- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ has been completely ignoring my questions.
This thread is closed to all others until I say, thank you
WJ,
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?
God is not a man.
Before you say that that was BEFORE He became a man – That cannot be, because God does not change.
Malachi 3:6 “I, Yahweh, do not change…..”
James 1:17 Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights……with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.
God is not a man, nor the Son of man. And God does not CHANGE.
Jesus is called “a man”, and the son of man.
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Acts 17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
So, if God does not change, and is not a man nor the son of man — How could you say that God changed and became a man?
There is only one God.
Moderators,
WJ is completely avoiding answering my question.
I asked the question HERE .
The post was ignored by WJ, though he continued to post in that thread.
So I bumped the post for him HERE .
WJ again ignored my post though he continued posting in the thread.
So I started this hot seat topic, leaving a note to him in the previous thread (In red!), HERE .
He would have seen this thread because it was on the front page and had his name on it.
But rather, he answered posts in another hot seat topic!!The rules state:
Quote This is the Supreme Court. Sick of people avoiding your questions? Put them on the Hot Seat. If they don't answer, they are penalized So is WJ going to answer this post, plus any other questions that I may have? If not, then will he be penalized?
Quote (2besee @ Aug. 06 2013,16:35) So, Wj, do you want this to be a hot seat topic because you are still IGNORING my post completely! I will set it up as soon as I can.
Hey bud!I don't know what your beef is but I think Kathi has answered you well. That is why I didn't answer.
I am limited for time and will not spend my time answering something that I feel is unworthy of my time.
No offence but Phil 2 explains that Jesus took on the form of a man and as Kathi has pointed out his nature or character did not have to change by coming in the flesh for he is a Spirit being that took on the “Likeness” of sinful flesh yet he did no sin.
Jesus is God in Spirit and man in the flesh. There is your answer friend. It is called the “Hypostatic union”. You can read about it Here or Here!
There is your answer, though you don't have to agree with it!
Blessings!
WJ
Hi WJ,
No. That does not answer my questions.
I want YOUR answers, not some link. And if I wanted another members opinion, I would have asked them, not you. But I did not. I asked you.So, explain to me please, in your own words, without excuses.
As for the verse that you quoted, I will touch upon that later today when I have some more time.
What is your opinion on those who believe that Jesus was a man?
WJ,
Regarding Philippians:
Jesus being in the form of God I believe means that Jesus being perfect and sinless was in the form of God, as the second Adam, as was originally intended. And not only that, but he also had God within him, the spirit of God. So though he was Emmanuel, God with us, as a man, he was humble, and only did what his Father wanted, and never thought of himself as being equal to God.
Being in the form of something, means that you are not that something that you are in the form of!
Adam was made in God's image and likeness, but that does not mean that Adam was God. Adam had no Father of flesh, and neither did Jesus. Jesus was the second Adam, and where Adam failed Jesus did not.
Again I ask… Paul said five times that Jesus was a man, and also that men would be judged by a man. Paul never called Jesus a God, did he? No! He clearly said that Jesus was, and is, and will be, a man though changed.
Shepherd of Hermas was considered to be canon by the earliest church and was noted as canon by people such as Ireneaus(sp), Justin Martyr, etc, etc. Now in the Shepherd which was read aloud in the earliest churches, Jesus was a chosen man, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt.
So why are those who believe that Jesus was a prefect man deemed to be so wrong when the shepherd of Hermas has Jesus as man, and PAUL only called Jesus a man, himself, and Paul's writings make up HALF of the New Testament.
Please read this scripture, and tell me what you see:
Daniel 7.
9 I saw until thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat: his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, [and] its wheels burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Quote I don't know what your beef is On internet forums, completely ignoring another posters questions, whilst continuing to post to others, is considered to be rude!
Putting a member on ignore is usually only a last resort for constant trollers.
It seemed to me that you were avoiding the question asked, which is why I have put it on the hot seat.
And I have plenty of other questions, regarding trinity. Simply because I am curious.
Okay, I will try again, one question at a time.
Wj:
Question number one:
Daniel 7:9-13 – Your understanding of these scriptures, please.
Quote (2besee @ Aug. 08 2013,16:23) WJ, Regarding Philippians:
Jesus being in the form of God I believe means that Jesus being perfect and sinless was in the form of God, as the second Adam, as was originally intended. And not only that, but he also had God within him, the spirit of God. So though he was Emmanuel, God with us, as a man, he was humble, and only did what his Father wanted, and never thought of himself as being equal to God.
Ok So that is what YOU believe about the verse, but that is not what I believe! So if being in the “form of God” meant he wasn’t God then being in the “Likeness of sinful flesh” (vrs 7) must mean he wasn’t a man, right? Of course not.Quote (2besee @ Aug. 08 2013,16:23) Being in the form of something, means that you are not that something that you are in the form of!
Really, so if I see an animal that is in the form of a dog, does that mean it is not a dog?Quote (2besee @ Aug. 08 2013,16:23) Adam was made in God's image and likeness, but that does not mean that Adam was God. Adam had no Father of flesh, and neither did Jesus. Jesus was the second Adam, and where Adam failed Jesus did not. Again I ask… Paul said five times that Jesus was a man, and also that men would be judged by a man. Paul never called Jesus a God, did he? No! He clearly said that Jesus was, and is, and will be, a man though changed.
Shepherd of Hermas was considered to be canon by the earliest church and was noted as canon by people such as Ireneaus(sp), Justin Martyr, etc, etc. Now in the Shepherd which was read aloud in the earliest churches, Jesus was a chosen man, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt.
So why are those who believe that Jesus was a prefect man deemed to be so wrong when the shepherd of Hermas has Jesus as man, and PAUL only called Jesus a man, himself, and Paul's writings make up HALF of the New Testament.
Please read this scripture, and tell me what you see:
Daniel 7.
9 I saw until thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat: his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, [and] its wheels burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
I am not disputing Jesus was a man. I am saying that Jesus according to John 1:1, 14 and 18 and other scriptures, is the Word that was with God and was God and came in the likeness of sinful flesh as a man meaning he was and is God with us!That is my belief and you don’t have to accept it.
BTW, since when do the rules of debate demand I have to put everything in my own words when I can find scholarly material that I agree with and post it for lack of time?
WJ
Quote (2besee @ Aug. 08 2013,16:40) Quote I don't know what your beef is On internet forums, completely ignoring another posters questions, whilst continuing to post to others, is considered to be rude!
Putting a member on ignore is usually only a last resort for constant trollers.
It seemed to me that you were avoiding the question asked, which is why I have put it on the hot seat.
And I have plenty of other questions, regarding trinity. Simply because I am curious.
Look man. I have been on this sight off and on for years and I am one of the few Trinitarians that have come here for any length of time. What that means is I get hit with more questions and blasted with more post demanding answers than most others, which means that I don't have the time nor will I answer everyone or every post!Blessings to you though as you seek the truth. But I can already see that your mind is set and so is mine friend.
WJ
WJ,
Okay, I see your point. Maybe that was why I was after you for answers, because trinity is something that I cannot understand, and you were the only trinitarian I have found here.
I understand how you would feel though.
Thank you for your answer to those scriptures.
I will not burden you with any other hot seat questions, but will ask somebody else – else where.
Peace to you, WJ.:)
Quote (2besee @ Aug. 09 2013,18:03) WJ, Okay, I see your point. Maybe that was why I was after you for answers, because trinity is something that I cannot understand, and you were the only trinitarian I have found here.
I understand how you would feel though.
Thank you for your answer to those scriptures.
I will not burden you with any other hot seat questions, but will ask somebody else – else where.
Peace to you, WJ.:)
No Problem!I don't mind answering your questions as long as you understand I may not or cannot respond to everything.
If you are sincere about your questions and have an open mind then by all means I will do the best to answer them.
Anyway thanks for asking and God bless. If I can be of any assistance I will.
If you really would like to know what I believe then you can read a lot of my post Here and Here
I have read all 2000 pages and have seen and heard just about every question and answer. Not saying that is all there is for sure, but it may benefit you to read the post and see what others have to say.
Yours in Christ.
Keith
Correction to an earlier post:
Quote if I wanted another members opinion, I would have asked them, not you. But I did not. I asked you. I need to rephrase that:
All opinions are welcome, of course. But I was really interested in your opinion, as well.
What I wrote originally sounded quite arrogant, and so I just had to rewrite it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
