१ओ उएस्तिओन्स ठाट वे ओफ्तें रेसिवे (अस च्रिस्तिंस)

2.Yesus as the Word of God was give birth or created? The question above of course will not be had been free from the debate or the conflict forever between the Arian group and the Universal Church. This question will never polemics were protracted between the fellow Christian group (? ) if not having thinking from Arius of Alexandria that was phenomenal that. We will discuss later, but his simple answer was a question that was good that is ‘if the Word of God was the creation, whereas the Holy Scripture said that God created everything with His Word; then with Word whichever again Word of God was created? The Word of God was created through the Word of God?
The concept the Word that was created by the Word certainly did not make sense. However in several last years had several people who revealed his opinion that Jesus was one of the angels God. There are those that just theorised that Jesus was the agreement angel who was promised by God to come to redeem his group, but to be also that bravely (despite very at random) mentioned Jesus Christ simply was the Mikhael, the angel's village chief. Bin's strange concept miraculous this was so incessant was promoted by the follower Unitarian or Kristen Tauhid (a La Indonesia) with several theories of the assumption and the comparison that "rather or seldom were" forced" (I did not know whether the article and the publication of these Unitarian books were accepted the area by the community, that was clear from the aspect of marketing titles of the book published by this Unitarian group were very interesting because always tried to be made controversial, sensational and bombastic, that unfortunately themes of their issue book only the attack towards the conviction and the Christian Universal dogma without one matter then that could be used to build and improve the moral, moral and the behaviour of Christian group generally in religious life and the community).
In one of their theory, Unitarian's followers hardly refused Isaiah 63:9a the LAI translation (in 1974 et cetera) and chose the LAI translation that was old that is “... malak alhadhirat... ) was the same as the version of King James, NIV and RSV “... Angel of His Presence... ). “... Bukan seorang duta atau utusan,.... ” (Isaiah 63:9a, LAI) that translated Greek from Septuaginta (LXX), οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος ouk presbis oude aggelos (that was clear significant “not an the ambassador nor an angel”);(Today’s English Version also said, “It was not an angel, but the LORD himself who saved them.”). Angel of His Presence according to the English Version in fact also implied that that will come that was God personally. This was linked with the article that said that no-one who had met God the Father directly but God had several times been present meeting his slaves with various forms. God appeared to Moses in the form of Fire in scrub, afterwards God appeared to Hagar in the form of the angel (Malakh YHWH) likewise when God paid a visit Abraham in his tent in the shape of humankind to inform Sarah's pregnancy. This also that afterwards was stated by Jacob, “... ; Allah itu, sebagai Allah yang telah menjadi gembalaku selama hidupku sampai sekarang, dan sebagai Malaikat yang telah melepaskan aku dari segala bahaya, ...” (Kej 48:16). In the Old Testament, God met his group in various forms, and that most often was in the form of the Angel of the LORD. Just afterwards in New Testament, God met his group with His Word that directly materialised humankind as the realisation of God's love that was extraordinary to humankind, God no longer only from time to time meets and meets his choice slaves in the dream, the sight, listening et cetera, but paid directly a visit His people with 'nuzul', The Word of God that was acknowledged as The Son became humankind and lived in the middle of humankind.
John 01:18 mentioned that “No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him.” The word: The only Son, God: while the vast majority of later textual witnesses have another reading, "the Son, the only one" or "the only Son," the translation above follows the best and earliest manuscripts, monogenes theos, but takes the first term to mean not just "Only One" but to include a filial relationship with the Father, as at Luke 9:38 ("only child") or Hebrews 11:17 ("only son") and as translated at John 1:14. The Logos is thus "only Son" and God but not Father/God. Had the meaning “only one (mono) in the group or this kind (genos)” that showed the uniqueness of the status from the Son that was certain only was one and "different kind" or not the angel because if he only one of his angels of God meant him not only one in his group. Then said theos in this article had the meaning that was firm that is God not that was divine because the God's words were in Greek mentioned theios as that was recorded in Acts 17:29, 2 Pet 1:3,4. John did not say that the Word was a god or one of the gods, he also did not say that the Word was divine but monogenes theos (the Only Son) and unlike in the Greece-Christian Holy Scripture – New World Translation belonging to Jehovah's Witnesses that translated monogenes theos with “the only one God that diperanakkan” as resulting from the mistake read genos to gennao (double “n”) that was significant “memperanakkan” in fact in words monogenes this only had one letter “n” so as exact words were genos that was significant “a kind or group”.
That Word together with God, was significantly the Personal of the Word (the Personal of the Son) # (not be the same as) the Personal of God (the Personal of the Father). The Word was God, John did not state that God was that Word; he did not say that the Word was one of God's terms but that he said was that he, that has been together with the Father from the beginning was God. John 1:3 stated everything was made through him (TEV, Through him God made all things), in fact God the Father created everything through His Word (Hebrew 1:2) then the Word of God was not created by God the Father because that Word was used by God the Father as the instrument of the creation. When Word went out from the Father then He was mentioned "was born" because He has been beforehand in Himself the Father as Knowledge (the Intellect) of God. And when the Word "was born"," he went out from God the Father in the incident of the world creation as the Saying of “Kun Faya Kun” (“terjadilah, then terjadi”) but together also was not free or adhered in Dzat-essence (Ousia) God forevermore as being recorded in Psalms 119:89, בשׁמים׃ נצב דברך יהוה לעולם (le ‘olam YHWH debar’kha nitsab be’shamayim), Εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, κύριε, ὁ λόγος σου διαμένει ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (Eis tòn aiõna, Kyrie, ho Lógos sou diaménei ên tõs oûranõs), For ever, O Lord, thy word Is firmly fixed in the heavens. “For ever, o God, Thy word stayed firm in heaven. (HOT, LXX, RSV, LAI) Jesus for Christians was ho Logos, the Word of God, Kalimatullah; therefore he was the sentence “Kun” that personally not results or resulting from from the sentence “Kun”. And as Al-Qur’an in Islam that was God's Word that qadim (lasting) and not the creation because of God since early spoke then likewise with Jesus as The Word; also when Al-Qur’an “nuzul” to the world in Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, then God's Saying (ho Logos) in Christian “nuzul” in the Virgin Mary (in the Islam history was gotten by the Mu’tazilah group that one of his leading figures that is Ibn Jahm believed that Al-Qur’an was not qadim or was created/khalq Al-Qur’an because of the Prophet Isa that was acknowledged as Kalimatullah or the Word of God was gazed at as the creation creature completely by mainstream Islam, a debate that could be regarded as the re-staging of the Church debate with Arian heresy, this was clarified with the group's answer of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah that was provided a basis for by Qs an-Nahl the article 40: Actually our words against something if we wanted him, we only said to him: “Kun (was) ”, then was he. Was represented by Al-Asy’ari in the Al-Luma Book that said that Al-Qur’an not was created because if being created then in accordance with the article of An-Nahl 40 this for the creation must say kun, and for the creation kun this also must say kun that was other, such was henceforth so as to be gotten by the series of words kun that was not having an end. And this was not possible. Because of that Al-Qur’an was not possible to be created. This Al-Asy’ari confirmation was very identical to confirmation of the Church when faced bid’ah Arian that the Word of God not possibly was created by the Word of God that was other as touch on above. ).
The holy scripture provided the clear answer that from God's "mouth" went out (read: was born) by chance that is the Word of God that could not be withdrawn. (Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall the note return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.' RSV) Say "from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall the note return" came from Hebrew yatsa mi po tsedaqah dabar we lo yasyuv, יָצָא מִפִּי צְדָקָה דָּבָר וְלאׁיָשׁוּב, that was translated by LAI "dari mulut-Ku telah keluar kebenaran, suatu firman yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali" showed that that Word went out (read: was born) from God's "mouth" (Godself). From this article could be attracted by the conclusion that very much went out the Word of God continue to and could not be withdrawn, but God's Word same continued to adhere in Godself.