- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,22:01) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,21:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,20:38) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,20:32) bodhitharta said to WJ,: Quote WJ, TT said that God is not the Father, is he mistaken?
WJ,
Bd, has intentionally misrepresented me. I have said twice that the God is the Father in relation to His people. I have denied that God is the Father in relation to the Godhead (the theotes). In relation to the Godhead the Father is God. This is now the third time I have said this.thinker
I did not misrepresent you you said that God is not The FatherYou can't say that God is the Father in relation to his people either because that would mean you are calling the entire composite of God(Your belief) The Father.
You said God is not Jesus, am I right?
Paul said that Christ is ALL IN ALL now (Colossians 3:17). Everything that God is to us is all rolled up in the person of Christ.thinker
So, God is Jesus?
No! Jesus is God.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,22:04) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,22:01) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,21:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,20:38) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,20:32) bodhitharta said to WJ,: Quote WJ, TT said that God is not the Father, is he mistaken?
WJ,
Bd, has intentionally misrepresented me. I have said twice that the God is the Father in relation to His people. I have denied that God is the Father in relation to the Godhead (the theotes). In relation to the Godhead the Father is God. This is now the third time I have said this.thinker
I did not misrepresent you you said that God is not The FatherYou can't say that God is the Father in relation to his people either because that would mean you are calling the entire composite of God(Your belief) The Father.
You said God is not Jesus, am I right?
Paul said that Christ is ALL IN ALL now (Colossians 3:17). Everything that God is to us is all rolled up in the person of Christ.thinker
So, God is Jesus?
No! Jesus is God.thinker
So Jesus is one part of God?What is God? On one hand you say that God is a composite of 3 persons so how can you say that Jesus is a composite of three persons ?on the other hand you do say that God(The composite of 3 persons is not Jesus
So wouldn't your theology be best represented by saying that Jesus is of God and not God? At least that would make more sense in fact instead of saying Jesus is of God why don't you simply say what the scripture says and say that Jesus is the Son of God.
bodhitharta said:
Quote So Jesus is one part of God? What is God? On one hand you say that God is a composite of 3 persons so how can you say that Jesus is a composite of three persons ?on the other hand you do say that God(The composite of 3 persons is not Jesus
So wouldn't your theology be best represented by saying that Jesus is of God and not God? At least that would make more sense in fact instead of saying Jesus is of God why don't you simply say what the scripture says and say that Jesus is the Son of God.
I did NOT say that Jesus is a composite of three persons. I said that He is ALL IN ALL. If a man hands over the family business to his son and gives him complete charge of things then to all the employees of that business the son has become ALL IN ALL. This in no way co-mingles the two persons.
The Father has comitted the administration of the covenant or the “family business” to the Son. Therefore, to the household of God Jesus is ALL IN ALL. This does not co-mingle the two persons. We are not merely talking about essence but also about administration.
As far as essence is concerned Jesus is indeed FROM God as sunbeams are from the sun. Sunbeams are made up of the same stuff as the sun. So Jesus being from God is made of the same “stuff” as God. As far as the administration of the covenant goes Jesus alone is chief over the household of God. ALL things have been committed to Him and as the result He is ALL IN ALL.
thinker
thethinker,July wrote:[/quote]
(thinker)Quote
Paladin said: AND IT WAS THE SAME ILLUSTRATION.Which is it?
Literal;
not literal?You cannot have it both ways.
(thinker) Did I ever claim that Hebrews says that Jesus is literally the radiance of the sun? NO! I originally said that He is literally the radiance of God. I used the sunbeams as an illustration. Now please deal with the facts I have presented. The word “radiance” is a compound word from “apo” meaning “from” or “out of” and “augazo” which means “ray” or “beam.” Just AS sunbeams come out of the sun and emanate forth from the sun so Jesus is the radiance of God. Just AS sunbeams are part of the sun so Jesus is a part of God.
Stop parsing my illustration. You're only convoluding the issue. Please address the statement that Jesus is the “radiance” of God. Explain how you would illustrate it. Please deal with this or get some sleep!
I am trying very hard to treat you as the image of God I know you to be, so please help me by not resorting to insulting remarks. And please learn how to spell “convoluting.” I do not ordinarily correct spelling because of the number of errors that get into my own posts, but I think in this case, it has been posted in far too many posts, as a misspelled word.
When Jesus says he “came out from God” he is simply saying he comes from God. “There was a man sent from God” is another way of saying the same thing. And that is said about John, the baptiser. John was not pre-existing in heaven with God.
Scripture presents Jesus as coming from God in the same way Jesus says of “John's baptism, “whence is it? From God, or from men?” With Jesus, it was always about authority. Where did his authority come from? God, or men? Jesus came from God in the same way John's baptism came from God. There was no “baptising” being done by John in heaven, yet his baptism comes from heaven. It is by heaven's authority John baptised.
So also, Jesus reflected the character of God, as the “character image” of God. “Character” in this application, is a word that references the mark made by stamping an image onto an ink pad, or cutting an image onto a solid replicator, like the forms used to stamp out coins in the days of the Roman empire. The image on the coin maker was the opposite of the image on the coin. Just as the inkpad image is the opposite of the image stamped on the page. It is an image, it is not a reproduction of the real. Does that mean Jesus is the opposite of God? No. It means you fail to understand how an image is to be understood.
An image is an expression of a representation; it is not the representation itself. If you carve a picture into a piece of wood, so as to reproduce it on paper, and you do not remember to carve the opposite of what you see, it will not be an image of what you draw, but will present just the opposite of what you intended.
Man is the image of God. It is only as a man expresses what is right and true in God, by emulation, that God is seen by looking at the man.
I apologize for my bumbling effort to express what it is I understand but it is essential that you do not make Jesus into God by misunderstanding what an image is. My clay frustrates the patience of God, but it tries. Please understand. It has nothing to do with emanating from God as one of God's parts, any more than when man is declared to be the image of God. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as HE IS THE IMAGE and glory OF GOD: ”
Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,22:27) bodhitharta said: Quote So Jesus is one part of God? What is God? On one hand you say that God is a composite of 3 persons so how can you say that Jesus is a composite of three persons ?on the other hand you do say that God(The composite of 3 persons is not Jesus
So wouldn't your theology be best represented by saying that Jesus is of God and not God? At least that would make more sense in fact instead of saying Jesus is of God why don't you simply say what the scripture says and say that Jesus is the Son of God.
I did NOT say that Jesus is a composite of three persons. I said that He is ALL IN ALL. If a man hands over the family business to his son and gives him complete charge of things then to all the employees of that business the son has become ALL IN ALL. This in no way co-mingles the two persons.
The Father has comitted the implementation of the covenant or the “family business” to the Son. Therefore, to the household of God Jesus is ALL IN ALL. This does not co-mingle the two persons. We are not merely talking about essence but also about administration.
As far as essence is concerned Jesus is indeed FROM God as sunbeams are from the sun. Sunbeams are made up of the same stuff as the sun. So Jesus being from God is made of the same “stuff” as God. As far as the administration of the covenant goes Jesus alone is chief over the household of God. ALL things have been committed to Him and as the result He is ALL IN ALL.
inker
thinker: Excellent post. We are very close! Like snowflakes no two will ever be exact on every point but the basics seem close. God bless you in your learning of God. TKQuote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,22:27) bodhitharta said: Quote So Jesus is one part of God? What is God? On one hand you say that God is a composite of 3 persons so how can you say that Jesus is a composite of three persons ?on the other hand you do say that God(The composite of 3 persons is not Jesus
So wouldn't your theology be best represented by saying that Jesus is of God and not God? At least that would make more sense in fact instead of saying Jesus is of God why don't you simply say what the scripture says and say that Jesus is the Son of God.
I did NOT say that Jesus is a composite of three persons. I said that He is ALL IN ALL. If a man hands over the family business to his son and gives him complete charge of things then to all the employees of that business the son has become ALL IN ALL. This in no way co-mingles the two persons.
The Father has comitted the implementation of the covenant or the “family business” to the Son. Therefore, to the household of God Jesus is ALL IN ALL. This does not co-mingle the two persons. We are not merely talking about essence but also about administration.
As far as essence is concerned Jesus is indeed FROM God as sunbeams are from the sun. Sunbeams are made up of the same stuff as the sun. So Jesus being from God is made of the same “stuff” as God. As far as the administration of the covenant goes Jesus alone is chief over the household of God. ALL things have been committed to Him and as the result He is ALL IN ALL.
inker
Hello thinker;It is a mistake to apply to Jesus what in scripture is applied to God.
When Jesus hands the kingdom to the Father after the last enemy is destroyed, God will be “all in all.” It is NEVER said of Jesus, that he is or will be “all in all.”
As long as one man rejects the salving power of Christ, just that long Jesus cannot be all in all, and scripture tells us the time will never come this side of judgment that all men will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.
Thinker……….A image is never the real thing, it is the reflection of the real thing, Jesus reflected GOD to US, Because He obeyed Him, “I alway do those things that please the FATHER, not because He was TRUE GOD as ONLY the FATHER is. Even your example of the sun rays , is but a reflection of the sun but not the sun itself. There is Only ONE True GOD and NO More, all else must (IMAGE) Him but never (BE) HIM, including JESUS. Paladin Has correctly stated this in His explanation of IMAGE.
With much love and peace to you and yours……………………..gene
Paladin said:
Quote When Jesus says he “came out from God” he is simply saying he comes from God. “There was a man sent from God” is another way of saying the same thing. And that is said about John, the baptiser. John was not pre-existing in heaven with God. Paladin,
John used “para” when he said that John the baptizer was “from ” God. He used “ek” when he cited Jesus' claim (John 8:42). The Greek “ek” means “out of.” We get our English word “exit” from it. Jesus came “out of” God and is therefore a part of God. Consequently He would be the same substance as God.]Quote I proceeded forth and came OUT OF (ek) God. I am surprised you didn't see this for yourself. That you find it difficult to seem as the image of God because I misspell a word speaks volumes about you.
thinker
Paladin said:
Quote Hello thinker; It is a mistake to apply to Jesus what in scripture is applied to God.
When Jesus hands the kingdom to the Father after the last enemy is destroyed, God will be “all in all.” It is NEVER said of Jesus, that he is or will be “all in all.”
Paladin,
Thank you! God will be all in all (your own words). In the meantime Christ is all in all. Right now Jesus fully runs the “family business.”thinker
Quote (Gene @ July 13 2009,04:16) Thinker……….A image is never the real thing, it is the reflection of the real thing, Jesus reflected GOD to US, Because He obeyed Him, “I alway do those things that please the FATHER, not because He was TRUE GOD as ONLY the FATHER is. Even your example of the sun rays , is but a reflection of the sun but not the sun itself. There is Only ONE True GOD and NO More, all else must (IMAGE) Him but never (BE) HIM, including JESUS. Paladin Has correctly stated this in His explanation of IMAGE. With much love and peace to you and yours……………………..gene
Gene,
According to Hebrews 1 Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. Therefore, as the image of God Jesus is the extension of God's glory and NOT a mere reflection as you say. Thus He is the exact representation of God.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,22:04) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,22:01) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,21:25) Quote (bodhitharta @ July 12 2009,20:38) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,20:32) bodhitharta said to WJ,: Quote WJ, TT said that God is not the Father, is he mistaken?
WJ,
Bd, has intentionally misrepresented me. I have said twice that the God is the Father in relation to His people. I have denied that God is the Father in relation to the Godhead (the theotes). In relation to the Godhead the Father is God. This is now the third time I have said this.thinker
I did not misrepresent you you said that God is not The FatherYou can't say that God is the Father in relation to his people either because that would mean you are calling the entire composite of God(Your belief) The Father.
You said God is not Jesus, am I right?
Paul said that Christ is ALL IN ALL now (Colossians 3:17). Everything that God is to us is all rolled up in the person of Christ.thinker
So, God is Jesus?
No! Jesus is God.thinker
You are drawing a false conclusion from the scriptures that speak of God being “all in all” and Jesus being “all and in all.”With God it is speaking of the end when the kingdom is returned to the father and God is all in all.
With Jesus he has just listed several representative nations, and stated that Jesus is all of them, and in all of them. It is NOT the same thing.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,20:32) bodhitharta said to WJ,: Quote WJ, TT said that God is not the Father, is he mistaken?
WJ,
Bd, has intentionally misrepresented me. I have said twice that the God is the Father in relation to His people. I have denied that God is the Father in relation to the Godhead (the theotes). In relation to the Godhead the Father is God. This is now the third time I have said this.thinker
More to the point thinker, God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman.If God is the head of Christ, how can Christ be God?
I Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Quote (Paladin @ July 14 2009,04:28) Quote (thethinker @ July 12 2009,20:32) bodhitharta said to WJ,: Quote WJ, TT said that God is not the Father, is he mistaken?
WJ,
Bd, has intentionally misrepresented me. I have said twice that the God is the Father in relation to His people. I have denied that God is the Father in relation to the Godhead (the theotes). In relation to the Godhead the Father is God. This is now the third time I have said this.thinker
More to the point thinker, God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman.If God is the head of Christ, how can Christ be God?
I Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This will be thinkers answer to that:Paladin,
You don't understand that the word Christ in Coptic hyper Greek combined with Archaech syrian shows that the word Christ in a sentence with God is equal to the God in that sentence especially when it is a composite triune assembly in which the fractals are all in One except when I say so…Lol..lol..
That sounds about right.
Or he might just tell you is: that was before Christ was exalted now there is no Christ because right now Christ is the same as his Father in power. After Jesus gives the Kingdom back to his Father then he will be Christ again but right now Jesus is the highest.
Hi BD,
Jesus of Narareth is the expected Anointed Messiah, Great prophet, King and Son of God.
Ps2. Acts 2, Jn 4Kiss the Son.
Paladin said:
Quote You are drawing a false conclusion from the scriptures that speak of God being “all in all” and Jesus being “all and in all.” With God it is speaking of the end when the kingdom is returned to the father and God is all in all.
So you admit that the Father above Christ is not all in all NOW.
Paladin said:
Quote With Jesus he has just listed several representative nations, and stated that Jesus is all of them, and in all of them. It is NOT the same thing. Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
You missed verse 1 which says that Christ is at the right hand of God, the place of equality. Verse 3 says that it is Christ who is our life,
Quote When Christ, who is our life shall appear…. This necessarily infers that Christ possesses divine attributes. Paul said that Christ is our life. He did not say that the Father above Him is our life. Paul said that we put off the old man and have put on the new where there is no racial distinctions. The new is Christ who is ALL IN ALL .
thinker
Hi TT,
And you admit the Father is above Christ.
Good.That puts to bed the three equal PART trinity idea.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 14 2009,08:48) Hi TT,
And you admit the Father is above Christ.
Good.That puts to bed the three equal PART trinity idea.
Read what I said again Nick. I did not say that the Father is above Christ. I said that the Father above Christ is NOT all in all now meaning that they are equal.thinker
Hi TT,
Jesus had a God be lived in submission to.[Jn20]
But you say Christ and his God are in fact equal.We who are in Christ you think no longer need to be submitted to God?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
