Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 14:20:44 GMT -5
Maybe I have too simple a mind, but I put great trust in how Paul and the Apostles clearly referred to God and Jesus, etc. Also for the clarity in which they wrote in references such as:
Romans 1:
18. " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Jesus clearly revealed the Holy Spirit to be his Father's power and his Father to be God. There can be no sensible argument against that for any believer. He clearly revealed his Father and only his Father to be God the person and his Father to be the Godhead of all that pertains to God.
You will find all the proper answers to whom God is, whom Jesus is and what the Holy Spirit is, within the words of Jesus and simply explained at that. Think outside the parameters of that at your own peril. You will risk holding the truth of God in ungodliness and unrighteousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 14:45:10 GMT -5
Thanks but anyone in the world can write anything they like. It's not clear who wrote this - JW's, Christadelphians? Or a Baptist, an Anglican, Catholic, a 2 x 2? I agree. I don't know who wrote it either, but like some of the Scriptures where there is no certainty as to who wrote them, it is advisable to judge the merits of a written work about scripture to see how it lines up with God's word rather than our opinions or what we want something to read. I would rather attack a message than a messenger any day. Often the latter is a direct result of an inability to properly address the former. Also, is everything said by every other religious faith that is not our own, wrong? Do they not get some things right?You come to the first paragraph and read "For, if Jesus was God, as many claim, then He didn’t really suffer or die, because God is immortal" which is nonsense. It totally ignores the fact that God entered humanity - Jesus became a man and suffered in the flesh and died for our sins. This line of reasoning makes the sacrifice of Christ completely ineffective. This appears to be your opinion? If not how about taking us through some clear scriptural references showing us that Jesus is in fact God (no ambiguous ones please). If Jesus is a man, how does that make his sacrifice ineffective. Rather Scripture points to exactly the opposite!
1 Corinthians 15:21 " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."
It seems to me that the sacrifice of the man (not God) Jesus was pretty effective!
Also, is the "many" you state who question if Jesus was God, the same 00.01% of Christians that you claim don't believe in the Trinity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 18:13:31 GMT -5
Thanks Ram - I've been on both sides of the equation. For much of my life I would have completely rejected the triune nature of our God. However, the Bible didn't make sense and I didn't come to an understanding of it through reading theology - just reading the Bible. Since then writings of others have helped and "The Everlasting God" by Broughton Knox is a just a wonderful book on the character and nature of God. The "other person centredness" within God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit is quite wonderful to read. The triune nature of God is simply not a debated point in Christianity - Jesus was acknowledged as God from the NT and early church. Among folk who worship Christ King, Saviour and Redeemer today there are very few that wouldn't acknowledge Jesus as God (as I said before it's pretty much limited to Mormans, JW's, Christadelphians, 2x2's and One Pentecostal). There are a few workers in the 2x2's who believe in the triune nature of God. Hi Ross, as you have said before, we will have to agree to disagree. Like many researchers and sincere Christians I see nothing to support the notion of a Triune God in the Bible. I have posted a number of articles in support of my beliefs, though there are many more. I totally disagree that the church of the early disciples acknowledged Jesus as God. I do agree that there are many enticing, nice to read explanations of the Trinity concept, but therein lies the sting and the deceit. I accept the fact that the Triune God is well accepted within "mainstream" Christianity, but in reality most Christians have not thought through what the Trinity means in reality. They just accept what their theology trained teachers tell them. However, when properly explained to them, it is amazing how many instinctively reject the idea that Jesus is God, or the Triune God theory. The Triune God is very much a debated point amongst truly seeking souls. In the three Baptist churches that I have had connections with, quite a few are uncomfortable with the Triune God theory. Their ministers though, admittedly follow the party line. Unfortunately they are not in a position to entertain considerations which would put their livelihood in jeopardy. I will say this in defence of myself. Throughout the discussions that I have had in this and the other threads relating to this subject, no one has attempted to properly address any of the many points that I have posted, in an attempt to show that my reasoning is wrong. Rather they have by and large moved on to cite other references or opinions and thus the process continues. I have regularly cited the unadulterated Word of God and the near 100% lack of proper attempts at countermanding my opinions clearly shows to me that the Word of God defends itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 3:45:22 GMT -5
Hi Ross, as you have said before, we will have to agree to disagree. Like many researchers and sincere Christians I see nothing to support the notion of a Triune God in the Bible. I have posted a number of articles in support of my beliefs, though there are many more. I totally disagree that the church of the early disciples acknowledged Jesus as God. I do agree that there are many enticing, nice to read explanations of the Trinity concept, but therein lies the sting and the deceit. I accept the fact that the Triune God is well accepted within "mainstream" Christianity, but in reality most Christians have not thought through what the Trinity means in reality. They just accept what their theology trained teachers tell them. However, when properly explained to them, it is amazing how many instinctively reject the idea that Jesus is God, or the Triune God theory. The Triune God is very much a debated point amongst truly seeking souls. In the three Baptist churches that I have had connections with, quite a few are uncomfortable with the Triune God theory. Their ministers though, admittedly follow the party line. Unfortunately they are not in a position to entertain considerations which would put their livelihood in jeopardy. I will say this in defence of myself. Throughout the discussions that I have had in this and the other threads relating to this subject, no one has attempted to properly address any of the many points that I have posted, in an attempt to show that my reasoning is wrong. Rather they have by and large moved on to cite other references or opinions and thus the process continues. I have regularly cited the unadulterated Word of God and the near 100% lack of proper attempts at countermanding my opinions clearly shows to me that the Word of God defends itself. Thanks - I don't think you have commented on how Christ simply substituted Father, Son and HS for the OT "LORD" (ie Yahweh) in Matthew 28. When Christ himself makes it clear who God is that's good enough for me! Actually I did address this very point some place earlier. Probably not in the same words, but the answer lies in the preceding verse (18). Here they are together. Verse 18 puts verse 19 into proper context. Matt. 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Does this refer to a triune God of three co-equal parts, or does it refer to one person receiving "power" from another person? Trinitarians often cite this portion of scripture in an attempt to support their argument without really thinking about it. In verse 18 the "resurrected" Jesus is confirming he has received from his God and Father his inheritance of control over God's divine power, the Holy Spirit, the most powerful and authoritative force that ever was or ever can be. This Jesus is now ruling as "Mighty God" by virtue of his "new" position, a position he had never had before. He is acting with all power under the authority of, and on behalf of his God and Father. He has the authority of the Father (God) as well as control of the Father's power (divine Spirit). All power has now been given to Jesus, but he is still subservient to his Father and God. Jesus IS now ruling as the power of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is ONE authority and just like the Revelation of Jesus Christ, it is something which he received from God. Jesus will rule with all power over the universe until he defeats all of his enemies, the last of which is death. Then he will return that power to the Father. All things are under Jesus, EXCEPT the Father. Scripture is very clear on this! Everything that Jesus did beforehand was done in the name of his Father and God, not in his own name. He was dependent upon his Father for everything and spoke only his Father's words. He was completely obedient to his Father and has now received his throne and inheritance, ruling in the position of Mighty God, but is not actually God. Since the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's power, anything done in the "invisible" God's name was by God's power, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Although it is still the same Jesus that was on the Earth, his position has greatly changed (as will happen to all true believers). He is now the ruling power; ruling on behalf of his Father with his Father's power and authority. There is only ONE power and that comes from the Father. Therefore baptising in the "name" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, represents that singular power. It is of the Father (God), through the Son, by the Father's divine power. Verses 18 and 19 MUST be understood together. Also, what were the disciples to "teach all nations?" Exactly who Jesus was, i.e, the Son of God and all that he said and did. They were to teach all nations to receive and abide in the words of Jesus. Baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, MUST be understood within the context of the teachings of Jesus, not something that is added to them. A simple analogy may be this. A police officer acts on behalf of his Police force (or Government) by the power of the law. He is often referred to as the Law. He carries out his duties on behalf of his force by the power of the law. He is authorised by his Chief Constable or Commissioner to carry out his duties and empowered to do so by the law. He is the public face of his force and everything he does is by the power of the law. The Chief Constable acts through his officers, whom he has empowered. When a police officer carries out his duties "in the "name" "singular) of the "Law," (plural on this occasion), he is doing so on behalf of those who have employed him and with the power of the law (singular). This does not make him actually be his superior, or even equal to him, nor does it make the Law a person. The Chief Constable has authorised the police officer to act on his behalf and thus conveys upon him the power of the law. In a similar way Jesus is acting on behalf of the Father by the power of the Father's Holy Spirit. God the Father = Chief Constable/Commissioner etc Jesus = Police officer The Holy Spirit = the Law The Chief Constable and Police officer are "one" in purpose. The CC is in the Officer and the Officer is in the CC by the power of the Law. The Law is identical in both. It is the power which binds them as one. However, the police officer is always 100% in subjection to the CC and carries out his will. This does NOT make the CC the police officer and vice versa, nor does it make the law a person! However, they ALL act in ONE name by virtue of their purpose. Keep in mind too, that the singular term "name", often conveys a plural meaning! Especially when used as "in the name of!"
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 10, 2014 10:40:28 GMT -5
@ram
Point #1, anything you posit that denies Jesus as the Word, God, who took on human flesh becomes null.
That is why very few are taking apart your rambling. Pun. There's so much wrong that there's no point.
Point #2, Ross has already countered, if Jesus isn't Lord and God, then there is no way we may rightfully worship him without violating the First Commandment. And we know that we are to rightfully worship him.
God the Father is the first cause - but each of the three divine persons ARE equal - some of what you posit rests on a Jesus acting or responding in his human nature.
Yes, 'in the NAME of ... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not 'in the nameS' of ....
Singular not plural. One God. One Being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
'In the name of...' Is even more explicit and meaning-filled in the Greek if you care to do a little research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 11:25:34 GMT -5
@ram Point #1, anything you posit that denies Jesus as the Word, God, who took on human flesh becomes null. That is why very few are taking apart your rambling. Pun. There's so much wrong that there's no point. That is your opinion St Anne. So far, like others, you rely on extra-biblical analysis rather than the pure and unadulterated Word of God. How about making an attempt to properly address any one point that I have made and give your analysis of it? It's one thing to say there's so much wrong with my "ramblings" but I think the fact that you shy away from any proper address of even one of these points, clearly highlights the fact the Word of God is an obstacle too high for you to get over?
Point #2, Ross has already countered, if Jesus isn't Lord and God, then there is no way we may rightfully worship him without violating the First Commandment. And we know that we are to rightfully worship him. This has already been very adequately addressed previously by myself. It would make an excellent study to go back and research it.
God the Father is the first cause - but each of the three divine persons ARE equal - some of what you posit rests on a Jesus acting or responding in his human nature. Biblical citations please. There are hundreds that suggest entirely the opposite!
Yes, 'in the NAME of ... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not 'in the nameS' of .... Singular not plural. One God. One Being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 'In the name of...' Is even more explicit and meaning-filled in the Greek if you care to do a little research. Thank you. Whether singular or plural it really doesn't alter the context of Jesus's statement and completely fits in with what I posted. Please try a little proper study yourself. Be like the Bereans!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 10, 2014 12:33:05 GMT -5
Ram, keep on keeping on!
StA, it doesn't say in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost. It says, in the name of the Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 10, 2014 13:00:22 GMT -5
@ram
Yes, like the Bereans ....
I will remain in the doctrine of Christ's apostles - the very ones (per your quote) to whom Christ gave sending and power to go to all nations.
You seem to overlook that not only are those teachings recorded in sacred scripture, but are also recorded by the very early church - in the writings of the *disciples of the apostles and those who passed on those same teachings down through the ages.
*Ignatius, 110 Justin Martyr, 151 Theophilus of Antioch, 181 Irenaeus, 189 Just to name a few ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 10, 2014 13:02:52 GMT -5
Ram, keep on keeping on! StA, it doesn't say in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost. It says, in the name of the Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost. Yes. It says 'name' of ... It does NOT say 'nameS' of ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 10, 2014 13:13:55 GMT -5
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. From newadvent.org The Blessed Trinity www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 14:51:19 GMT -5
@ram Yes, like the Bereans .... I will remain in the doctrine of Christ's apostles - the very ones (per your quote) to whom Christ gave sending and power to go to all nations. You seem to overlook that not only are those teachings recorded in sacred scripture, but are also recorded by the very early church - in the writings of the *disciples of the apostles and those who passed on those same teachings down through the ages. *Ignatius, 110 Justin Martyr, 151 Theophilus of Antioch, 181 Irenaeus, 189 Just to name a few ...Are those persons' writings part of the Holy Scriptures, the inspired word of God. There are quite a few references in the New Testament about those who either left the early church of the Apostles to preach different doctrines, or tried to bring such fare into the early church. We are well warned about them. If the writings from the likes of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, et al, do not line up with what is recorded in the "sufficiency" of God's Word, then as Paul clearly said....."let them be accursed." That does not just go for those who preach false doctrines but also for those who follow them, unwittingly or not! A very serious warning to seek out God for ourselves and not be like the blind being led by the blind. Concentrate only on God's word. Be extremely careful about extra-biblical sources from whatever direction they come from. As stated previously on several occasions, I do not want you to accept anything that I say without FIRST checking it out against God's word (make sure it is the KJV) after making yourself approved of God and willing for the leading of his Holy Spirit, ensuring you are willing to see things very differently if needs be!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 15:07:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 15:13:47 GMT -5
Nathan projected:
"As you know 90% of the world Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son."
Nathan, I readily agree that the religious institutions which cover 90% or whatever of Christendom believe and teach as you say. However, many "believers" within that 90% really do not believe in a triune God or that Jesus is God. They instinctively reject the idea. I know, I have confronted many.
Remember, only few of those pertaining to be Christians will be accepted by Christ and MANY will be rejected, because it all boils down to knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. This is eternal life.
By all means, rely on the MANY to substantiate your argument. I will rely on "the few!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 15:52:26 GMT -5
Nathan projected: "As you know 90% of the world Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son."Nathan, I readily agree that the religious institutions which cover 90% or whatever of Christendom believe and teach as you say. However, many "believers" within that 90% really do not believe in a triune God or that Jesus is God. They instinctively reject the idea. I know, I have confronted many. Remember, only few of those pertaining to be Christians will be accepted by Christ and MANY will be rejected, because it all boils down to knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. This is eternal life. By all means, rely on the MANY to substantiate your argument. I will rely on "the few!" Perhaps, the MAJORITY is right on this one. Today with the Internet, is like having a library in our own homes, with a few taps of the fingers we can find, read almost church history, doctrines are out there. People, are NOT LIVING in the dark ages these days! They are good THINKERS! Very few people can pull wools over their eyes, Ram. Nathan, I think if you stick with God's word you will see that internet age Christendom is far from being free from God's rejection. Perhaps because many rely on mans' wisdom they are more susceptible to deception? I certainly think so. Remember, the sources that you suggest will never lead anyone to a knowledge of the only true God. Libraries, church history, doctrines etc available at one's fingertips, are not the way to obtaining a knowledge of the only true God. That comes through his Beloved Son Jesus Christ, by obeying the word of God, abiding in Jesus's words. Only then does a person come to a knowledge of the Father. That is the narrow gate. The broad gate is the route you suggest!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 16:30:36 GMT -5
Nathan, I think if you stick with God's word you will see that internet age Christendom is far from being free from God's rejection. Perhaps because many rely on mans' wisdom they are more susceptible to deception? I certainly think so. Remember, the sources that you suggest will never lead anyone to a knowledge of the only true God. Libraries, church history, doctrines etc available at one's fingertips, are not the way to obtaining a knowledge of the only true God. That comes through his Beloved Son Jesus Christ, by obeying the word of God, abiding in Jesus's words. Only then does a person come to a knowledge of the Father. That is the narrow gate. The broad gate is the route you suggest! I showed you Old and New testament and in the book of Revelation from A to Z. Jesus claimed He is God Almighty just like God the Father. Jesus is BOTH the Son of God and God the Son. why, can't you understand that? you got there half way... you believe in Jesus is the Son of God... The same is saying Jesus is God/the Son.And I have shown you time and again that "every" reference in the New Testament used by Trinitarians to try and show that Jesus is God is taken out of context. There are plenty of things that I have covered for you to go back and read. All your questions have been more than adequately answered! Nathan, I'm afraid that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, as he was revealed to be. That is the "FULL" picture, not a half picture. You just have not been reading what has been presented. You believe in a false God. Sorry! Please don't try and influence those in your meeting with the Trinity Delusion!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 10, 2014 18:32:48 GMT -5
And I have shown you time and again that "every" reference in the New Testament used by Trinitarians to try and show that Jesus is God is taken out of context. There are plenty of things that I have covered for you to go back and read. All your questions have been more than adequately answered! Nathan, I'm afraid that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, as he was revealed to be. That is the "FULL" picture, not a half picture. You just have not been reading what has been presented. You believe in a false God. Sorry! Yes, I have read what you have posted and found your Jesus the son of God, is ONLY half truth. You have missed the other side of Jesus God/the Son prior to his Incarnation as the Son of man. Why, don't we give this Trinity a rest for awhile.
I have spoke about the Trinity with ex-workers, my older companion in the meetings and he agree with what I shared... Jesus is the Word and the Word was God. The Word is from Eternity.
Nathan, do you believe that sin was a possibility for Jesus (while in human form), but he overcame sin through the power of the Spirit he shares with his Father?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 18:39:44 GMT -5
And I have shown you time and again that "every" reference in the New Testament used by Trinitarians to try and show that Jesus is God is taken out of context. There are plenty of things that I have covered for you to go back and read. All your questions have been more than adequately answered! Nathan, I'm afraid that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, as he was revealed to be. That is the "FULL" picture, not a half picture. You just have not been reading what has been presented. You believe in a false God. Sorry! Yes, I have read what you have posted and found your Jesus the son of God, is ONLY half truth. You have missed the other side of Jesus God/the Son prior to his Incarnation as the Son of man. Why, don't we give this Trinity a rest for awhile.
I have spoke about the Trinity with ex-workers, my older companion in the meetings and he agree with what I shared... Jesus is the Word and the Word was God. The Word is from Eternity.
Okay Nathan, quote ONE reference from the Bible which states Jesus is God the Son. There is only one name by which man may be saved. It is NOT Jesus Christ, God the Son. There is no salvation attached to that name. The only name by which man may be saved is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is not half-truth. It is Full truth. The Ethiopian Eunuch before he was baptised, "believed with ALL his heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God." That was his saving faith. He believed with all his heart...not with half his heart! There was no room in his heart for all this God the Son nonsense. If a person believes with ALL their heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, there is no room in their belief system to accommodate unbiblical God the Son nonsense which adds to God's truth about his only begotten Son. Nathan, you believe in a different Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch. You are welcome to your belief. You clearly do not believe with ALL your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as there appears plenty of room there for all this additional unscriptural stuff. Very dangerous ground my friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 18:50:35 GMT -5
Yes, I have read what you have posted and found your Jesus the son of God, is ONLY half truth. You have missed the other side of Jesus God/the Son prior to his Incarnation as the Son of man. Why, don't we give this Trinity a rest for awhile.
I have spoke about the Trinity with ex-workers, my older companion in the meetings and he agree with what I shared... Jesus is the Word and the Word was God. The Word is from Eternity.
Okay Nathan, quote ONE reference from the Bible which states Jesus is God the Son. There is only one name by which man may be saved. It is NOT Jesus Christ, God the Son. There is no salvation attached to that name. The only name by which man may be saved is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is not half-truth. It is Full truth. The Ethiopian Eunuch before he was baptised, "believed with ALL his heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God." That was his saving faith. He believed with all his heart...not with half his heart! There was no room in his heart for all this God the Son nonsense. If a person believes with ALL their heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, there is no room in their belief system to accommodate unbiblical God the Son nonsense which adds to God's truth about his only begotten Son. Nathan, you believe in a different Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch. You are welcome to your belief. You clearly do not believe with ALL your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as there appears plenty of room there for all this additional unscriptural stuff. Very dangerous ground my friend. i think he has already done that a million times over but you keep crying "context"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 3:36:46 GMT -5
Okay Nathan, quote ONE reference from the Bible which states Jesus is God the Son. There is only one name by which man may be saved. It is NOT Jesus Christ, God the Son. There is no salvation attached to that name. The only name by which man may be saved is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That is not half-truth. It is Full truth. The Ethiopian Eunuch before he was baptised, "believed with ALL his heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God." That was his saving faith. He believed with all his heart...not with half his heart! There was no room in his heart for all this God the Son nonsense. If a person believes with ALL their heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, there is no room in their belief system to accommodate unbiblical God the Son nonsense which adds to God's truth about his only begotten Son. Nathan, you believe in a different Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch. You are welcome to your belief. You clearly do not believe with ALL your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as there appears plenty of room there for all this additional unscriptural stuff. Very dangerous ground my friend. i think he has already done that a million times over but you keep crying "context"... No Wally, he has not once quoted a reference which states that Jesus is God the Son. Nathan, like others knows, the statement or anything like it does not appear even once in the Bible. It is a man made idea. Context is vitally important. Contextually Jesus is God in many ways, e.g. being the "express image" of God, by nature, purpose, representation, etc., but he is not in actuality God the person. That is the Father. Every true believer is also contextually God in much the same way as Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 7:13:06 GMT -5
Nathan, do you believe that sin was a possibility for Jesus (while in human form), but he overcame sin through the power of the Spirit he shares with his Father? Yes, it was possible for Jesus to sin while he in the human body/nature, but he overcame sin because he had God's nature Spirit within him. Yes, and because although he had his own "will," he never once gave in to that. In everything he did he sought to do the Father's will. Our own will leads to sin, unwittingly or otherwise! Like every human being Jesus had human nature but by virtue of the Father's divine nature which was poured into him without measure, he was fully a partaker of the divine nature! Hebrews 2: 16. "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
From the above it can easily be seen that Jesus was an ordinary human being (into whom God poured his Spirit without measure). He did not have the nature of angels (which are divine spirits) and which are less than the status of God himself. This clearly shows that the human being Jesus was in no way "God" the person. In order to become God's perfect sacrifice, Jesus became exactly one of us. It behoved him to be made like one of us completely in order that by wearing fully our moccasins he could be merciful to us sinners and to make reconciliation for our sins. He was tempted in the very same way as us and therefore could have sinned, and by this experience he could understand our temptations. Jesus Christ was God's promised standard. Where the human being Adam failed and allowing sin to enter the world, the human being Jesus defeated the power of the devil and made it possible for human beings to be reconciled to God through his life and sacrifice. God required a perfect human being sacrifice for human being sins and sent his only begotten human being Son into the world to make this sacrifice in order that we could be reconciled to him. Jesus did not come to the Earth as God himself. He did not even come as an angel of God. He came here completely and fully in a form lower than the angels. If it was God himself who came to the earth and some suggest in a combination of being fully God and fully human, then he would still have come to the Earth in a form higher than the angels which is totally refuted by the passages quoted above. We need to read what Scripture actually says rather than read into it what we want or what suits our own minds. The human being Jesus was NOT God. He was NOT even an angel. He was lower than that. He did not have the nature of the angels, far less the actual personage of God! Read scripture!
|
|
jimmy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by jimmy on Nov 11, 2014 7:29:59 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are so determined to complicate the word of God. If God saw fit to leave his written word that says Jesus was the Son of God, a familial context that essentially every human can understand, then regardless of exactly how the spirit world is comprised, that is good enough for me to believe!!
I consider myself to have at least average intelligence and I cannot get my head around the God the Son concept. It doesn't match the bible and I can only com back to the verses in Revelation about the danger of adding to the record that God has preserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 7:49:33 GMT -5
Actually I did address this very point some place earlier. Probably not in the same words, but the answer lies in the preceding verse (18). Here they are together. Verse 18 puts verse 19 into proper context. Matt. 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Does this refer to a triune God of three co-equal parts, or does it refer to one person receiving "power" from another person? Trinitarians often cite this portion of scripture in an attempt to support their argument without really thinking about it. In verse 18 the "resurrected" Jesus is confirming he has received from his God and Father his inheritance of control over God's divine power, the Holy Spirit, the most powerful and authoritative force that ever was or ever can be. This Jesus is now ruling as "Mighty God" by virtue of his "new" position, a position he had never had before. He is acting with all power under the authority of, and on behalf of his God and Father. He has the authority of the Father (God) as well as control of the Father's power (divine Spirit). All power has now been given to Jesus, but he is still subservient to his Father and God. Jesus IS now ruling as the power of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is ONE authority and just like the Revelation of Jesus Christ, it is something which he received from God. Jesus will rule with all power over the universe until he defeats all of his enemies, the last of which is death. Then he will return that power to the Father. All things are under Jesus, EXCEPT the Father. Scripture is very clear on this! Everything that Jesus did beforehand was done in the name of his Father and God, not in his own name. He was dependent upon his Father for everything and spoke only his Father's words. He was completely obedient to his Father and has now received his throne and inheritance, ruling in the position of Mighty God, but is not actually God. Since the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's power, anything done in the "invisible" God's name was by God's power, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Although it is still the same Jesus that was on the Earth, his position has greatly changed (as will happen to all true believers). He is now the ruling power; ruling on behalf of his Father with his Father's power and authority. There is only ONE power and that comes from the Father. Therefore baptising in the "name" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, represents that singular power. It is of the Father (God), through the Son, by the Father's divine power. Verses 18 and 19 MUST be understood together. Also, what were the disciples to "teach all nations?" Exactly who Jesus was, i.e, the Son of God and all that he said and did. They were to teach all nations to receive and abide in the words of Jesus. Baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, MUST be understood within the context of the teachings of Jesus, not something that is added to them. A simple analogy may be this. A police officer acts on behalf of his Police force (or Government) by the power of the law. He is often referred to as the Law. He carries out his duties on behalf of his force by the power of the law. He is authorised by his Chief Constable or Commissioner to carry out his duties and empowered to do so by the law. He is the public face of his force and everything he does is by the power of the law. The Chief Constable acts through his officers, whom he has empowered. When a police officer carries out his duties "in the "name" "singular) of the "Law," (plural on this occasion), he is doing so on behalf of those who have employed him and with the power of the law (singular). This does not make him actually be his superior, or even equal to him, nor does it make the Law a person. The Chief Constable has authorised the police officer to act on his behalf and thus conveys upon him the power of the law. In a similar way Jesus is acting on behalf of the Father by the power of the Father's Holy Spirit. God the Father = Chief Constable/Commissioner etc Jesus = Police officer The Holy Spirit = the Law The Chief Constable and Police officer are "one" in purpose. The CC is in the Officer and the Officer is in the CC by the power of the Law. The Law is identical in both. It is the power which binds them as one. However, the police officer is always 100% in subjection to the CC and carries out his will. This does NOT make the CC the police officer and vice versa, nor does it make the law a person! However, they ALL act in ONE name by virtue of their purpose. Keep in mind too, that the singular term "name", often conveys a plural meaning! Especially when used as "in the name of!" Ram - I'm sorry but this analogy doesn't make sense. You believe something and you try and massage the Scripture into that viewpoint. You are so taken up with context that you miss the overall picture of Scripture. It is such an easy concept to understand that "the name of the LORD" - one God - is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus' work on earth had been done, the revelation of who Jesus was and is was complete. He accepted the title of God, the NT writers were clear who he was and the early Christians worshipped Him as God. If you are comfortable in worshipping the "police officer" that's fine but when Paul and others refer to our Jesus as our great God and Saviour, let me assure you he is the Chief Commander, not a regular police officer. Thanks Ross, but don't take my attempt at an analogy in isolation, especially in light of all that has gone beforehand. I think the overall picture of scripture has been more than adequately addressed by myself. It is clear that there is a reluctance to accept the word of God because nowhere has anyone attempted to overthrow the scritural references that I have used to support my beliefs. Here is a challenge. Consider my post above using a few verses from the Book of Hebrews. Consider my analysis and give your critique as to where I am wrong. I have been begging for this sort of thing all along but no one rises to the challenge. I have fully explained why Jesus is now "Mighty God" but there seems to be an inability to understand this, yet it is so simple. Your remarks about worshipping a police officer is nothing more than an attempt to distract from facts inconvenient to consider. The police officer thing was an attempt to show how things work in reality, which I have stated time and again. A brief recap. God is the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is the Father's divine power. God is invisible and does everything through his Son whom he empowers by his divine Spirit. All things therefore are of God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ, by the Father's divine power the Holy Spirit. All I was attempting to show by my analogy was that the Chief Constable was the supreme authority who acted through his officers by the power of the law. It seems that this analogy made complete sense to at least one other poster!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 7:53:18 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are so determined to complicate the word of God. If God saw fit to leave his written word that says Jesus was the Son of God, a familial context that essentially every human can understand, then regardless of exactly how the spirit world is comprised, that is good enough for me to believe!! I consider myself to have at least average intelligence and I cannot get my head around the God the Son concept. It doesn't match the bible and I can only com back to the verses in Revelation about the danger of adding to the record that God has preserved. There is also a similar warning in Deuteronomy, the exact reference escapes me at the moment. God the Son is an understanding "added" to the revealed word of God. It creates a false God and all the dangers that go with it. People need to stop reading "highly recommended" books by theologians, many of whom begin with an acceptance of or understanding of things which do not line up with what God's word actually says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 8:13:08 GMT -5
Thanks Ross, but don't take my attempt at an analogy in isolation, especially in light of all that has gone beforehand. I think the overall picture of scripture has been more than adequately addressed by myself. It is clear that there is a reluctance to accept the word of God because nowhere has anyone attempted to overthrow the scritural references that I have used to support my beliefs. Here is a challenge. Consider my post above using a few verses from the Book of Hebrews. Consider my analysis and give your critique as to where I am wrong. I have been begging for this sort of thing all along but no one rises to the challenge. I have fully explained why Jesus is now "Mighty God" but there seems to be an inability to understand this, yet it is so simple. Your remarks about worshipping a police officer is nothing more than an attempt to distract from facts inconvenient to consider. The police officer thing was an attempt to show how things work in reality, which I have stated time and again. A brief recap. God is the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is the Father's divine power. God is invisible and does everything through his Son whom he empowers by his divine Spirit. All things therefore are of God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ, by the Father's divine power the Holy Spirit. All I was attempting to show by my analogy was that the Chief Constable was the supreme authority who acted through his officers by the power of the law. It seems that this analogy made complete sense to at least one other poster! Ram - many folk have been clear and have pointed out so much Scripture. If you acknowledge and worship Jesus as Mighty God that's great. "Many" on this thread? On this subject? There is a difference between the position of "Mighty God" (which is Jesus's inheritance) and the being God who is the Father and is the Mighty God's God! This has been well explained already. How about giving your analysis as to how Jesus inherited the title "Mighty God?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 8:17:37 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are so determined to complicate the word of God. If God saw fit to leave his written word that says Jesus was the Son of God, a familial context that essentially every human can understand, then regardless of exactly how the spirit world is comprised, that is good enough for me to believe!! I consider myself to have at least average intelligence and I cannot get my head around the God the Son concept. It doesn't match the bible and I can only com back to the verses in Revelation about the danger of adding to the record that God has preserved. Jimmy - well before the NT was settled Jesus was worshipped as the Son of God and God (the Son). The Scriptures are very clear on who Jesus is and there is nothing terribly complicated about it. The discussion on this thread is just not a discussion among Christians. However, it seems to be among 2x2's largely because the Bible is not well taught on tis issue. Ross, please deliver one reference which clearly shows us "from scripture" where Jesus was worshipped as "God the Son." This should be easy since the scriptures are very clear on who Jesus is and there is nothing terribly complicated about it. Defend your claim from the word of God! Since context is all important I'm sure you will provide an informative reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 8:25:35 GMT -5
Ram - Jesus, the Son of God the Father has always been Yahweh. It took a long time for folk to understand that the child that had been born was indeed Mighty God. And when they finally realised it, Jesse confirmed that it was indeed the case. Ross, when the Angel told Mary that the child within her shall be called "Mighty God and Wise Counselor" the angel was referring to the time that Jesus would, post resurrection inherit that position from his God and Father. Jesus is NOW Mighty God by virtue of his position, not because he is God in person. He is still subject to his Father and his God, who is also our Father and our God! In the OT the Word was God's servant. God expressed himself "through" his servant who was later revealed in the NT as the only begotten Son of God. God's servant appeared on behalf of and spoke on behalf of the invisible God as though God himself. Jesus later made this clear when as the Son of God he said that the words he spoke were not his, but the Father's. Also, don't think that the Worker is more disadvantaged than the theologian with Bible School background. In many ways the reverse is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 10:54:06 GMT -5
The theologian or Bible School graduate states/believes that Jesus Christ the Son of God, whilst on this Earth was both "fully God" and "fully human!"
The scriptures clearly state:
Hebrews 2:
16. "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
Jesus clearly did not even have the nature of the angels far less being fully God. Scripture clearly states that "in all things" it behove Jesus to be like his brethren (those who believe in him).
Jesus became like us in every way as human beings. Scripture makes no exceptions to Jesus human condition in comparison to our own. How many human beings do you know that are "fully God" and "fully human?"
Satan has deceived the majority of Christendom to the extent that they believe in "another Jesus," and has blinded them to the Truth of God!
If only people would read and trust the Word of God. It is Spirit and life to those who believe it. The Spirit of the Word will lead and guide us provided we abide in the word of God. The wisdom of men is an excellent vehicle for the Great Deceiver to exercise himself, knowing that men are easily led away from the simplicity that is in Christ by enticing doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 11, 2014 10:58:53 GMT -5
@ram
Your challenge to Ross - where Jesus is 'worshipped as God ...'
Mt 2:2 for an early start.
Do a little Greek verb study of 'worship'.
4352. proskuneo
|
|