- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Gene said:
Quote Thinker……..This is where i really disagree with Trinitarians because the Believe Jesus preesisted as a GOD, while I believe GOD indwelt the (MAN) Jesus. big difference GOD (ONE GOD) the WORD came and INDWELT JESUS, and this ONE GOD Can also Just as equally in DWELL YOU and ME and ALL. but you see brother its still Just (ONE GOD) not Just two or three triune anythings. It Just one GOD in all and through ALL, But it is true that this (ONE) GOD was certainly in Jesus.” The son of man can do nothing of himself the Father who is in me (HE) doth the works”. Because the fullness of the GOD Head (DWELT) in him mightily. But remember it say (DWELT) in him, not that he was the fullness of the GOD head (HIMSELF) but that it (DWELT in HIM). Gene,
The name “Jesus” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word which means “Jehovah saves.” The name “Jesus” was the child's name. Did Jesus save you or not? The New testament repeatedly says that Jesus is the Savior.Quote Thats my difference brother I bleieve GOD can indwell (ALL) and will eventually. Do you mean to say that we're all saviors?
thinker
Thinker ………the name Ezekiel as i recall means He is GOD, do we believe Ezekiel (is) GOD, thinker i am not sure if it was Ezekiel, or Elijah or Elisha. Can't remember right now but i think it was one of them, and if you are going to apply that name to Jesus then you must also apply it to Joshua, because Joshua in English is Jesus. Get my point, because while God worked through Jesus as He did through Joshua to deliver his people, that does not mean the person themselves were the delivers. Remember Jesus said “He could do (NOTHING) of himself”.
peace and love brother…………………………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ May 05 2009,04:40) Thinker ………the name Ezekiel as i recall means He is GOD, do we believe Ezekiel (is) GOD, thinker i am not sure if it was Ezekiel, or Elijah or Elisha. Can't remember right now but i think it was one of them, and if you are going to apply that name to Jesus then you must also apply it to Joshua, because Joshua in English is Jesus. Get my point, because while God worked through Jesus as He did through Joshua to deliver his people, that does not mean the person themselves were the delivers. Remember Jesus said “He could do (NOTHING) of himself”. peace and love brother…………………………………..gene
Gene,
I was expecting this reply especially the example from Joshua. But they were types and Jesus is the substance. Peter said this:Quote Who in His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree .
Note that it does NOT say, “Who in the Father's own self and in the Father's own body.” Jesus was actually the one doing the saving when this was not the case with Joshua and others.
Christ is the substance. All those before him were mere types. The Bible is clear about this bro.
thinker
Thinker………I believe it was the FATHER in Jesus doing the Works brother, we will have to agree to disagree on this one brother. Remember Jesus said He could do (NOTHING) of HIMSELF>
peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ May 05 2009,08:04) Thinker………I believe it was the FATHER in Jesus doing the Works brother, we will have to agree to disagree on this one brother. Remember Jesus said He could do (NOTHING) of HIMSELF> peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Gene,
First, the fact that Jesus could do nothing of himself was BEFORE his exaltation. Now he has ALL authority. You fail to distinguish between the humble Jesus and the exalted Jesus.Second, he died ALONE. The Father was NOT with him when he hung on the cross. So it is ludicrous to say that he could do nothing of himself even in death. You're taking things too far.
Third, Jesus Himself is the Lamb who took away our sins. Not the Father. What I am telling you is the basic Christian gospel. Come on bro!
thinker
Hi TT,
God did not forsake His son.
Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.Quote (thethinker @ May 05 2009,06:58) Quote (Gene @ May 05 2009,04:40) Thinker ………the name Ezekiel as i recall means He is GOD, do we believe Ezekiel (is) GOD, thinker i am not sure if it was Ezekiel, or Elijah or Elisha. Can't remember right now but i think it was one of them, and if you are going to apply that name to Jesus then you must also apply it to Joshua, because Joshua in English is Jesus. Get my point, because while God worked through Jesus as He did through Joshua to deliver his people, that does not mean the person themselves were the delivers. Remember Jesus said “He could do (NOTHING) of himself”. peace and love brother…………………………………..gene
Gene,
I was expecting this reply especially the example from Joshua. But they were types and Jesus is the substance. Peter said this:Quote Who in His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree .
Note that it does NOT say, “Who in the Father's own self and in the Father's own body.” Jesus was actually the one doing the saving when this was not the case with Joshua and others.
Christ is the substance. All those before him were mere types. The Bible is clear about this bro.
thinker
Thinker….would like to commit on something , WE must remember Jesus was (GOD) sacrifice the HE gave for our sins, Jesus gave himself to GOD the FATHER and GOD the FATHER offered HIM up to sacrifice. He was the lamb of GOD , He was not the lamb of Jesus.Acts 20:28….> Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers, to feed the church of GOD which HE (GOD) hath purchased with His own blood.
When Jesus gave himself completely to GOD the FATHER his blood became the FATHER'S. To do with as He seen fit.
We are brought with a price and that price was GOD'S price He paid by Sacrificing his Son. God the Father took full responsibility for all Sin and Paid the Price tag for all sin. Not ours only but the sins of the whole world. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother……………gene
Kerwin…….To me that means the powers that exist, but what does that have to do with what i Said?
peace and love………………..gene
Gene said:
Quote Thinker….would like to commit on something , WE must remember Jesus was (GOD) sacrifice the HE gave for our sins, Jesus gave himself to GOD the FATHER and GOD the FATHER offered HIM up to sacrifice. He was the lamb of GOD , He was not the lamb of Jesus. Acts 20:28….> Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers, to feed the church of GOD which HE (GOD) hath purchased with His own blood.
When Jesus gave himself completely to GOD the FATHER his blood became the FATHER'S. To do with as He seen fit.
We are brought with a price and that price was GOD'S price He paid by Sacrificing his Son. God the Father took full responsibility for all Sin and Paid the Price tag for all sin. Not ours only but the sins of the whole world.
Gene,
The expression “lamb of God” may also be translated the “lamb FROM God.” It means that God provided Jesus as our sin sacrifice. It does NOT mean that the body which was offered for our sins was the Father's body. Come on! Peter said that he bore our sins in his OWN self and his OWN body. When he instituted the supper he said, “This is MY body” and “this is MY blood.”Therefore, when Acts 20:28 says to feed the flock of God which he has purchased with “His OWN blood” we know that it is talking about Jesus. This conclusion is inescapable! You make it appear as if the Father is really the sin sacrifice. But it doesn't work bro and you know it's not the gospel. This is how I know that non-trinitarians are wrong. They infer that the Father is the sin sacrifice.
thinker
thinker……… So did the lambs of ancient Israel they bore the sins of the people in their own body also, but the one who offered them was the responsible party right, GOD assumnes all responsibility for the sins of the whole world and offered His sacrifice, His Son Jesus Christ as the lamb of GOD. Jesus by giving Himself to GOD for what ever the Fathers Will was was the same thing as The FATHER doing HIMSELF.Jesus' body and blood was in complete control of the FATHER so them it was the Fathers sacrifice and the Fathers blood He offered for the sins of the whole world. GOD so loved the world that (HE) gave HIS uniquely begotten son> Trust me thinker Jesus was GOD the FATHER'S sacrifice brother, Jesus was not Jesus' offering, He was the Fathers offering. Jesus did though consent to the (WILL) of the FATHER. And because of that He was exhulted to his present position. AS scripture says (BECAUSE) he empty out his soul unto death. God has exhulted HIm. There was a reason the FAther gave Jesus his position he now has, and it wasn't because He had it before he was ever born on earth either. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
Nick……..GOD the FATHER takes responsibility (HIMSELF) has nothing with me blaming Him for anything. If you understood scriptures you would have known that. IMO
peace and love……………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ May 05 2009,02:33) Quote (thethinker @ May 05 2009,02:09) Quote (Gene @ May 05 2009,01:47) thinker……..I don't deny the preexistence of the (word) it did preexist because it was GOD Himself but not Jesus as Trinitarians and preexistences think. In the (beginning was the Word). I just don't change its meaning to mean Jesus, but it is the FATHER'S WORD that is being spoken of there, not Jesus at all. Thnker brother just ask yourself this question, if John was talking about Jesus, wouldn't he have just said Jesus, why say Word then? Remember GOD SPOKE everything into existence in the beginning The GOD that said He did it by himself and alone, meaning no one was there with him. A word is INTELLEGENT UTTERANCE, thats what a word is, it is the expression of a person and in this case it is the expression of the (ONE) and ONLY TRUE GOD. John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus at all, that is one of the greatest deceptions of Christianity. IMO Peace and love to you and yours brother……………………..gene
Gene,
I am beginning to think you misunderstand Trinitarians. They deny the pre-existence of the flesh of the Word. The Word became flesh. The pre-existent Word was made flesh and was called “Jesus.”thinker
Thinker……..This is where i really disagree with Trinitarians because the Believe Jesus preesisted as a GOD, while I believe GOD indwelt the (MAN) Jesus. big difference GOD (ONE GOD) the WORD came and INDWELT JESUS, and this ONE GOD Can also Just as equally in DWELL YOU and ME and ALL. but you see brother its still Just (ONE GOD) not Just two or three triune anythings. It Just one GOD in all and through ALL, But it is true that this (ONE) GOD was certainly in Jesus.” The son of man can do nothing of himself the Father who is in me (HE) doth the works”. Because the fullness of the GOD Head (DWELT) in him mightily. But remember it say (DWELT) in him, not that he was the fullness of the GOD head (HIMSELF) but that it (DWELT in HIM). Thats my difference brother I bleieve GOD can indwell (ALL) and will eventually. IMOpeace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Hi brother Gene,
Amen to that post. You said it right. Believing in Jesus' preexistence as God is utter blunder of Trinitarians.Love and peace to you
AdamQuote (Gene @ May 05 2009,23:44) Kerwin…….To me that means the powers that exist, but what does that have to do with what i Said? peace and love………………..gene
Mostly that your use of “the powers” and the actual meaning of “the powers” seem to be different.“The powers” means beings(plural) with power not one being with multiple powers. In the example I used it means those with authority over the speaker and most likely the listener as well.
The angels are powers as in fact are demons.
Gene said:
Quote thinker……… So did the lambs of ancient Israel they bore the sins of the people in their own body also, but the one who offered them was the responsible party right, GOD assumnes all responsibility for the sins of the whole world and offered His sacrifice, His Son Jesus Christ as the lamb of GOD. Gene my man!
You're right bro! The one who offered the lamb in the old testament was partly responsible. Guess who offered the lamb in the old testament? It was the HIGH PRIEST who offered the Lamb. Who offered the Lamb in the new testament? Jesus our HIGH PRIEST offered the Lamb. Since Jesus is both the Lamb and the HIGH priest which offered it, then Jesus assumes ALL responsibility. God just accepts or rejects the offering.
Am I right or wrong when I say it was the HIGH PRIEST who offered the lamb and NOT God? Am I right or wrong in saying that God's responsibility was to either accept or reject the offering? Jesus assumes ALL responsibility because he is both the lamb that was offered and the HIGH PRIEST which offered it. God merely accepted the sacrifice.
Out of your own mouth you said that the one who offered the lamb was “partly” responsible. The High Priest offered the lamb in the old testament. In the new testament our High Priest offered the Lamb, that is, himself. Therefore, Jesus is in the least partly responsible. You said it yourself man!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,10:56) Gene said: Quote thinker……… So did the lambs of ancient Israel they bore the sins of the people in their own body also, but the one who offered them was the responsible party right, GOD assumnes all responsibility for the sins of the whole world and offered His sacrifice, His Son Jesus Christ as the lamb of GOD. Gene my man!
You're right bro! The one who offered the lamb in the old testament was partly responsible. Guess who offered the lamb in the old testament? It was the HIGH PRIEST who offered the Lamb. Who offered the Lamb in the new testament? Jesus our HIGH PRIEST offered the Lamb. Since Jesus is both the Lamb and the HIGH priest which offered it, then Jesus assumes ALL responsibility. God just accepts or rejects the offering.
Am I right or wrong when I say it was the HIGH PRIEST who offered the lamb and NOT God? Am I right or wrong in saying that God's responsibility was to either accept or reject the offering? Jesus assumes ALL responsibility because he is both the lamb that was offered and the HIGH PRIEST which offered it. God merely accepted the sacrifice.
Out of your own mouth you said that the one who offered the lamb was “partly” responsible. The High Priest offered the lamb in the old testament. In the new testament our High Priest offered the Lamb, that is, himself. Therefore, Jesus is in the least partly responsible. You said it yourself man!
thinker
Hey Thinker,
Jesus didn't become the High Priest till after the lamb was sacrificed therefore Jesus was not the High Priest that offered Himself. God gave His Son and the Son gave Himself willingly and cooperated. Both took part in the sacrifice. GOD the Father didn't need to use a High Priest to offer His son. There was no middle man needed.Kathi
Thinker……..I think Kathi is right here Jesus (became a high priest) But before that on earth and even now is seen as the Sacrificial lamb of GOD. God paid for all sins of man kind by his sacrifice, Jesus the Lamb of GOD. When Jesus gave up his Will , he gave up his life to GOD and GOD Sacrificed Him, therefore Jesus' blood became His to do with as He seen fit. Jesus' part was when He put his WILL to death, and Gods part was when he put Jesus body to death. Thats why it is so valuable GOD the FATHER sacrificed His own SON. IN payment for our sins. And if He withheld not his Son from us how much more will he not give us all things. This Shows GOD”S LOVE for us ALL, he wiped out all our sins through Jesus. God concluded all under sin that he might have mercy upon ALL, by not accounting their sin against them, but GOD'S justice demanded a payment for sins and Jesus was that payment for those sins. So the sin debt has been paid for all the world not just us who are the first fruits of the Kingdom, but for all man kind> IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
