
You and I both know this is a controversial topic and will not be allowed to go much further.
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on January 04, 2013, 09:56:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: mharrell08 on January 04, 2013, 03:08:04 PM ---What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: mharrell08 on January 04, 2013, 10:58:30 PM ---
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on January 04, 2013, 09:56:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: mharrell08 on January 04, 2013, 03:08:04 PM ---What exactly is confusing Theophilus? Also what exactly is controversial about this study?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version