Četvrta božija zapovest
Ova tema je vezana za Četvrta božija zapovest pod forumom Religija, i deo je foruma Društvo i Nauka
#41 27-09-2011 15:27
Pavle kaže da onaj što razlikuje DANE Bogu razlikuje a ko ne razlikuje DANE Bogu ne razlikuje ovde je reč DAN a ne reč PRAZNIČNI DAN ili PRAZNIK jer sam pojam reči odmor kao dan i praznik su različiti (Jezekilj to lepo navodi).
I ja odmaram subotom a nekad i drugim danima i svakog dana slavim Boga u mislima i srcu i zahvaljujem i molim pa Bog svakog dana čuje a ne samo subotom.
Ljudi koji ne rade nedeljom oni taj dan ne rade iz određenog razloga a TO JE VRLO VAŽNO znati, a taj razlog je da taj dan slave kao dan velikog događaja vaskrsenja Isusa Hrista. A onaj ko slavi nedelju kao dan sunca on zbog svog razloga i motiva ima problem jer može svoga boga slaviti i subotom i opet je u problemu.
Nije ključan dan kojim nešto slavi već ŠTA I KOGA SLAVI.
Isuse mi te slavismo svakog dana u sedmici a Isus odgovara: ,,Zar me i prvog dana slaviste???,, odgovorićemo : ,,DA!,, a On će : ,,E pa onda niste spašeni jer nemože svaki dan biti slavan niti mene svakog dana smete slaviti već samo subotom a ostali dani su zauzeti: jedan pripada Muhamedu, drugi Budi, treći suncu....,,
Šalim se Bog tako neće reći već tako ljudi uče.
Jevreji imaju savez i znak tog starog saveza je odmor sedmog dana a gde Isus reče da pagani moraju ući u stari savez?
Dekalog važi jer je to uputstvo za ispravan život i poznanje dobra i zla dat Jevrejima a nas Duh Sveti poučava šta je dobro a šta ne i osvedočava. Duh ne negira dekalog ai ne nameće šabat kao uslov spasenja jer smo kroz Isusa kao vrata ušli u život i pomirili se a onaj ko hoće zakonom da se opravda ako sagreši u jednoj kriv je za sve zapovesti a pošto SVI sagrešiše kako će se spasiti?
Ulazeći ponovo pod samoopravdanje kroz zakon...? NE! Već blagodaću kroz pokajanje i življenje po ljubavi a gde je ljubav tu nema zakona da je sudi.
#42 27-09-2011 16:13gde je ljubav tu nema zakona
Ljudi koji ne rade nedeljom oni taj dan ne rade iz određenog razloga a TO JE VRLO VAŽNO znati, a taj razlog je da taj dan slave kao dan velikog događaja vaskrsenja Isusa Hrista.
Mir vama sa svim ljudima i setite se HRISTOSA i njegove najveće zapovedi.
#43 27-09-2011 21:02
To sto vi pricate je samo filozofiranje, u svetom pismu je jasno definisano koji je dan od odmora, i postavljena jasna crta izmedju moralnog i ceremonijalnog zakona, a nedelja nema nikakve potpore u svetim spisima biblije, niti su Hristos i Apostoli uputili na nedelju kao sveti dan u novozavetnom periodu, stavise, niko nikada nije napomenuo da treba proslavljati dogadjaje kao sto su Hristovo vaskrsenje, ili Bozic, da ne govorim o drugim biblijskim dogadjajima, ili licnostima, kojima su crkve posvetile odredjene dane u godini...
Nedelja ima iskljucivo korene u mnogobozackoj tradiciji obozavanja sunca kao Dies Solis - dan sunca, koji je bio posvecen ovom bozanstvu, i nema nikakav drugi znacaj, niti mu je u bibliji pripisan, ni od Hrista, ni od apostola.
#44 28-09-2011 04:35gde je ljubav tu nema zakona
Ljudi koji ne rade nedeljom oni taj dan ne rade iz određenog razloga a TO JE VRLO VAŽNO znati, a taj razlog je da taj dan slave kao dan velikog događaja vaskrsenja Isusa Hrista.
Mir vama sa svim ljudima i setite se HRISTOSA i njegove najveće zapovedi.
Dali je ovo zapovest?
Hear, O Israel: is our Elohim, is one:
A ako je zapovest dali ona važi za sve ili za neke da a za druge ne? ako imate komentar voleo bi da ga čujem.
Deuteronomy 6:4 – The Meaning of Echad
“Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one [Hebrew, echad." -- Deuteronomy 6:4, World English Bible VersionThe claim is made that the Hebrew word translated "one" [echad] means “composite unity”, and therefore this shows that Yahweh consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is true that “one” can mean “composite unity”, whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word “one”. There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word “one” as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Yahweh is more than one person. Echad [Strong's #259 "united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first"] simply means one [whether composite or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: “one door” Ezekiel 41:11); “one reed” (Ezekiel 40:5-8); “one gate” (Ezekiel 48:31); “one saint” (Daniel 8:13) — just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word “one”. Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
'echad - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version The English word “unit” is defined as:a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a wholeThe word composite means “made up of distinct parts.” A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. One grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. The scripture referred to says that there is only one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Yahweh who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 — two separate beings. Jesus is not Yahweh. Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means “compound unity”. The word “compound” means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as “composite.” Yahweh was different from the false Supreme Ones of the heathen, which were worshipped as one being represented by several persons. Yahweh is one Yahweh — not two, not three. Jay Green’s interlinear says: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one.” His translation reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Yahweh, not two – not three. While it is true the word “one”, whether in English or “echad” in Hebrew, can mean a composite unity, and one can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes, each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. Grape one does not equal the cluster, grape two does not equal the cluster, etc., each grape is only a part of the whole. Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole body, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part. If this idea of composite unity is applied to the three persons in one being story, then you would have the Father is part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian godhead as such, for they claim that Jesus is “fully God.” They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of “composite unity” or “compound unity” as a means to see the trinity in the word “echad” does not, in reality, exist, except in their own realm of trinitarian redefinitions of words and phrases. Is Yahweh a Unity? We can say that Yahweh is love; but Yahweh is not “all” love and nothing else. “Love” is not equal to the whole of who Yahweh is. It is only one component of who Yahweh is. The many components of Yahweh’s being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson’s Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard. Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is not one hint that they believed such. It is only by reading adding the philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find “trinity” in the verse. The argument is put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists to two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other “illustrations” of composite unity that our trinitarians neighbors come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity. Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So none of these provide any illustration of the trinity. Echad corresponds with the Greek heis — one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for “one”. “He is unique… He is not many, but one… Yahweh is a single unified person… one Lord is also opposite to diffuse… He is single… God’s person and his will are single… Israel is called to concentrate it’s undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique.” — The Broadman Bible Commentary Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong’s #3173). This word corresponds with our English word “only”. It is most commonly used in the expression “only son”. (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning “to join, unite” (Strong’s 3161), thus carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as “united”, “sole”, and further as “beloved”, “lonely”. The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also “only” and “unique”. The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as “solitary”, in the sense of “lonely”.
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses– Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
YourDictionary - The dictionary you can understand
Yachiyd - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version Although this word (Yachiyd) is not used of Yahweh in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son, we see no reason why it could not have been used of him. It corresponds most closely with the English word “only”, especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Yahweh, since Yahweh is not a son of anyone. Another word that sometimes means “only” is bad (Strong’s #905), “alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone”. It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, which word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the “only true God.” *Bad* is also used of Yahweh in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
Bad - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state: At the triple point, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another – vapor sublimates to ice and condenses to liquid at the same rate that the liquid evaporates to vapor and freezes to ice at the same rate that the ice melts to liquid and sublimates to vapor.
sciencebyjones.com Triple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
Learn Chemistry Tutorials - States of Matter Note that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same solid throughout all of its molecules, and the same time gas throughout all of its molecules. At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states: The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity…. In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the “persons” can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the “persons”, while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. — a post by Edward Pothier The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
Genesis 1.1 and John 21.11 - soc.religion.christian | Google Groups
Tiny URL for the above:
Genesis 1.1 and John 21.11 - soc.religion.christian | Google Groups We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once: In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
Marcy M. Seavey
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science Having shown that this does not give a good illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states all through all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states all through all at once, nothing more. It would not add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures. The “One Lord” Deception Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” There is “one Lord”, they say, and that “one Lord” is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted “LORD” for the divine name. This should not be done, and to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word “kurios”, often rendered “the Lord” in the New Testament, means “Yahweh”, since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Yahweh in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word “kurios” does not mean “Yahweh”, any more than the Hebrew words for “Lord”, such as “adon” or “adonai”**, mean “Yahweh”. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Yahweh of Deuteronomy 8:6.
*See our studies on the holy name:
http://name.reslight.net Likewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the “one Lord” of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” By use of the word “LORD” in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew, the divine name appears, and that “the LORD” has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: “Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one.” By this we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus.
Jesus is Not Yahweh
Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah) Others will say that Yahweh is referred to as “Lord” many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the “one Lord”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Yahweh is also “Lord”? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that there is only “one Lord”. Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young’s Literal Translation: “for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him.” What it says is that “to us [to the church] there is one Lord “through whom are all things, and we through him.” Yahweh is “Lord”, but he is not the “one Lord” through whom are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. — John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6. Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that the idols are nothing. It is these that Paul refers to as those who are “called” gods. On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed “something”, but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are “called” gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special “might, strength”, power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as “God/god”*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called “gods”. The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are “gods”, in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are “nothing”. Yet these have been called “gods” and “lords”. The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word “Adon”, meaning “Lord”. Thus these are “called” gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word “baal” (meaning “the Lord”, “lord”, or “the master”) and its usage regarding false gods.
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God” But Paul continues, “as there are gods many and lords many.” The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: “as even are gods many and lords many.” Paul acknowledges that there are those who are “called” gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed “many gods and many lords”. Does the Bible speak of others than Yahweh as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god — a mighty one — to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 — see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as “gods” (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as “gods” — “the strong” (KJV) — in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed “gods”, and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Yahweh. Likewise, many are indeed “lords” in various capacities. The Hebrew word “adon”, means “lord” or “master”. This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: “aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun”, corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as “‘adown”. Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive — the plural form used as a superlative — of “my Lord”) The form “adoni” (“my Lord”) is represented by the Hebrew characters “aleph-dalet-nun-yod” (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called “quamets” (sounds like the English “a” in the word “all”) to form the word “adonai”. They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Yahweh, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Yahweh, they added the vowel point roughly called “hireq”, corresponding to the English letter “i” carrying the English short “i” sound, as in the word “machine”. This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as “adoni”. Once in a while someone will claim that, while “lord” in the Old Testament may be used of others than Yahweh, in the New Testament the word “kurios” is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true. The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: “Yahweh says to my Lord [adoni], “Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.” This scripture is translated into the Greek as “kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou” [literally, "lord of me"] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David’s Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations). While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word “kurios” applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as “sir” in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as “master(s)” in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as “owners” in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as “Yahweh”, but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed “many lords”, as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these “lords”, however, is the “one Lord” “through whom” the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church “through” any of these other lords. Paul further states: “yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him.” Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young’s translation above shows two words added by the brackets . However, it does not show that the word “things” is also added. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has “ta panta” as “the all (things)”, with the word “things” in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase “ta panta” literally means “the all”, pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is “of” or “from” the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. “The all” is “from” any of the other who are indeed “gods”, and certainly not from any of the idols that are “called” “gods”. The believer has offered himself “to” the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. — Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6. The scriptures identify the only true God — the Supreme Being, the “might” of the universe — as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is “the only true God” signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Yahweh, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Yahweh — the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus — who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. — Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1. Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Yahweh, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.
Nastaviće se sa:
Trinity, the "persons", while all God, do not
change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the
Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father,
#45 28-09-2011 13:54
Postovani urednice jurivaka, da li i ovaj gore komentar na engleskom podleze kritici, jer govori o sasvim razlicitoj temi o trojstvu, a ovo je tema cetvrta Bozja zapovest..?
#46 28-09-2011 14:34
#47 28-09-2011 15:51
#48 04-10-2011 10:58
IMA subote kao što ima ljubi Boga i ne gradi lika sve ima ali time se ne opravdava već pokazuje poslušnost.
Iako si poslušan opet si GREŠAN jer svi sagrešiše i zato je potrebna savršena žrtva da krvlju očisti i životom plati cenu za telo i dušu.
Ako nema subote nema ni ljubi Boga.I ako ljubiš Boga i držiš zapovesti opet treba žrtva radi plate za greh koji uđe i rodi smrt.
A što se tiče držanja subote piše ti u Pismu kako se to čini i da je to bila obaveza za sve koji su pod krovom Jevrejina.
Kroz zakon se ne uđe u spasenje a kroz veru u milost i žrtvu pomirnici ulazi.
#49 04-10-2011 13:55
Naravno, kroz veru u milost i žrtvu pomirnici ulazi, ali to ga ne oslobadja od poslusnosti.
To znaci uci, i nastaviti dalje ziveci ne po predjasnjem zivotu u grehu i krsenju Bozanskih principa, vec trudeci se da svoj zivot potpuno uskladi sa Bozjom pravdom zapisanom u Bozjim zapovestima.
Tu je ukljucena i zapovest o suboti, jer Bozja rec kaze da `KO SAGRESI U JEDNOM KRIV JE ZA SVE...
#50 04-10-2011 22:28
Pavle u zatvoru i rimski stražar htede da se ubije jer zatvorenike ne vidi a vrata otvorena i oni mu se javiše i rekoše šta se zbi i stražar rimljanin pita šta mu treba za spasenje a Pavle njemu onda reče: VIDI OVAKO:,,moraš se prvo obrezati pa držati subotu i sve praznike i davati desetak pa posle koju godinu ako vidimo da si se promenio krstićemo te u našoj Adv. crkvi inače???,,
Reče mu da ako VERUJE u Isusa SPASIĆE SE I ON I SAV NJEGOV DOM da li Pavle reče istinu?