ECT The new rules for the Exclusively Christian forum
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
OK, I understand this now. You will still need to accept that if someone posts something about a relative topic, such as free will, where any psychologist knows all animals have freedom of will, I would wish to point this out. On the other hand, if you are contemplating a serious Biblical question about a literal meaning of text, then I respect that and will not comment. One needs to be realistic and fair; topics not strictly Christian Biblical questions, or notions should be open to debate by everyone and posted under religion.
I am a Christian Deist who believes in God, but not the strictly this-planet-human-exclusive attention that literal Biblical Christians adhere to, thus I make my case and adhere to the right not to interfere with honest posts that assume a Christian and literal Biblical perspective.
I am a Christian Deist who believes in God, but not the strictly this-planet-human-exclusive attention that literal Biblical Christians adhere to, thus I make my case and adhere to the right not to interfere with honest posts that assume a Christian and literal Biblical perspective.
Re:Christians only board and "Christ is NOT God," Eloyhim, thread
Re:Christians only board and "Christ is NOT God," Eloyhim, thread
Since i'm so much for free speech, and the benefits of free speech,
i never (except now), and never plan to, make requests or inquiries like the one i'm about to.
And i'm not protesting, nor against particularly, unbelievers, nonchristians, heretics, antichrists, atheists, etc, posting and threading on the "Christians-only" board.
Nor do i call for any censorship, editing, removal, deletion, of their threads, posts, or comments.
Except, this one time, and any future ones nearly exactly like it:
Since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God, for all true Christians, by definition:
would you please remove Elohyim's "Christ Jesus is NOT God" thread from this board and move it to the general religion board as quickly as you can?
That isn't a mere atheistic, heretical, or nonchristian title. Nor is it a question. Rather it states clearly and definitively the opposite of the most (nearly "only") basic fact, belief, reality, and faith that makes a Christian a Christian. Namely, that the Son of God, the one God, is God. There's only one God.
It's offensive to the max even to see that title on a, nominally, "Christians-only" board.
Even though i agree with most, and recognize, most of its Christian content, including the threader's.
I ask not for it's deletion from your service totally. But simply it's quick removal to general "Religion" board.
Or addition of question mark at title's end
Thanks so much
Re:Christians only board and "Christ is NOT God," Eloyhim, thread
Since i'm so much for free speech, and the benefits of free speech,
i never (except now), and never plan to, make requests or inquiries like the one i'm about to.
And i'm not protesting, nor against particularly, unbelievers, nonchristians, heretics, antichrists, atheists, etc, posting and threading on the "Christians-only" board.
Nor do i call for any censorship, editing, removal, deletion, of their threads, posts, or comments.
Except, this one time, and any future ones nearly exactly like it:
Since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God, for all true Christians, by definition:
would you please remove Elohyim's "Christ Jesus is NOT God" thread from this board and move it to the general religion board as quickly as you can?
That isn't a mere atheistic, heretical, or nonchristian title. Nor is it a question. Rather it states clearly and definitively the opposite of the most (nearly "only") basic fact, belief, reality, and faith that makes a Christian a Christian. Namely, that the Son of God, the one God, is God. There's only one God.
It's offensive to the max even to see that title on a, nominally, "Christians-only" board.
Even though i agree with most, and recognize, most of its Christian content, including the threader's.
I ask not for it's deletion from your service totally. But simply it's quick removal to general "Religion" board.
Or addition of question mark at title's end
Thanks so much
Last edited:
Chandler
New member
Can writer show a dictionary that defines a Christian as being someone believing that Christ Jesus is Almighty God?
Letsargue
New member
Chandler
New member
Doesn't say that the Word was Almighty God. Does however say that the Word was with God.
And it is unreasonable to conclude that the Word was the same God that he was with.
But if the organisers of TOL decree that "Exclusive Christian Theology" is only for those who believe Jesus to be Almighty God then I shall abide by their wishes and never intrude here again.
Letsargue
New member
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
Yes, the same one is called the Almighty God also. No one cares if you don't believe it.
I may be wrong, but I thought, if you claim to be Christian, that was the deal. And if you was anything else, you have to be some-what honest in learning, and not snotty.
I'm probably the farthest out than anyone else here, but I declare Christianity and Christ as in the New Testment 100%.
And it said: "The Word was God, and the Word was with God", and also, the Word became flesh and dwelt with them", "God with us". That's what God, and the Word of God said. Maybe not your God, but mine did say that.
Peace.
---Paul---
Chandler
New member
I don't want you to think that I am short-changing you. But what you say here isn't exactly correct.
Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus "Mighty God" but not "Almighty God".
I fully accept that Jesus is "Mighty God". He is also the "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:6. However (as a Trinitarian would agree -- although Writer would disagree --) Jesus is not God the Father. Jesus is a different person, Mighty but not Almighty. Jesus said: "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
Letsargue
New member
1Corinthians 15:22-24 KJV
Christ delivers up the Kingdom to “GOD THE FATHER”, Christ does do that. – NOW:
John 14:3-4 KJV
Who delivers up the kingdom? (Christ).
And who is the receiver of the kingdom? (Christ).
The Word was with God and the Word was God, every time.
Christ delivers up the Kingdom as the Son, But in “THAT” moment of the twinkling of an eye, as fast as the lighting from the east to the west, at the last trump.
Old things have passed away, behold all things becomes NEW.
He shall be called the everlasting Father, the Mighty God, God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Kings. (The all mighty God, there’s none more mighty)?
Psalms 136:2 KJV
Daniel 2:47 KJV
---Paul---
Chandler
New member
Revelation chapter 20 depicts Christ and others ruling over the earth, not for just the twinkling of an eye, but for 1,000 years (verse 4). Only at the end of this 1,000 years do we read that "death" is destroyed in the lake of fire (verse 14).
1 Corinthians 15:24-26 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
So: Christ is given rulership over the earth by God the Father (Psalms 2:8; Daniel 2:44). He rules for 1,000 years bringing mankind to perfection. Then Satan is given one final chance to test mankind's integrity (Revelation 20:7, 8). All on earth who become corrupted by Satan are then destroyed (fire from heaven). And Satan himself is also cast into the lake of fire. Then last of all death is destroyed.
After the dust settles it must be at this point in time that Christ finally "hands over the kingdom to God the Father".
Both Jesus and his Father are alled "Mighty God", (El-Gibbor), but only the Father is called "Almighty" (El-Shaddai). I believe that this distinguishes the Son from the Father.
We could start a whole new thread on John 1:1. The literal Greek reads: "God was the Word". Even Godrulz has said that the anarthrous "theos" in this phrase is qualitative. That is, it describes the Word in some way without necessarily identifying who the Word is. Because of this some translations read similar to Moffatt's: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos (Word) was God".
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that John is describing some divine godlike quality about the Word. But it is not reasonable to conclude that the Word was the same God that he was with. If he was that God then he could not stand in relation to that God.
Letsargue
New member
What all are you saying?
Are you not helping along a few scriptures to show what you believe? Why not just have Faith in them as they are?
Peace.
---Paul---
Chandler
New member
Where have I not shown faith in the scriptures as they are?
Do you have any comments on Revelation ch. 20?
The early followers of Jesus heard and saw first-hand the words and deeds of one who was clearly the incarnation of God.
Jesus was subsequently interpreted as the manifestation of the divine in the world.
And Jesus taught them that there was a divine kingdom that was accessible and that it was ruled not by Caesar but by the God celebrated by Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus was subsequently interpreted as the manifestation of the divine in the world.
And Jesus taught them that there was a divine kingdom that was accessible and that it was ruled not by Caesar but by the God celebrated by Jesus of Nazareth.
Letsargue
New member
What can I tell you, other than it's a vision that was given to John to enterrupt, and John Did not enterrupt it to us, He didn't even write what the seven thunders uttered to us. Unless you or I have the Gift of enterruption, of visions and dreams, I can't tell you anything beyond what it says. And this also.
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
Why do you guys insist on doing that?
Peace.
---Paul---
Chandler
New member
Matthew 16:15, 16 reports: "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter didn't say: "You are Almighty God." He declared that Christ was, not God, but the Son of God.
Chandler
New member
I was just hoping to know your thoughts on ch. 20. Not the seven thunders. Never mind.
The deceiver Arian Chandler 97 92 90 88
The deceiver Arian Chandler 97 92 90 88
Because God is subject and limited to Chandler's understanding?
The root of all such heresies (Arianism, Modalism, etc), and what all such heresies have in common, is that they're attempting to explain God rather than love Him.
In addition, a soulish man doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they're foolishness to him and he's not able to know them because they're discerned spiritually.
In other words, to understand God (Christ, Their Spirit), you have to have Christ
Hear O Israel, Jehovah's our God; Jehovah's one.
Jehovah's God in heaven above and upon the earth below; there's no other
the Father, Son, and Spirit;
there's only one divine Father
Eph 4:6 Isa 9:6
"I and the Father are one"
John 10:30.
Jesus isn't His Father in the sense of replacing Him or of eradicating Their eternal Father-Son relationship and persons.
Jesus is His Father in the sense of being His Father's Son
(homousion, containing Him, expressing Him, including Him)
What's centrally "different" here is Chandler's polytheism, Jehovah Witnessism's pantheon, versus Father, Son, Spirit and Their revelation of God to Their apostles in Scripture
The deceiver Arian Chandler 97 92 90 88
To the contary of the misrepresenter Chandler: Peter didn't declare Christ or Son of God isn't God
The Word's not only like God, He is God
Why not?
Because God is subject and limited to Chandler's understanding?
The root of all such heresies (Arianism, Modalism, etc), and what all such heresies have in common, is that they're attempting to explain God rather than love Him.
In addition, a soulish man doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they're foolishness to him and he's not able to know them because they're discerned spiritually.
In other words, to understand God (Christ, Their Spirit), you have to have Christ
To the contrary: unlike Arianism, Modalism, Islam, and Judaism without Christ teach: God is 3 in 1
Contrary to Chandler's polytheism
Hear O Israel, Jehovah's our God; Jehovah's one.
Jehovah's God in heaven above and upon the earth below; there's no other
Just as God's only one and there's only one God,
the Father, Son, and Spirit;
there's only one divine Father
Eph 4:6 Isa 9:6
To the contrary of this deceit:
"I and the Father are one"
John 10:30.
Jesus isn't His Father in the sense of replacing Him or of eradicating Their eternal Father-Son relationship and persons.
Jesus is His Father in the sense of being His Father's Son
(homousion, containing Him, expressing Him, including Him)
Jesus is a different person within the Trinity. Not a different person outside of, or separate from, the Father. Since Father, Son, and Spirit are inseverable. Being one Organism, one Being, one God: God.
What's centrally "different" here is Chandler's polytheism, Jehovah Witnessism's pantheon, versus Father, Son, Spirit and Their revelation of God to Their apostles in Scripture
Who existing in the form of God didn't consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man
We'll see if they can or will
I would just say--seriously--that not everybody in the gospels had the same literal interpretation. Matthew's Peter was no exception.
Son of God, God, Messiah, Savior, divine sacrifice--all of these designations ultimately depended on the specific gospel writer's theology, location and the particular events their communities lived through. For example, Mark's Jesus cries out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross. In John, Jesus is made to show that everything in the scriptures has been fulfilled and the crucifixion is just one aspect of that ("It is finished!").
Mark's community was written shortly after or during the Roman-Jewish wars. Many Jews were killed and died in agony. Mark's crucifixion narrative shows that.
John's gospel was written much later--probably in the 90s. By then the christology of Jesus was solidifying and John's gospel of Jesus speaking in long, theological discourses confirms that.
The later canonical designations (Son of God, Messiah, etc.) were all theological affirmations.
- Status