Jesus is God

Jesus is God


  • Total voters
    121

Rosenritter

New member
Then prove me wrong friend. Enlighten me where I have gone wrong.

My thoughts come from many years of prayer and study. I do not claim to know it all yet, but I am working on it. My understanding was given to me from many different sources my friend.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

Your misunderstanding is your assumption that God is godless. I've seen your response multiple times and you keep coming back to that one logical misstep. If God speaking on earth can be said to have a God, then God is his God.
 

Rosenritter

New member
The Son of God is the Son of God.

The word "God" is the title of a position, like "President" or "King".

The Son of a King is not the King. The Son of God is not God. There is only ONE God, YHWH.

All things were created except YHWH.

Christ is a creature, a creation.

God created all through his first creation, the logos (Christ)the spirit Son. The Son was sent to become human in the body of Jesus. This is how God was made known "manifested" to mankind.

Speaking in Hebrews, Paul describes the meaning of "Son of God" and it's used in terms that can only apply to God. Without beginning or end of days, without end of life, and so forth. I see much argument that Jesus cannot be God because he is the Son of God. Where is this defined as being exclusive? If we use the biblical definitions, it seems to be rather the opposite: the Son of God cannot be anything but God, as shown by the inherent qualities of the Son of God.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Nope, Jesus is NOT God. He said he was God's SON. (John 10:34-36) To ignore what he said is a sad reflection on you. How can anyone throw his sayings out the window? He said that the Father was "the only true God" (John 17:3) and he called the Father "my God" (John 20:17). It's not nice to ignore God's Son.

Also, I might add, the scripture in Revelation that talks about the rider on a white horse being the King of kings and Lord of lords does not say that GOD is the rider. It says the Word of God is the one on the horse, and King of kings, etc. Someone is ADDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

John 1:1 ... The Word was God.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I did not announce my gender.
Yes, you did.

There is definitely something wrong with calling someone a liar and talking about something they do not want to talk about.
You can hush up about it any time.


Now why do you want to keep talking about gender?
To correct you talking about it.
You keep claiming you have never said here at TOL if you were a woman.
But you did.
And what's more, it is the truth.
I don't why you make such a fuss about it.

So dry your eyes.
The universe is not going to crack because folks know the truth.
The truth will set you free!
 

God's Truth

New member
Yes, you did.

You can hush up about any time.


To correct you talking about it.
You keep claiming you have never said here at TOL if you were a woman.
But you did.
And what's more, it is the truth.
I don't why you make such a fuss about it.

So dry your eyes.
The universe is not going to crack because you are a woman.

I am not going to keep defending myself against your harassment. Think what you want, I couldn't care any less.
 

Rosenritter

New member
That is not how it works because the Byzantine text type has way more representatives simply because in the eastern empire the common people were allowed to have the scriptures in their private possession, (i.e. local congregations and their congregation heads throughout the eastern empire). Because of that fact the Byzantine types were copied and reproduced thousands of times more than the Western text type during a period of about a thousand years. Thus the tendency for error to be introduced in the Byzantine types, and thus likewise, the reason for the overwhelming quantity of manuscript and fragment evidence supporting the Byzantine text type. This is meaningless when it comes to which is more reliable because the older manuscripts are primarily where the readings do not agree with the majority Byzantine types. "Majority" thus means nothing more than quantity, because it does not reflect any superior quality whatsoever, and rather increases the opportunity for private doctrine and error to creep into the text over such a lengthy period of time. In the west, (Rome, Europe), the common people, for a very long period of time, were not allowed to have the scriptures in their possession, and therefore, since the scripture was only in the hands of "the church" elite, the Western text type is less common but older. In essence your argument is for quantity but such notion misrepresents the reality because mere quantity does not suggest what you assume. Instead what it more likely suggests is that more people like yourself, who believed that "Jesus is God Almighty", copied and copied and copied the Byzantine text type, over and over, so many times in the eastern empire that your doctrine slowly eventually crept into the text. But that quantity does not make your stance correct because all of your quantity is more recent than the minority which refute your stance.

No one having drunk old wine desires new, for he says, "The old is Chrestos!" :chuckle:

When you have the same text copied and recopied many many times, as the Byzantine text, and it all comes out in the end in agreement, that points to consistency and a common source. It is highly unlikely that thousands of random sources will all come to the same unanimous conclusion, is it? That's not how it works.

In contrast, the Western Roman texts show obvious corruption on their face. Errors, cross-outs and corrections, disagreements with each other. The standard practice when using the Western type is to find even one manuscript that favors the preferred view and to go with that one in spite of all others.

For integrity of scripture, Byzantine > Roman
 

Rosenritter

New member
I am not going to keep defending myself against your harassment. Think what you want, I couldn't care any less.

Are you male or female? Please answer the question directly so that you have no more room to complain that people don't know. Considering you harassed me claiming I was Evil Eye and demanded like answer, you should be willing to restate this again at least.

And yes, we all know you're female. You've said it before, or at least someone did and you never corrected it. I used to assume you were male until I saw otherwise.

And now that I think about it, it seems rather hypocritical for you to accuse me of cross-dressing because I use a male avatar (as a male) when you use a male avatar (as a woman.) Not that your avatar would matter otherwise.
 

daqq

Well-known member
When you have the same text copied and recopied many many times, as the Byzantine text, and it all comes out in the end in agreement, that points to consistency and a common source. It is highly unlikely that thousands of random sources will all come to the same unanimous conclusion, is it? That's not how it works.

In contrast, the Western Roman texts show obvious corruption on their face. Errors, cross-outs and corrections, disagreements with each other. The standard practice when using the Western type is to find even one manuscript that favors the preferred view and to go with that one in spite of all others.

For integrity of scripture, Byzantine > Roman

Nope.

Alexandrian > Roman|Byzantine
 

RealityJerk

New member
No, the mediator must be God. God is in a position to reach down to man. Man is not in a position to reach up to God. God can become a man, but man cannot become God. It is within the power of God and his right and perogative to become man, it is blasphemous and outside the power of a man to become God.

Is it God's right and perogative, to become a God more powerful than Himself? Can God become a righteous evil God? How about a truthful liar or an all knowing ignoramus? An omnipotent impotent? An all powerful, powerless one? If God has the right and perogative to become and do anything, can God become Satan? Again I ask, can an all powerful God, create another God, more powerful than Himself?


The point is, that God can't do certain things. He doesn't have the right, prerogative, power, to undermine and violate His own nature and character.
 

daqq

Well-known member
I meant Alexandrian not Roman. Byzantine > Alexandrian. Alexandrian is notoriously corrupt.

Lol, "notoriously" according to who? Trinitarian scholarship of course. But since you are not even a Trinitarian you are merely piggybacking on their error because it supports your own privately held theory. Elohim is not a man. Elohim is non-corporeal SPIRIT. No one has seen or beheld Elohim at any time: just as the authors of the Apostolic writings have stated in two places in the scripture, (in support of the Torah and full Tanach O/T teaching on the matter).
 

God's Truth

New member
Telling the truth is not harassment.
The truth is you are a woman.

Again, think what you want.

It is harassment when you keep calling someone a liar and speaking about what they don't want to speak about.

Talk about the thread topic and stop talking about me. Stop harassing me.
 

God's Truth

New member
Are you male or female? Please answer the question directly so that you have no more room to complain that people don't know. Considering you harassed me claiming I was Evil Eye and demanded like answer, you should be willing to restate this again at least.

And yes, we all know you're female. You've said it before, or at least someone did and you never corrected it. I used to assume you were male until I saw otherwise.

And now that I think about it, it seems rather hypocritical for you to accuse me of cross-dressing because I use a male avatar (as a male) when you use a male avatar (as a woman.) Not that your avatar would matter otherwise.

I didn't harass you about being Evil Eye. Asking you if you are Evil Eye is not harassment.

You are the one who started harassing me about my screen name and calling me foul names. You are a disrespectful person and a hypocrite.

Glory and you were arguing about your gender.

You should have learned your lesson then but you don't have empathy and refuse to be taught it.

You are a galactic hero, according to you, and your picture is feminine. You don't like being told that then stop attacking others about their screen name and avatar.
 

God's Truth

New member
In case there is a new Reader who doesn't know what has been going on, Rosenritter keeps harassing me about my screen name and now my avatar. He also keeps calling me GE for Great Ego. He is the one with the Great Ego.
His screen name is the name of a galactic hero, according to his own guidelines about screen names it makes him a galactic hero. I think that makes him delusional, and that he is a hypocrite and can't see it.
 

CherubRam

New member
John 1:1 ... The Word was God.


John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."
 

God's Truth

New member

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

I am not sure what your point is.

Jesus is God. He is in charge and you must obey him.

Rosenritter is a modalist and says that there is no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existing at the same time.

He goes against what is plainly written.

So what exactly do you believe?
 

God's Truth

New member
Who cares about Greek? God brings His Word to us in our language.

Why do people wrestle with trying to turn English back to Greek then English again?
 

CherubRam

New member
Psa 82:1-8 KJV
(1) <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
(3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
(5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.


It would help if you knew the scripture that Jesus was referring to. They said he called himself God. And in response Jesus called them gods within the context of that psalm. What is the relationship between God and the gods in that psalm?

* God judges the earth. Jesus told us that he shall judge the earth.
* God inherits all nations. We are told that when Jesus returns he shall inherit all nations.
* God judges the gods, which die like men and fall as princes. Jesus has life everlasting and the keys of death and hell.

It's amazing that the Unitarian argument keeps impaling itself on this passage over and over again. The verse destroys their argument. They're hoping that you don't read further.

Who does the Judging is irrelevant to this conversation.
 

CherubRam

New member
I am not sure what your point is.

Jesus is God. He is in charge and you must obey him.

Rosenritter is a modalist and says that there is no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existing at the same time.

He goes against what is plainly written.

So what exactly do you believe?

The ORIGINAL BIBLE TEXT says that God (Yahwah) is the ONLY Divine Eternal. The word (God) is an interpretation in place of the translation "divine."
 
Top