Right Divider
Body part
His Father... who is God.
The Son "given" things refers to His HUMANITY and not His DEITY.
Jesus is also the CREATOR of ALL THINGS.
Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
The Son "given" things refers to His HUMANITY and not His DEITY.
Jesus is also the CREATOR of ALL THINGS.
Jesus was given sovereignty of his own having successfully lived the incarnate life while subject to the will of the Father.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Are you three years old? Jesus is the Third Person of the Trinity. When his BODY died on the cross he went to preach in sheol. He never DIED and God never DIED, He gave up his spirit of his own will and then took his body back up of his own will and his own power as GOD.
The good news that Jesus is God is that because of his death on the cross, our sins can be forgiven and heaven is opened up to us. If he were not God and he died on the cross, all it would serve is a good example of how we ought to love our friends, right, or an innocent man going to death and how tragic that is. But if he is God, then his death on the cross has infinite value. Heaven has opened up to the human race, and my sins can be forgiven, and that I can receive the life of God that I need to actually exist in heaven, which is my ultimate destiny, where I will find perfect, complete human happiness. That is good news.
NWL
Active member
I've been meaning to reply to the above for some time but I think the forum went some site maintenance so wasn't able to.
In relation to the forgiveness of sins according to the law and the "giving of blood" (Israelite sacrifices and Jesus corresponding sacrifice) what was needed, did blood merely need to be given without death of the giver of blood, or rather, does the person/thing whose blood is being shed need to die? (please answer if you will)
The answer should be simple, an Israelite couldn't present a sacrifice to the priest and ask the priest to simply drain some blood from the animal for the forgiveness of sins, rather the animal had to be put to death. The "giving of blood" in relation to sacrificial offerings works hand in hand with the death of the animal. Likewise, Jesus giving his blood is in reference to his death and not merely him bleeding for us, otherwise, there would have been no point in him having to die for us, he could have simply drained some of his blood out. This is why Acts 20:28 makes no sense when rendering the verse, "God gave his blood"; it implies God had to have died, which we both know is impossible. This is why some bibles render the verse:
Acts 20:28 "It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son."
The other questions too tough for you I'm guessing.
This is where the Trinitarian doctrine that accepts Jesus as the GodMan falls apart. The giving of Jesus blood was in relation to his death, on one hand, you'll say "God gave his blood" but then you deny that God died according to the same logic. Either God bled on the cross and died for us or he didn't, you can't pick and choose which aspect you do and do not want apply to Christ. If Jesus humanity is in union with his deity and the person Jesus died, then it implies the deity along with his humanity died, you'll need to bring more evidence to the table that suggests the diety part of him did not die other than your assertion it did not.
In relation to the forgiveness of sins according to the law and the "giving of blood" (Israelite sacrifices and Jesus corresponding sacrifice) what was needed, did blood merely need to be given without death of the giver of blood, or rather, does the person/thing whose blood is being shed need to die? (please answer if you will)
The answer should be simple, an Israelite couldn't present a sacrifice to the priest and ask the priest to simply drain some blood from the animal for the forgiveness of sins, rather the animal had to be put to death. The "giving of blood" in relation to sacrificial offerings works hand in hand with the death of the animal. Likewise, Jesus giving his blood is in reference to his death and not merely him bleeding for us, otherwise, there would have been no point in him having to die for us, he could have simply drained some of his blood out. This is why Acts 20:28 makes no sense when rendering the verse, "God gave his blood"; it implies God had to have died, which we both know is impossible. This is why some bibles render the verse:
Acts 20:28 "It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son."
The other questions too tough for you I'm guessing.
beloved57
Well-known member
Lonster
Member
:nono: Acts 20:28 READ. LEARN!
Hebrews 9:22 God cannot die. Jesus was both man and God. If you understood Trinitarian theology, you'd not have hang-ups like the one above. You simply display a lack of grasping and understanding and lack the grace to learn or listen, preferring your own ideas over and against what you obviously didn't bother to grasp in the first place. Read the link instead of creating strawmen to knock down.
This is rationalizing instead of just reading the scriptures and going no further. If you and I would work harder on just listening to God and not trying to read His mind further than is given in scripture, we'd be better servants and better in conveying what He says verses what we of any group think (passing it off as if it is from God).
We shouldn't get so caught up our ideas, that we redefine death. The first death is the death of a body. It isn't the cessation of life, but life of a tent we dwell in. It was the 'end' of Jesus' body. That is all it is. "IF" someone asks if God died, they are meaning something very different, they are asking if God, who is not a physical being, can 'cease to exist.' The answer is "no." If you ask if God can die bodily, the answer is still 'no' because God is Spirit. Read above, Jesus had two natures. "A body You have prepared for me." TRY and remember trinitarians are PARTLY 'arian' in our name. We just aren't going to dismiss other scriptures or make rash statements like many cults do.
Well, I see you have this same accusation for everyone. Your every thought isn't gold and doesn't warrant a response to your every whim. You aren't that great, smart, or engaging. It is a chore trying to respond to you because you have demonstrated ignorance of what we believe (not all your fault because the argument often has a trinitarian arguing like a modalist. We aren't. We about 1/2 agree with you). Second, you make statements like someone "can't" answer your questions. The answer is "Nope, not at all, just not going to take the time to engage your every whim." You ARE expected to OWN your own theology education. While we can answer every one of your questions or points, this is a forum and it is restricted to short responses, not a thesis. You have a bad habit of breaking 'forum' etiquette and trying to make these post very long. I've only written four short paragraphs here. Most of us don't want to go much longer than that so truncate our discussions with you because of the nature of these forums and our use of time. Because of that, most WILL pick and choose what to respond to, and you need to be okay with that.
Nanja
Well-known member
beloved57
Well-known member
Bless you Sister Nanja !
Nanja
Well-known member
Bless you too Brother !
NWL
Active member
I'm aware God cannot die, this is the very reason I contest the idea 'God gave his blood' according to Acts 20:38. As I said to beloved57, the giving of blood is in relation to the death of the thing whose blood is shed. Thus, if God gave his blood according to Acts 20:28 then it was God who died and ransomed his life on behalf of mankind. As you yourself stated "God cannot die", therefore it couldn't have been God who died; this is consistent with the trinitarian perspective that only Jesus flesh died, yet beloved57 and you yourself say God did give his blood which implies Jesus diety died by giving his blood. The whole idea is inconsistent with the scripture, hence why some bible translations make it clear the "blood" is in relation to Jesus and not the God who is the subject of the verse (Acts 20:28 - "It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.").
I'm using both reason and the scriptures hand in hand, I think this is what God would expect of us given the fact he's given us the ability to reason and think. I am taking the scripture for what it states, Acts 20:28 doesn't necessitate the blood to be God's blood, this is undeniable. I've said this previously, but, if I refer to my Son or my brother as my "blood" this expresses they are my relative, a family member, this is all Acts 20:28 is doing; Acts 20:28 states "shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood", the 'blood' is merely in reference to God's Son who is his 'blood' by being his own literal Son. Again, many scholars understand this to be the meaning of the text hence why they reference the Son as the one being spoken of despite the lack of Greek saying it is.
I nowhere defined death for you to say I redefined death, I made mention to the sacrifices in the OT and how the animals whose blood was used for the forgiveness of sins had to be put to death, but this is clearly scriptural (See Leviticus 4).
If you would answer that God, whether in flesh or not, cannot die, then he cannot give his blood according to the sacrificial manner in which Jesus gave his blood, since, Jesus gave his blood in a corresponding manner to that of the animals in the OT. Jesus giving his blood was in relation to his death, the same way the animals in the OT giving of blood was in relation to their death. I understand the trinity doctrine and how Jesus has two natures according to it, but this does not explain away the inconsistency. If only Jesus humanity died then you cannot say is deity gave his blood, as again, the giving of blood was in relation to his death. If God gave his blood then it implies Jesus diety also died.
I'm more than happy and ready to learn and listen, but one must actually make scriptural points and use logic and reason hand with the bible instead of assertions and man-made concepts, in order for progress to be made.
I do not think I am great, smart, or engaging, all I know is that during the course of discussions with people, such as yourself and beloved57, hard questions conveniently get left unanswered. It's natural for the questioner to presume the person who does not answer the hard questions but cherry-pick the ones they want to answer as 'unable' to answer the tough questions, this does not necessarily mean that they are unable to and I accept they may not want to or perhaps do not have the time, it's just less likely given the circumstances.
I do not ask for anyone to write such long replies, nor do I expect it; in fact, I prefer when people write less. The issue is it's hard to get a point across at times without much speech or written word. This is why questions are a good thing, the issue with you and others is that a single question to a particular point will be asked and get left unanswered, the conversation then gets to a stalemate or becomes circular because of the unanswered question and typically another question will arise to a linked topic which also gets left unanswered, this goes on and on until there are multiple questions which are left unanswered leaving the discussion without progress. In both formal and informal debates it's normal to ask questions and normal to answer questions; please do not attempt to pin blame on me because of your refusal to answer multiple questions ending up with them being tallied against you.
Let's go back to basics, I will pick one of the many questions I have previously asked you and await your answer, hopefully, you'll answer and we can progress from there. The main topic of our discussion was if there are others who are called G-god who are not the 'one God' and who the originator of creation is. You've previously stated Jesus is the originator of creation and that because all things have been created through him he must be the originator because of the strong language used ("All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existences" John 1:3). My question is this, in Hebrews 2:8 it states God subjected "all things" under man and "left nothing that is not subject to him", since God and the Angels would no doubt be included in the "all things", according to your own reasoning, does this mean God and the Angels were subject to Man, or does the "all things" and God "leaving nothing not subject to Man" not inclusive of God himself and the Angels?
NWL
Active member
The idea that God's infiniteness played some role in the ransom is unbiblical beloved57 and shows your biblical ignorance. Firstly, there is no such thing as infinite injustice or unrighteousness for there to be a need for God's infiniteness to come into play. After Armageddon, the 1000 years, and after Satan is cast into the lake of fire, Revelation states, "He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” Notice, death, sorrow, and pain will be no more and they will be "gone forever". Therefore to say God's infiniteness is needed when the bible speaks of a limit to the injustice and sin of mankind makes a mockery of God if he did use his own nature to redeem man as there is a clear limit to mankind's imperfection.
God has existed eternally prior to mankind and will exist eternally after he destroys death and removes all pain from the world forever, as per Rev 21, man has only been on this planet for a nanosecond compared to God. To say God's infiniteness is still needed after he brings the world to peace and perfection is unwarranted and not necessary.
You say things such as, "God which died not, gave efficacy to His Blood" like this is somehow evidence, this is merely an idea and an assertion, where is the scriptural evidence that states such a thing my friend? Saying God gave efficacy to his blood so that it could satisfy Infinite justice implies the life that was lost through the blood was Gods, how else could you say the infinite nature was in effect. Again, either God along with his infiniteness died along with his flesh, or only Jesus flesh died. You cannot cherry-pick aspects Jesus deity nature and apply it to the death of Jesus without saying the deity part of Jesus died too.
NWL
Active member
No, as I said before it shows your ignorance, the difference is that I demonstrated how it shows your ignorance whereas you've merely asserted it in relation to me.
You say "Sin is against Infinite Majesty" but where does the bible express such an idea? Again, you are coming up with man-made doctrine rather than letting the bible speak for itself. As I showed before death, pain and suffering will be gone after the destruction of Satan and 1000 years, there will be no sin after this since death itself is destroyed, meaning no one will sin and be punished by death as a punishment every again.
(Revelation 20:14, 21:4) "..And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire... And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away..”
Notice the above, death and Hell itself are destroyed by being thrown in the lake of fire in Rev 20:14, this is further expressed in Rev 21:4 when it clarifies 'death is no more'. Sin entered into the world and produced death, the bible makes this very clear, "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12). Notice how Paul states sin came about by man, namely Adam, and death through sin; we through Adam inherited sin and death. If death is therefore destroyed then sin no longer exists. So your idea that "sin is against Infinite Majesty" is again unbiblical and nowhere expressed in the scriptures.
This answer is not adequate enough in answering what I asked, as I will explain.
(John 17:22-24) I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me. father, I want those whom you have given me to be with me where I am, in order that they may look upon my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.
Notice what Jesus says in v24, "in order that they may look upon my glory that you have given me", Jesus clearly states he was given glory by the Father; in the preceding verse, v22, he states regarding his followers, "I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one". Beloved57, you seem to think by using different words in your response in relation to how christ and his followers each have glory that this somehow negates my reasoning. You state "Jesus shares the ESSENTIAL Glory of God" and "followers PARTAKE of a 'communicated glory'", how does this explain away my question? It doesn't! The Bible nowhere makes such a distinction, rather, it's explicitly clear they share the same glory. Even by your answer, the question remains by what you states, as your answer still suggest others share/partake of God's glory! How is it possible others can partake/share YHWH's glory if scripture states YHWH does NOT share his glory! According to your own reasoning, your answer still implies followers of Christ are YHWH himself as they partake/share something YHWH does NOT share!
keypurr
Well-known member
How many Gods do you have? There is only one. And Jesus has a God. The son is the express image of his Father, ALL IMAGES are creations. The son is the first creation, Col 1:15. God is not a trinity.
keypurr
Well-known member
If he did not die your faith is worth nothing.
beloved57
Well-known member
Jesus had a God and Father and is God
NWL
Active member
I'm in the dark you say, and yet it is you who is unable to prove biblically the things you claim, and yet I am. You are not worth conversing with as you are either unwilling or unable to reason. If you choose to converse and reply back to me please bring scriptural evidence to back up your claims instead of just asserting and claiming things.