Who is this Jesus?

[terraricca]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,12:32)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,14:06) Quote (4Thomas @ May 21 2013,19:25) Yes i understand that most people believe that proverbs speaks of Jesus and I originally thought so……… I wonder what changed your mind from your original instinct about that passage, Daniel.  Surely it wasn't the thought that IF the wisdom in that passage WAS Jesus, then the passage clearly speaks about the ORIGINS of Jesus………….. or was it? Quote (4Thomas @ May 21 2013,19:25) …the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Do you suppose the Father is “the image OF God”?  I don't understand why you can't see these easy things.  For anyone to be “the image OF someone”, they must first be someone OTHER THAN that “someone”.  One is not said to be “in the image OF” themselves, Daniel. So if Jesus is the image OF “God”, it seems clear to me that he is someone OTHER THAN “God”.  And there are MANY other scriptures that just as clearly distinguish Jesus as someone OTHER THAN his and our God. No Mike, I wasn't raised or taught by a church or organisation. And for the record I even looked into the jws teachings as I had remebered some really nice people, i to this day pray for them. Mike my salvation is more important to me than my pride or any man or manmade teaching. My conscience is clear, crystal clear I don't struggle with what i teach, otherwise I would be to worried to teach that which i truly didn't believe. Jesus is my TRUE Lord, he is the TRUE Son and I love him with all my heart soul and mind. I'm trying to lead you to Jesus *not* what i personally believe is the right church or a doctrine or anything else that is not related to salvation. I hope you can see this. I believe the Father is eternally Father – i don't forsake him as not being a Father and not being Eternally Almighty and his eternal testiment of his brillance. He is eternally perfect he doesn't later need to have a Son to enhance his abilitly to reveal himself and his glory to mere man. Scripture teaches that Jesus as a *man* is the NEW ADAM the first among the true new creation I'm sure you agree with me regarding this… So Jesus as a man is the First among the new creation just as he is the First to be raised from the dead. Jesus is also the first among all creation because he eternally comes from the Father. I believe this. Mike any child understands a TRUE Son has the same nature as his Father, this is basic stuff, if you could see this. I'm sorry to sound smart but this is the truth and I care. Imagine if you seen a debate of someone trying to prove that your TRUE Son wasn't really human like you. Also wisdom is eternal I have already proven this, I just refuse to make a her a him and a gift of the holy spirit a person. Mike God used wisdom to create the world its an attribute. I'm trying to leed you to jesus as true Son and true Lord I honestly don't even understand what you are trying to teach me that “the Word” ” the great God and Saviour” is a unknown angel in the old testament. Christ is the rock in the old testament. I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let them foretell what will come. 8Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” What do you want me to believe? That Jesus is a false God a angel or a man alone? lets forget our pride, who cares about that, God loves us, and yes he could have clicked his fingers and saved us but he didn't he wanted to show the greatest gift of his Love and there was no greater Love for him to take the form of a servant and to die at the hands of evil men for all who would only love him. Its all about truth and love. Life and love in the Son and in his name Daniel

Daniel

Quote

He is eternally perfect he doesn't later need to have a Son to enhance his abilitly to reveal himself and his glory to mere man.

in this you are wrong ;Christ will be forever the son and the spoke person for God onto all creation ,after the resurrection and final judgement there will be no longer mare man on earth but SONS OF GOD ALMIGHTY ,

and the new age will start those are the new things to come

[terraricca]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,07:35)

Quote SO WHO IS THE PROPHET IN PROVERB TALKS ABOUT   AND WHO DOES PAUL TALKS ABOUT Hi T, I asked you questions about wisdom before which you didn’t answer, that’s fine but I have already answered every verse that has been tried to be applied to show that wisdom is Jesus. Wisdom is never defined as a prophet. Nowhere does it ever refer to wisdom as a he. Wisdom is always referred to as a “she” even in the greek, people get confused when they see the single word that is sometimes translated as craftmans. THIS DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT ITS NOW A “HE” and its now not wisdom but Jesus The word for craftsman in the Hebrew is amon which means “one brought up” architect, or skilled. Its translated to craftman not to specify wisdom as a he but to show its by wisdom the skilled architecture which crafted, Craftsman can refer to a female [even in the modern age we live in] H525 אמון 'âmôn aw-mone' From H539, probably in the sense of training; skilled, that is, an architect (like H542): – one brought up. AND when you continue to read proverbs following directly you see the words. Blessed is the man that heareth me. NOTE: Man refers to both male and female, ofcourse this is what the Hebrew teaches and if it didn’t it would be only males that could be blessed by hearing wisdom. Pro 8:33  Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Pro 8:34  Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. Pro 8:35  For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. Just because God used wisdom to create the world it doesn’t mean Wisdom is Jesus. Jer 10:11  Thus shall ye say unto them, THE GODS that have NOT made the heavens and the earth, even THEY SHALL PERISH FROM THE EARTH, and from under these heavens. Jer 10:12  He hath MADE the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. To be honest it doesn’t really bother me if Jesus was revealed to be wisdom as he and the father possess the fullness of wisdom. But wisdom is truly revealed as a female and scripture teaches it’s a gift of the holy spirit. Please can we stop going over and over the wisdom stuff I have answered that many questions regarding it. Regarding Pauls teaching yes I believe all scripture and I interperate scripture with scripture. Quote Daniel Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Jesus is a Son in a two fold fashion 1: In his nature as God he is the eternal Son of God that is the Fathers expressed glory and substance 2: As a Son of man, who is also a Son of God in his human nature also! WE CAN ONLY *NOW* BE *ADOPTED* SONS and daughters of God because Jesus. NOW we are called *adopted* Sons of God, we had no access to the father without the Son coming to earth and dying for our sins. Now I have been asking and asking do you believe Jesus is an angel and if so please show me the scriptures to prove this. Life in the Son and in his name Daniel

Daniel

pay attention to your answers ;and see that you do not answer my question but yours ;

did God ad wisdom in the beginning he could not have any because it was created right

if he ad some wisdom then it is not of God that we talking about nor is it of wisdom right

I do not need you to explain the meaning of the words ;this does not explain the expression conveyed in the sentence,

nor does it show armony from all the plan of God through the ages.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 22 2013,21:47)

When the account of creation states creatures reproduce after their own kind then you comprehend what kind means. So I don't see why trouble understanding what I mean when I say messenger kind.

Kerwin,

In my last two, time-consuming posts I wrote to you, I listed many, many things that:

1. Showed certain phrases that you are calling “proof” are ambiguous at best.

2. Showed clearly that Jesus IS an angel of God.

I gave multiple examples, and showed similar scriptures as support. You have yet to DIRECTLY address ANY of those many points. Instead, you keep bringing up OTHER points of your own – points that can just as easily be shot down using the same logics that I've showed you on the other points.

Please either DIRECTLY address my points, or go talk to someone else for a while.

Oh, and the drivel you've posted above is nonsensical – unless you believe spirit sons of God reproduce on their own like humans do. Jesus says otherwise.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 22 2013,21:47)

Jesus is not one of those of whom God said “Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”

So Jesus is NOT a minster, then?

Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Guess again.

Also, read the description of the exalted Jesus in Revelation 1:14-16. Eyes of blazing fire? Feet like bronze glowing in a furnace? A face like the sun shining in all its brilliance?

I'd say Jesus has a lock on every bit as much “fire” as any of the other angels.

Also, we know that Jesus is now a spirit being, since flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God – where Jesus is right now sitting at God's right hand.

So all three of those words I bolded in your quote apply to both angels AND to Jesus.

Kerwin, think this out for a minute: If Paul says God said this about His “minsters”, and that about “Jesus”, it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus is NOT a minister, does it? Paul's intent is to show how much higher Jesus is than the [OTHER] angels of God.

Face it, an “angel” is a “spirit son of God”. And Jesus is most definitely a “spirit son of God”.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Daniel,

Let me say that I like you.  You seem to be a very nice man who wants only to know God as well as humanly possible.

But I cannot carry on a discussion of this magnitude.  Until you set up our one-on-one debate thread, I will just pick any one or two points out of your posts, and address only them.

I fear that even doing that, nothing will ever be resolved.  For example, when I address the two points I'm picking out of this current post, will you LEARN from my comments?  Will you clearly ACKNOWLEDGE to me that it wasn't really a “proof text” after all?  Of course not.  You will continue to post the same “proof texts” that I've been scripturally refuting on this site for years.  And each time you post one, I will scripturally refute it once again – all for nothing.  Why?  Because you will never ACKNOWLEDGE that it wasn't really a “proof text” after all……. will you?

And THAT'S why I want to do a one-point-at-a-time discussion with you.  You'll throw one at me, I'll knock it clean out of the park, you'll acknowledge as much and understand that you are now one “proof text” lighter than when you started…………. and then we'll do it all again on your next “proof text”.  Sound fun?  

But unless you take this seriously, point by point, you'll will never get there.  If you just keep posting more and more novels, using a scripture out of context here, and a scripture out of context there – where really are we going?  (For example, are you REALLY trying to claim that because Jesus and his God have both been called “rock”, they are the same being?  What about Simon then, who Jesus named “Rock”?  That's a prime example of taking a scripture out of context, and claiming that similarities between Jesus and his God somehow prove they are the same being.)

Anyway, here are your two for today:

Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,00:32)

I believe the Father is eternally Father – i don't forsake him as not being a Father and not being Eternally Almighty and his eternal testiment of his brillance.

Okay, see how you lumped “eternally Father”, “eternally Almighty”, and “eternally brilliant” all together?  It's like you're trying to imply that if I don't believe God was eternally a father, then I also don't believe the other two things.

So I'll say it clearly (not lumped together):
I DON'T believe Jehovah became a father until He begot His firstborn Son, Jesus Christ.

I DO, however, believe that the Father has always been Almighty.  And I DO believe that He has always been brilliant.

So there is only ONE of those things with which I disagree.  And I disagree with it because it is simple God-given common sense that one doesn't become a father until he begets a son.  It's also common sense that two people who exist from the same point in time would not be a father and a son.  They could be “brothers”.  They could be “partners”.  They could be “co-eternal friends”, or whatever.  But they would not be “father and son”.

Surely God knew how human beings would understand a father and son relationship.  Surely God knows that WE know that a father ALWAYS exists BEFORE the son he begets.  So why then would God use “father” and “son” to describe His relationship with Jesus?  To trick us?  To confuse us?

Or could it be that the Father actually DID exist before He begat His Son – just like in all other cases of father/son relationships?  

Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,00:32)

Mike any child understands a TRUE Son has the same nature as his Father, this is basic stuff, if you could see this. I'm sorry to sound smart but this is the truth and I care.

And any child knows that a father and a son are two different beings – not the same one.  So the son (who always comes later) shares a nature with the father who brought him forth into existence.  So what?  The nature of our Almighty God is “spirit nature”.  I don't think it's a stretch to assume that ALL of God's spirit sons share a spirit nature with Him.  And that would naturally also include His firstborn Son.  So yes, Jesus is “the exact representation OF God”.  But once again, that pesky little word “of” means Jesus cannot possibly BE the God whose exact representation he is.  (Any child also knows this.   )

Quote

Christ is the rock in the old testament.

Tell me how you came to this conclusion.

(In my next response to one of your posts, I will just pick one or two points and respond to only those points. I won't bother explaining this whole thing again and again, okay?)

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

Also, we know that Jesus is now a spirit being, since flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God – where Jesus is right now sitting at God's right hand.

That is not even a legitimate argument anymore as you now know that Paul was not even sure whether a man journeyed to the third heaven in body or out of body by the second letter to the Corinthians. But you continue to claim that that despite his words to the contrary he did know that the man could not have went there in body.

If you instead translate that passage according to Jewish idiom of the time then it is “But this I tell you, brethren: our mortal bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of' God, nor will what is perishable inherit what is imperishable”, Weymouth New testament.  It, unlike your literal interpretation, does not create a conflict with Paul's second letter to the Corinthians.

To return to topic Jesus is being compared with angels and not other angels and in addition to that Hebrews is saying to which angel.  

I agree that the writer is also using the fact Jesus is superior to the angel kind, He assumes his audience agrees or he would not use certain Jewish interpretations that are depending on that knowledge.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,00:51)

The true Son comes from the Father…………

Daniel,

How can you say the above words, but then insist Jesus has existed as long as his Father and God?

[abe]

Hi All,

1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

the MAN Christ Jesus,

Peace brothers…

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56)

You agree that Christ is the mighty theos at the right hand of the Father. So, it is scripturally correct to say the Church of Christ is the Church of the theos at the right hand of the Father. Therefore the Church of the theos which He purchased with His own blood, could refer to Jesus and be grammatically correct and scripturally correct? Yes or No?

Kathi, God Almighty has never been a man, nor has He ever had blood.  So you can play word games and say Jesus is a god, and Jesus did at one time have blood, but it won't mean that Paul was teaching God Almighty shed His OWN blood for mankind.  Instead, God Almighty bought men from earth with the blood of His Son.

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56)

Also, do you see the word for 'Son' anywhere in the original manuscripts? Yes or No

No, but the Greek words are “with the blood of his own”.  To me and the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible, it obviously refers to the blood of the one God SENT into the world – not His own blood.

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56)

Also, is it correct that most Bible translations do NOT add the word 'Son' in that verse………

I didn't look at the list, but I'm quite sure that virtually ALL of the Trinitarian-produced translations don't add the implied “Son” to that verse.  But what does that prove, Kathi?  That Trinitarians nonsensically believe that God Almighty shed His own blood for mankind?

Instead, I believe the truth that the Most High God SENT His Son and Servant into the world as a sacrificial lamb.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,20:56)

Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers…

Post the rest of the statement, Abe. Then we can discuss it.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2013,20:38)

That is not even a legitimate argument anymore as you now know that Paul was not even sure whether a man journeyed to the third heaven in body or out of body by the second letter to the Corinthians.

Kerwin,

There is much we can discuss about Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians…….. and I'll be happy to do so IF and WHEN you start addressing all those points of mine that you've left unanswered because you know you can't refute them.

I will say this briefly:

On one hand, we have Jesus clearly teaching Nicodemus that flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit, and in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, flesh beings must be reborn of spirit.  Conclusion?  FLESH CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

On the other hand, we have Paul talking about an occurrence, the facts of which he is not even certain.  Nor does he say this man went into heaven in a FLESH body.

Put both of those on your scale and weigh them, Kerwin.  Paul's “maybe” or Jesus' “certainty”.  Which one weighs more?

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,19:00)

Quote (abe @ May 23 2013,20:56) Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers… Post the rest of the statement, Abe.  Then we can discuss it.

Hi Mike,

1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony [given] at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Peace brother.

[terraricca]

Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,08:56)

Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers…

ABE

why are you insisting in the past ;is Christ still a man

or is he now a high priest and king in heaven

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2013,21:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) You agree that Christ is the mighty theos at the right hand of the Father. So, it is scripturally correct to say the Church of Christ is the Church of the theos at the right hand of the Father. Therefore the Church of the theos which He purchased with His own blood, could refer to Jesus and be grammatically correct and scripturally correct? Yes or No? Kathi, God Almighty has never been a man, nor has He ever had blood.  So you can play word games and say Jesus is a god, and Jesus did at one time have blood, but it won't mean that Paul was teaching God Almighty shed His OWN blood for mankind.  Instead, God Almighty bought men from earth with the blood of His Son. Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) Also, do you see the word for 'Son' anywhere in the original manuscripts? Yes or No No, but the Greek words are “with the blood of his own”.  To me and the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible, it obviously refers to the blood of the one God SENT into the world – not His own blood. Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2013,13:56) Also, is it correct that most Bible translations do NOT add the word 'Son' in that verse……… I didn't look at the list, but I'm quite sure that virtually ALL of the Trinitarian-produced translations don't add the implied “Son” to that verse.  But what does that prove, Kathi?  That Trinitarians nonsensically believe that God Almighty shed His own blood for mankind? Instead, I believe the truth that the Most High God SENT His Son and Servant into the world as a sacrificial lamb.

Mike,
you said:

Quote

God Almighty has never been a man, nor has He ever had blood. So you can play word games and say Jesus is a god, and Jesus did at one time have blood, but it won't mean that Paul was teaching God Almighty shed His OWN blood for mankind. Instead, God Almighty bought men from earth with the blood of His Son.

Is the word 'Almighty' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no?

Is the word 'Father' in the original manuscripts? Yes or no?

If not, then theos could refer to the only begotten theos as it seems to in John 1:1c.

Quote

No, but the Greek words are “with the blood of his own”. To me and the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NET Bible, it obviously refers to the blood of the one God SENT into the world – not His own blood.

Is it grammatically correct for that verse to say 'with His own blood?' Yes or no?

Quote

I didn't look at the list, but I'm quite sure that virtually ALL of the Trinitarian-produced translations don't add the implied “Son” to that verse. But what does that prove, Kathi? That Trinitarians nonsensically believe that God Almighty shed His own blood for mankind?

It proves that they were referring to the theos of John 1:1c and not the theos of John 1:1b.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2013,09:08)

Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2013,20:38) That is not even a legitimate argument anymore as you now know that Paul was not even sure whether a man journeyed to the third heaven in body or out of body by the second letter to the Corinthians. Kerwin, There is much we can discuss about Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians…….. and I'll be happy to do so IF and WHEN you start addressing all those points of mine that you've left unanswered because you know you can't refute them. I will say this briefly: On one hand, we have Jesus clearly teaching Nicodemus that flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit, and in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, flesh beings must be reborn of spirit.  Conclusion?  FLESH CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. On the other hand, we have Paul talking about an occurrence, the facts of which he is not even certain.  Nor does he say this man went into heaven in a FLESH body. Put both of those on your scale and weigh them, Kerwin.  Paul's “maybe” or Jesus' “certainty”.  Which one weighs more?

Mike,

I hope to get around with it when my head feels up ti the task. Right now I am not doing any real deep thinking as I respond to posts.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Does a man's flesh enter his mother's womb again in order to be born again and so enter the kingdom of heaven?

Does a man's spirit enter water in order to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

[4Thomas]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2013,13:38)

Hi Daniel, Let me say that I like you.  You seem to be a very nice man who wants only to know God as well as humanly possible. But I cannot carry on a discussion of this magnitude.  Until you set up our one-on-one debate thread, I will just pick any one or two points out of your posts, and address only them. I fear that even doing that, nothing will ever be resolved.  For example, when I address the two points I'm picking out of this current post, will you LEARN from my comments?  Will you clearly ACKNOWLEDGE to me that it wasn't really a “proof text” after all?  Of course not.  You will continue to post the same “proof texts” that I've been scripturally refuting on this site for years.  And each time you post one, I will scripturally refute it once again – all for nothing.  Why?  Because you will never ACKNOWLEDGE that it wasn't really a “proof text” after all……. will you? And THAT'S why I want to do a one-point-at-a-time discussion with you.  You'll throw one at me, I'll knock it clean out of the park, you'll acknowledge as much and understand that you are now one “proof text” lighter than when you started…………. and then we'll do it all again on your next “proof text”.  Sound fun?   But unless you take this seriously, point by point, you'll will never get there.  If you just keep posting more and more novels, using a scripture out of context here, and a scripture out of context there – where really are we going?  (For example, are you REALLY trying to claim that because Jesus and his God have both been called “rock”, they are the same being?  What about Simon then, who Jesus named “Rock”?  That's a prime example of taking a scripture out of context, and claiming that similarities between Jesus and his God somehow prove they are the same being.) Anyway, here are your two for today: Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,00:32) I believe the Father is eternally Father – i don't forsake him as not being a Father and not being Eternally Almighty and his eternal testiment of his brillance. Okay, see how you lumped “eternally Father”, “eternally Almighty”, and “eternally brilliant” all together?  It's like you're trying to imply that if I don't believe God was eternally a father, then I also don't believe the other two things. So I'll say it clearly (not lumped together): I DON'T believe Jehovah became a father until He begot His firstborn Son, Jesus Christ. I DO, however, believe that the Father has always been Almighty.  And I DO believe that He has always been brilliant. So there is only ONE of those things with which I disagree.  And I disagree with it because it is simple God-given common sense that one doesn't become a father until he begets a son.  It's also common sense that two people who exist from the same point in time would not be a father and a son.  They could be “brothers”.  They could be “partners”.  They could be “co-eternal friends”, or whatever.  But they would not be “father and son”. Surely God knew how human beings would understand a father and son relationship.  Surely God knows that WE know that a father ALWAYS exists BEFORE the son he begets.  So why then would God use “father” and “son” to describe His relationship with Jesus?  To trick us?  To confuse us? Or could it be that the Father actually DID exist before He begat His Son – just like in all other cases of father/son relationships?   Quote (4Thomas @ May 23 2013,00:32) Mike any child understands a TRUE Son has the same nature as his Father, this is basic stuff, if you could see this. I'm sorry to sound smart but this is the truth and I care. And any child knows that a father and a son are two different beings – not the same one.  So the son (who always comes later) shares a nature with the father who brought him forth into existence.  So what?  The nature of our Almighty God is “spirit nature”.  I don't think it's a stretch to assume that ALL of God's spirit sons share a spirit nature with Him.  And that would naturally also include His firstborn Son.  So yes, Jesus is “the exact representation OF God”.  But once again, that pesky little word “of” means Jesus cannot possibly BE the God whose exact representation he is.  (Any child also knows this.   ) Quote Christ is the rock in the old testament. Tell me how you came to this conclusion. (In my next response to one of your posts, I will just pick one or two points and respond to only those points.  I won't bother explaining this whole thing again and again, okay?)

Thanks Mike,
I understand that you also are trying to convert me.
So you must care so I appreciate what you are trying to do but honestly it doesn't make sense. The Son can only be true God, a Son can't be different to his Father.
Jesus is THE Son of God, all other Sons are adopted or created by the true Son. This is the HUGE difference.

First I don't believe you can be Almightly and be static, you need to have a testament of your Glory.

See I believe in eternal generation.

What this means is that the Father is Eternally *creator*
See the Father can't be a eternal creator if there was a time when he was creator, this is simple. Is I believe the Father is eternally ORIGIN, Eternal Source.
Now you say you believe the Father was Almightly.

Well please tell me how you can be almighty with being static and not doing anything or is he just potentially Almightly?

Do you understand? When things get really powerful like reactive substances or massive stars, they display there power, they express there Substance. the Fathers expressed substance is the Son.

This is why John revealed the Son to be the Word of God. The Word of the father, the expression of the Father.
Was there a time when the Word of the Father never existed, the fathers expressed Glory has always existed.

What are you trying to convert me too? Because I work on options and evidence.

1:true God [if he is a true Son]
2:false God
3: Angel creature e.g Seraphim, Cherubim or Archangel etc

Where does Jesus fit in?

Sorry this is rushed I need to go to my sisters 30th.

Please look in the debate section.

Blessings
Life in the Son and in his name
Daniel

[terraricca]

daniel

Quote

Life in the Son and in his name Daniel

lets be true ;live his given by God almighty to all of his creation even to the son ; but wen Adam descender at the time of Noah God was ready to destroy all of creation,wipe them all off; BUT SOMEONE INTERCEDED FOR THEM ;JUST AS MOSES INTERCEDED FOR ISRAEL AT HIS TIME THIS BEING THAT INTERCEDED WAS NO OTHER THAN “THE WORD OF GOD ” JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, AND YES WE CAN SAY THAT HE FROM THEN ON ,HOLDS OUR LIVES IN HIS HAND , AND WEN HE CAME TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE ,THEN HE COULD GIVE LIVE TO WHOM HE WANT TO GIVE LIVE ,THIS WAS WHAT GOD AS SAID .AND THE POWERS HE RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE,AMEN

[abe]

Quote (terraricca @ May 23 2013,20:10)

Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,08:56) Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers… ABE why are you insisting in the past ;is Christ still a man or is he now a high priest and king in heaven

Hi T,

(Quote)
why are you insisting in the past ;is Christ still a man

1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Past? Present? Future?

You don't have a mediator?

Peace brother.

[terraricca]

Quote (abe @ May 25 2013,02:34)

Quote (terraricca @ May 23 2013,20:10) Quote (abe @ May 24 2013,08:56) Hi All, 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, the    MAN    Christ Jesus, Peace brothers… ABE why are you insisting in the past ;is Christ still a man or is he now a high priest and king in heaven Hi T, (Quote) why are you insisting in the past ;is Christ still a man 1Tim.2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the   man   Christ Jesus, Past?   Present?   Future? You don't have a mediator? Peace brother.

abe

RO 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

RO 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

1CO 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1CO 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

2CO 5:5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
2CO 6:6 in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love,
2CO 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

2Co 5:16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
2Co 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
2Co 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Christ as now done things to allow us to be reconciled with God,this is an done deal ;it may be not for all men but for as regarding Christ and his father all things are done ;to reconcile the world of men,

so Christ his no longer a man but a spirit being with more glory than before he came down .

the gift remains,but Christ the son of God his no longer a man ready to sacrifice himself ,this is the past .

[Author]

Posts