- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 13 2009,13:37) So your gospel is that God became flesh and died and rose again. That is not what you read in scripture however. It is not what Paul, Peter, John, or Jesus taught.
It was the Logos who became flesh and it is antichrist to deny that Jesus came in the flesh. So it is within the realm of deception to deny Jesus coming in the flesh by saying that God came in the flesh.
However, the one true God sent him into the world to do his will.
Thinker, if God was your Father you would love Christ because he came from God and was sent, not that he is God. That is wrong and therefore cannot be true by definition of being wrong.
The one true God and Most High is the Father of all. Even the word Father demonstrates this truth.
t8,
Produce a trinitarian commentator who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I can produce one anti-trinitarian here that denies it,Paladin said:
Quote There is no verse in scripture that says Jesus Christ “came in the flesh.” THAT is a conclusion reached by theologians who do not know how to properly exegete the Greek. (“Did John say God became flesh” thread, p. 2, 11:20) Trinitarians confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. We believe that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, God became flesh. The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves.” Did the name “Jesus” truly and properly belong to Jesus? Paladin is the only antichrist on this board.
I have already showed you that the apostle John taught that God became flesh. John 1:1 literally reads thus,
Quote And God was the Word Verse 14 says,
Quote And the Word became flesh Permise 1: God was the Word
Premise 2: The Word became flesh
Conclusion: Therefore, God became fleshthinker
Hi TT,
If your assumptions are added to what is written does that remain reliable?
Jesus is the Son of God.
That is writtenQuote (Cindy @ June 13 2009,11:02) Hi Mandy and thank you. I have been gone, have you noticed? I hurt myself on the chair and my Leg is still black and blue. It hurt to walk on it, so I have not been on the Computer at all. Love Irene
Oh, Irene I'm so sorry to hear that!I'm not here regularly enough anymore to notice when someone is here or not here….sorry. But I miss you anyway!
Much love and take care of yourself! You and Georg are important to this website!
MandyHi Mandy and thank you. My leg is still blue, I have such bad vein's, because of all the Steroid I was given for my bad Lung. I really appreciate You, You are always so sweet. We need someone like you here. So I return the compliment.
Love IreneQuote (Not3in1 @ June 14 2009,19:59) Quote (Cindy @ June 13 2009,11:02) Hi Mandy and thank you. I have been gone, have you noticed? I hurt myself on the chair and my Leg is still black and blue. It hurt to walk on it, so I have not been on the Computer at all. Love Irene
Oh, Irene I'm so sorry to hear that!I'm not here regularly enough anymore to notice when someone is here or not here….sorry. But I miss you anyway!
Much love and take care of yourself! You and Georg are important to this website!
Mandy
Hi Irene,
I hope you heal as quickly as possible. I know you are 70 years old and bruises take longer to heal at that age.blessings,
Jack
Hello Jack Thank you very much for your good Wishes. You are right everything takes longer when you old. Life is but a vapor, that is so true. First one can't wait to be 21 and then all of a sudden your 70, just like that. I am not kidding.
Peace and Love Irene
Quote (thethinker @ June 14 2009,05:52) t8,
Produce a trinitarian commentator who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I can produce one anti-trinitarian here that denies it,
They do not deny it outright. That would be too obvious. They say he came in the flesh, and that Jesus is God, and that God came in the flesh or God took on flesh.But Jesus is not God, therefore God didn't take a human body for himself, therefore by saying that God took a human body is to deny that Jesus came in the flesh and it is another Jesus being preached. Subtle, but the enemy has more success with being subtle than blatant. That is why he sometimes comes as an angel of light.
But the Logos became flesh thinker. Not God.
God existed within flesh because by his spirit he lived in Christ and he lives in his people too. But God doesn't have a flesh body and never has. God is not a man and never has been.Also, if we believe that the Father is the Most High God, then we believe that his son who was the Logos came in the flesh and then back to the Father with the glory he had before the world begun. It makes sense when you know that the one true God is the Father.
All scripture makes sense. If God is a Trinity, then all the verses with the word God in it break.
Good post t8 and I do agree with it. We should all see it the way it is written, then we would have no problems. Our Father is indeed above all and in us all. We are the temple of God and His Holy Spirit lives in us.
Peace and Love Irene
t8 said:
Quote But the Logos became flesh thinker. Not God.
God existed within flesh because by his spirit he lived in Christ and he lives in his people too. But God doesn't have a flesh body and never has. God is not a man and never has been.Also, if we believe that the Father is the Most High God, then we believe that his son who was the Logos came in the flesh and then back to the Father with the glory he had before the world begun. It makes sense when you know that the one true God is the Father.
t8,
I showed you that Paladin denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and you don't seem to be bothered by it. Why is he allowed to post in the believer's group? Not that I care but I am only trying to point out anti-trinitarian incinsistency. Anti-trinitarian's don't really give a hoot about truth. Anti-trinitarians here just want to be “anti” something.If you were consistent you would relocate Paladin to the unbeliever's group. Paladin is blatantly an antichrist.
t8 said:
Quote But the Logos became flesh thinker. Not God.All scripture makes sense…. If God is a Trinity, then all the verses with the word God in it break
I have already showed you that the apostle John taught that God became flesh. John 1:1 literally reads thus,Quote And God was the Word Verse 14 says,
Quote And the Word became flesh Premise 1: God was the Word
Premise 2: The Word became flesh
Conclusion: Therefore, God became flesht8 said:
Quote Also, if we believe that the Father is the Most High God, then we believe that his son who was the Logos came in the flesh and then back to the Father with the glory he had before the world begun. It makes sense when you know that the one true God is the Father. Isaiah said,
Quote For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6) Please explain Isaiah 9:6.
thinker
thinker The Word that became flesh is the one that became Jesus, you do know that, right?
( Quote thinker} For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
When it says Father, that has to be a mistake, we know that our Heavenly Father would not take on flesh.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Cindy @ June 15 2009,21:41) thinker The Word that became flesh is the one that became Jesus, you do know that, right?
( Quote thinker} For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
When it says Father, that has to be a mistake, we know that our Heavenly Father would not take on flesh.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I agree that the Father did not take flesh. I want to see how t8 answers that Jesus is named the “mighty God” and the “everlasting father.” The wording is NOT a mistake. The online Hebrew-Greek Interlinear reads that Jesus is the “father of future.”http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves.” If Jesus was not Jehovah and He was not the Savior then the name “Jesus” did not truly belong to Him.
thinker
thinker In Ephesians were it says that there is ' one Body, one Spirit, one Baptism, one Lord (Jesus Christ), one Faith, one Father of all, who is above all and in us all. Yo make sure that you don't claim, that Lord is not Jesus, in Chapter 3:13-17 it explains who is who. Also Jesus himself talks about His Father. Whatever it was that Jesus is called Jehovah is certainly wrong. I do not believe in the explanation of some men. Somebody has to be wrong and I will take the Scriptures of the Bible before any man.
Also you know that Jesus tells us that ” My Father is greater then I.”
You do know that the Father in the O.T. was called Jehovah many times. And you want to believe because of one Scripture, that maybe was added be man, you are going to believe it? Give me a break.
Peace adn Love Irene
P.S. don't come me with some other man made stuff.Hi thethinker:
For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
Please explain Isaiah 9:6.
The scripture states that his “name” shall be called… Not “he” he shall be called…
This is what Strong's has for “name”:
Quote Outline of Biblical Usage 1) name a) name
b) reputation, fame, glory
c) the Name (as designation of God)
d) memorial, monument
Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is the express image of God's person.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Cindy @ June 16 2009,03:51) thinker In Ephesians were it says that there is ' one Body, one Spirit, one Baptism, one Lord (Jesus Christ), one Faith, one Father of all, who is above all and in us all. Yo make sure that you don't claim, that Lord is not Jesus, in Chapter 3:13-17 it explains who is who. Also Jesus himself talks about His Father. Whatever it was that Jesus is called Jehovah is certainly wrong. I do not believe in the explanation of some men. Somebody has to be wrong and I will take the Scriptures of the Bible before any man.
Also you know that Jesus tells us that ” My Father is greater then I.”
You do know that the Father in the O.T. was called Jehovah many times. And you want to believe because of one Scripture, that maybe was added be man, you are going to believe it? Give me a break.
Peace adn Love Irene
P.S. don't come me with some other man made stuff.
Irene,
I have no idea what you are talking about! I said that Christ was NOT the father. Then I gave you what the inspired Hebrew Scriptures say. They say that Jesus is the father of the ages. This does NOT mean that He is God the Father. It means that He is the father of time. Hebrews 1 says that it was through the Son that the ages came into being. It is in this sense that Christ is called “father.”Please pay attention!
thinker
Quote (942767 @ June 16 2009,10:22) Hi thethinker: For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
Please explain Isaiah 9:6.
The scripture states that his “name” shall be called… Not “he” he shall be called…
This is what Strong's has for “name”:
Quote Outline of Biblical Usage 1) name a) name
b) reputation, fame, glory
c) the Name (as designation of God)
d) memorial, monument
Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is the express image of God's person.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,What kind of logic is this? God told Moses that He is the “I AM.” Then He said, “This is My name forever” (Exodus 3:15). Are you saying that Christ is not Savior because the name “Jesus” is only a name? By your own weird logic you must deny that God is “I AM” because it is merely a name.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 19 2009,02:59) Quote (Cindy @ June 16 2009,03:51) thinker In Ephesians were it says that there is ' one Body, one Spirit, one Baptism, one Lord (Jesus Christ), one Faith, one Father of all, who is above all and in us all. Yo make sure that you don't claim, that Lord is not Jesus, in Chapter 3:13-17 it explains who is who. Also Jesus himself talks about His Father. Whatever it was that Jesus is called Jehovah is certainly wrong. I do not believe in the explanation of some men. Somebody has to be wrong and I will take the Scriptures of the Bible before any man.
Also you know that Jesus tells us that ” My Father is greater then I.”
You do know that the Father in the O.T. was called Jehovah many times. And you want to believe because of one Scripture, that maybe was added be man, you are going to believe it? Give me a break.
Peace adn Love Irene
P.S. don't come me with some other man made stuff.
Irene,
I have no idea what you are talking about! I said that Christ was NOT the father. Then I gave you what the inspired Hebrew Scriptures say. They say that Jesus is the father of the ages. This does NOT mean that He is God the Father. It means that He is the father of time. Hebrews 1 says that it was through the Son that the ages came into being. It is in this sense that Christ is called “father.”Please pay attention!
thinker
thethinker Wait are you not contradicting yourself?First you say that Jesus is not called the Father, and then you quote Hebrew that says that Jesus is the Father of the ages. You can't believe both? If Scripture says so then be it.
I want to make you aware that I too don't know it all. We all are learning yet.Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,02:45) Quote (Cindy @ June 15 2009,21:41) thinker The Word that became flesh is the one that became Jesus, you do know that, right?
( Quote thinker} For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
When it says Father, that has to be a mistake, we know that our Heavenly Father would not take on flesh.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I agree that the Father did not take flesh. I want to see how t8 answers that Jesus is named the “mighty God” and the “everlasting father.” The wording is NOT a mistake. The online Hebrew-Greek Interlinear reads that Jesus is the “father of future.”http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves.” If Jesus was not Jehovah and He was not the Savior then the name “Jesus” did not truly belong to Him.
thinker
Hi Thinker.I am travelling in South America at the moment, but caught this post and havent read recent earlier ones yet. But to quickly answer your questions.
The word in the Hebrew used here is “El” and this word means the following:
1) god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power“So Jesus is the Mighty El and this can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is the 'Mighty God Like One' which is consistent with the overwhelming amount of scriptures that we have been discussed in these forums.
The other part of the scripture that mentions the term 'Everlasting Father' seems like a contradiction as it seems to indicate that Jesus is the Heavenly Father. The word Father that is used here is “Ab” and this word is the same word that is used when describing Abraham as our Father and this scripture is just a reference to say that Jesus is our Everlasting Father, in other words he is greater than Abraham, but it certainly doesn't say 'Heavenly Father'.
Quote (t8 @ June 22 2009,07:57) Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,02:45) Quote (Cindy @ June 15 2009,21:41) thinker The Word that became flesh is the one that became Jesus, you do know that, right?
( Quote thinker} For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)
When it says Father, that has to be a mistake, we know that our Heavenly Father would not take on flesh.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I agree that the Father did not take flesh. I want to see how t8 answers that Jesus is named the “mighty God” and the “everlasting father.” The wording is NOT a mistake. The online Hebrew-Greek Interlinear reads that Jesus is the “father of future.”http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves.” If Jesus was not Jehovah and He was not the Savior then the name “Jesus” did not truly belong to Him.
thinker
Hi Thinker.I am travelling in South America at the moment, but caught this post and havent read recent earlier ones yet. But to quickly answer your questions.
The word in the Hebrew used here is “El” and this word means the following:
1) god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power“So Jesus is the Mighty El and this can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is the 'Mighty God Like One' which is consistent with the overwhelming amount of scriptures that we have been discussed in these forums.
The other part of the scripture that mentions the term 'Everlasting Father' seems like a contradiction as it seems to indicate that Jesus is the Heavenly Father. The word Father that is used here is “Ab” and this word is the same word that is used when describing Abraham as our Father and this scripture is just a reference to say that Jesus is our Everlasting Father, in other words he is greater than Abraham, but it certainly doesn't say 'Heavenly Father'.
Hi t8,Isaiah 9:6 does not indicate that Jesus is the heavenly Father. It says that He is the father of the ages. Hebrews 1:2 says that the AGES were made through the Son. The word “father” simply means that He is the author of all the successive periods of human history.
thinker
Thinker,
John 1:1 does not literally say “God is the word” according to proper Greek grammar anyway. In the case where two nominative case words are in the same sentence/clause, the one with the article “the” is the one that does the action. Literally the correct reading is “the word was God.”Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ June 22 2009,14:47) Thinker,
John 1:1 does not literally say “God is the word” according to proper Greek grammar anyway. In the case where two nominative case words are in the same sentence/clause, the one with the article “the” is the one that does the action. Literally the correct reading is “the word was God.”Kathi
Kathi,
Please give your source and then explain what theological difference it makes. And will you accept the grammatical rule that governs Titus 2:13? Grammatically it is a direct assertion that Jesus Christ is God,Quote Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ Note this grammatical rule right from the textbook,
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76). The textbook gives Titus 2:13 as an example of this rule,
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I put the article which comes before “great God” in bold for you. And I also put the Greek “kai” in bold. There is no article before “Savior”. This means that the substantatives “great God” and “Savior” (Jesus Christ) are ONE AND THE SAME.
This is right from the textbook!
1. Please provide your source
2. Will you accept the rule governing Titus 2:13?
3. What theological difference does it make if grammatically John 1:1 says, “And the Word was God?”
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
