Ok...thanks...but I need them to settle it before I can consider it
Oh and I also only got names for two but not three...
We remain an image of Father and begotten Son...as from Adam Eve...
Jesus CANNOT be Jehovah/YHVH God
- Thread starter Dartman
- Start date
- Status
Ok...thanks...but I need them to settle it before I can consider it
Oh and I also only got names for two but not three...
We remain an image of Father and begotten Son...as from Adam Eve...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
allowing himself to be captured by a bunch of retarded spaniards? :idunno:
glorydaz
Well-known member
His time had not yet come, "DUH!"
Like I said, they knew exactly what He was saying....that He was God. He didn't have to say, "DUH!...Of COURSE I am God!!". Which is why they "sought again" to take Him.
John 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
His Time had not yet come. Pay attention to that when you are so flippant in referring to our Lord Jesus Christ.
John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
John 7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. 20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
John 7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. 20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
You got jokes about martyrs? Not surprised...
“First they mock you...”
Your side of the inquisitor’s table was known long ago...
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's such a tiny difference in the overall scheme of the Trinity, that I don't think it's worth making much of it. It's really just a single word that the East and West differ over, 'filioque,' which when added to the end of the clause, concerning the Spirit, that He "proceeds from the Father," makes the clause, through the addition of the one Latin word 'filioque,' into, "proceeds from the Father, and from the Son."
The Eastern bishops rejected that the Pope at the time pronounced 'filioque' to be authentically Apostolic, and thus schismed, this occurring in the year 1054. So the difference is between how authentic the Pope's Apostolic oral tradition ('Sacred Tradition,' in Catholic parlance) is, as compared with the tradition received by the East. The East deny that the Pope's received tradition is authentic wrt 'filioque,' but the Pope at the time, and the papacy ever since, maintained that 'filioque' is authentically Apostolic, even in the face of schism, so if the popes all along have known that they're wrong on the point, then the papacy is certainly in at least one critical way, corrupt.
I don't believe that it is, but that is the fact of the matter.
Right, you just have to believe Paul's Gospel, the Gospel, in Christ, etc. No single Christian tradition has the market cornered on the Gospel.
fwiw.
What does that mean to you? WAS Jesus God at that point? If so, why did he deceive them by saying their FIRST commandment was, Love the Lord your God? He did not EVER correct their thinking regarding WHO their God was, in fact he ENDORSED their theology when he told the Samaritan woman .. Ye worship ye know not what, WE know what WE worship, for salvation is of the Jews/
Jesus worshiped the God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus said God is in heaven.
You are just as wrong as they were .... which is why Jesus CORRECTED THEM, (and you)G said:
John 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
This is talking about the hour of his death. How is that relevant to whether he was GOD, or not???G said:
Traditional systems tend to insist that their writings all mesh together perfectly. Even if they don't really.
This is a common argument, but it doesn't work. The main reason is that Hebrew names that refer to god are very common. Including Immanuel (I know one, and he is not God). "God is with us" is a parallel to "God will have grace" (Yochanan, the English "John"), "God will strengthen" - Ezekiel, and dozens of other examples.
Y'all can work your butts off to deny Jesus is God. God, inspiring the writers, says that Jesus is God. Jesus is called Immanuel. Jesus declares he is the I Am.
But, hey, you are free to deny, excuse, twist and explain away what God has shared.
If you deny Jesus, know that he denies you as well.
Your quibbling over what is a grammatical curiosity in English. The word "is" isn't used in Hebrew the way it is in English.
Here is an example from Genesis (In Hebrew this would be "here an example"):
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
The literal Hebrew says "And the Lord God said, not good..."
It works in Biblical Hebrew, but English needs that "is" (or be, or was..." for grammatical reasons.
Chair
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're free to generalize this specific, but imo it's unwarranted. Christ's Resurrection was a 'one-off' event in history, there's never been anything like it before or since (presume that it's true out of charity for a moment, just to appreciate the Christian view), so everything that emanated from the Resurrection, which first and foremost includes these men the Church calls the Apostles, are just as unique.
The story is that these men were uniquely gifted by the Spirit of truth /God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They were given the teaching authority of Christ Himself, to both teach, and to approve of what others taught, if and only if it aligned with what they knew to be true, again, through their unique gift of the Spirit so that they could teach authoritatively, the actual Word /words of God Himself.
And it's unwarranted also imo, to insist that the different Apostolic witnesses contradict each other, when there is at least one critical way in which they do not, but that they are each speaking truth about the same thing, that thing being the tree growing from the single, unique seed of Christ's Resurrection, the one Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV).
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It does work, because Matthew took the time to present it significantly. One, the name is not "God will have grace," or, "God will strengthen," or even "God will judge /is my judge" (Daniel) or "who is God?" (Michael), so those are all false parallels, apples and oranges. And two, it is during the angel's annunciation of Christ's birth that Matthew included this quotation, the angel said He would be called "God with us."
And it's "a common argument," because it's what the Church has been saying all along. Engaging in this sort of debate about what the real meaning of Christian Scripture is, without taking into account what those who lived during and immediately after the Apostolic era believed, is at best a re-invention of the wheel, and otherwise, it is historical revisionism. imo.
Common? Immanuel is common? Yes, people have been named variants of that name throughout the past two thousand years, but as I mentioned earlier, Immanuel is only found in THREE (threes are everywhere, btw... http://kgov.com/three) places in Scripture, all in reference to Jesus. Twice in the Old Testament, in Isaiah, and once in the New Testament, in Matthew.
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah7:14&version=NKJV
He will pass through Judah, He will overflow and pass over, He will reach up to the neck; And the stretching out of his wings Will fill the breadth of Your land, O Immanuel. - Isaiah 8:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah8:8&version=NKJV
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” - Matthew 1:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew1:23&version=NKJV
In addition to that, you and those who reject that Jesus is God profane the name Immanuel by saying that it means "God is for us and not against us."
You know what profane means, right?
The name means "god is with us", and it does not mean that the person with that name is god. It just plain doesn't.
Whether or not Jesus is God is a problem for Christians to ponder. It is a non-issue for me.
Like I said, you profane the name "Immanuel".
If Jesus is God, then calling it a "non-issue" will be held against you on Judgement Day. If He is, you should acknowledge Him as such, because He deserves your worship.
genuineoriginal
New member
That is what I say to people that try to convince me that the Bible teaches that God is Triune.
genuineoriginal
New member
You still need to prove that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God instead of the Son of God.
genuineoriginal
New member
Not quite.
I was pointing out an associative fallacy by using reductio ad absurdum.
Funny how they forget what came first and then years later new understanding and creeds...
As if reverse engineering this has us remain trinitarians...
Or Sunday keeping ham eaters lol
genuineoriginal
New member
There is a difference between not trusting the Bible itself and not trusting the doctrines of men.
People often rely upon certain translations of the Bible in order to support their doctrines.
The first thing to check is the context.
Colossians 1:12-19 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; |
It appears that Paul keeps switching back and forth from talking about God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son of God.
When Paul mentions the invisible God and that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature, Paul appears to pause in speaking about Jesus Christ the Son of God in order to emphasize that the invisible God is the one who created all things in heaven and in earth.
- Status