Jesus is God {title edited}

[grace2]

That doesn't prove anything. It's not even an argument.

That's the Truth.

Jesus says His Father is God yet you claim Jesus is God according to your false doctrine.

So that makes this site triune god-centered.

plain and simple truth.

 

[Mr GLee]

Really? You think that John's use of logos was mean words???? In the 1st century, Logos referred to that which gave order, form, and meaning to the universe. Rev 9:13 describes Jesus this way, "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God."

I would offer the law. . .

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: (spirit life is not literal dead blood) and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

the blood that maketh a picture or parable an atonement for the soul.The invisible work of the J Holy Spirit pouring out his spirit life in jeapory of his own life . . . . . on drying flesh and blood. called drinking the blood metaphor.

Living sacrifice when the spirit died and return to the father of all spirt life the the lifetles blood returned to dirt or field of clay

Not dead sacrifices let the dead bury thier own

The law the life of the flesh is in the blood .(again not of literal lifeless ) but the kind of life needed was spiritual . Not literal blood dead. It must return to the dust from which it was temporally formed.

Literal blood without the essence of spirit life must be poured out at the foot of the altar as at was at the cross to indcate spirt life was given by the unseen Holy Father

Can't get spirii life from lifeless flesh and blood. It would be easier to get blood from a turnip. again both water rudiments of this dying world and blood are used as Poring out of the Holy Spirt

Blood like water rudiments of this dying world are used as metaphors in parables . they having a dual purpose to hide the unseen spiritual understanding from the lost and are used as the gospel light to draw the new creation to know and understand the unseen Holy Father.

It would seem some confuse the use of parables . like the robe dipped in blood and take it literal As if Eternal God who is not a man as us a creation.

Eternal God remains without a mother and father. As the Holy Father of early fathers and Kings of earthly kings or Lord of earthly lords

Trying to make eternal Holy Spirit into a man as us defines the abomination of desolation the dying creature standing the place of the unseen Faithful Creator

Simply blasphemy .

 

[Eleanor]

Christ is a mite complex due to the fact that when the Word of John 1:1-3 came
into the world as the flesh of John 1:14, he came as a Jewish man rather than a
divine man, and the quality of his flesh was no different than the quality of every
other man's flesh.
● Rom 8:3 . . God sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin
offering.
Had the Word come into the world as a divine man,

Sloppy doctrine and theology based in human reasoning rather than divine revelation. . .

Christ was not a divine man, Christ was a human man with both a human spirit and a Divine Spirit, making him both man and God in one person.

 

[grace2]

Sloppy doctrine and theology based in human reasoning rather than divine revelation. . .

Christ was not a divine man, Christ was a human man with both a human spirit and a Divine Spirit, making him both man and God in one person.

It is an elusive analogy.

not an honest one.

 

[Eleanor]

Thank you for carefully saying that isn't what trinitarianism "teaches," but those things are exactly what trinitarianism infers.

"Trinitarianism" does not teach that Jesus did not die.

All that was mortal in Jesus; i.e., his physical body, died. . .all that was immortal in Jesus; i.e., his Divine Spirit and his human spirit, did not die, just as our immortal spirits do not die.
The prefigure of the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus was the OT physical flesh of animals as sacrifice.
Jesus' flesh, his natural body, was the Atoning Sacrifice by its death for the sin of our sinful flesh.

 

[Arial]

The version you're using says "by" him, but the best version of this word would be "through" him. It refers to the instrumentality of Jesus being used by God in creation. The key here isn't that Jesus is the actual creator, but rather the instrument with which God created with. In other words, Jesus isn't the prime mover because he isn't the actual creator.

That is a ramble of illogic. When someone begins their defense by saying "the best versions" (translations) do this or that it shows right off the bat that the person is looking for a way to make God's word fit their belief, rather than actually looking to the word to establish what God is saying. Also known as confirmation bias, a well known but erroneous way of going about the task of interpreting scripture. It is not looking for the truth according to God, but looking for their truth.

Doing this arrives at the nonsense we see you post here, for it makes not one bit of difference in the meaning if the Greek word is translated "by" or "through". Even in your analysis we still have Jesus pre-existing in God. The instrument being used is creating what it creates. If our hand is the instrument by which we paint a picture, it is still our hand that painted the picture. And the hand that painted the picture is still us, though not the whole of us. That example is not given as an analogy of the Trinity, so don't try and pick it apart as such. It is only an example of "by" and "through" meaning the same thing.

Furthermore, God Himself isn't the image of God, i.e., the Father is never called the image of God. The fullness of God dwelled in the Son because he isn't himself God.

No one is saying that God is the image of God. I do wish you would wise up and stop arguing strawman arguments. How can the fullness of God dwell in a creature? That the fullness of God dwelled in the Son is identifying Jesus as deity dwelling in His incarnation as the Son. Emmanuel. God with us. Verse 19 For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. Think about what the fullness of God is. That would require you to think about who God is as self revealed. Eternal, self existent, not created and completely other than anything created or He could not create it; all powerful, knowing all things and from this knowledge comes creation; present everywhere. The One who holds all things gather; the possessor of all wisdom and every good thing; sovereign over all; in whom we live and move and have our very existence. Now imagine a created mortal even being able to possess that fullness, let alone God taking it from Himself and giving it to a creature of any sort.

If you will keep reading into the context, it says in verse 20 that none of it actually took place until his blood of the cross. Boom. That's the creation of the church.

That is not what verse 20 says.
Col 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. You use this in a way that completely dismisses all that was said before, as though it were not said. For one thing the church is not all things. Verse 20 tells us how He reconciled ALL things. By making peace (propitiation)by His death on the cross. It is not saying, as you make it to say, that Christ's participation in the creation of all things did not happen until after the cross. It is saying the reconciliation of all things created took place on the cross. And what was needed for that reconciliation is full and complete, and persons are fully redeemed through faith now, the fullness of the reconciliation is yet to come, and will come when Jesus appears the second time, and we have a new heaven and a new earth. The bodies of believers will be resurrected to incorruption and immortality just as Jesus' flesh and blood was. That is why He is called the firstborn from the dead. (Col 1:18; 1 Cor 15:42-58)

 

[Eleanor]

The version you're using says "by" him, but the best version of this word would be "through" him. It refers to the instrumentality of Jesus being used by God in creation. The key here isn't that Jesus is the actual creator, but rather the instrument with which God created with. In other words, Jesus isn't the prime mover because he isn't the actual creator.

Furthermore, God Himself isn't the image of God, i.e., the Father is never called the image of God. The fullness of God dwelled in the Son because he isn't himself God.

Whereupon you are in disagreement with the plain gospel of John:
". . .the Word was God. . .the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (Jn 1:1, 14)

Jesus was both God and man.

You erroneously set Scripture against itself, rather than reconciling it to itself.

 

[Arial]

Yes, you are.

Now that Is what an accusation looks like.

The rest of my sentence----and often one is accused of making accusations, by only quoting a small portion of a sentence, the same method they use to distort the Bible---was, "I was pointing out fallacies."

 

[Arial]

another false accusation.

Then you should be able to prove it. Do you have any other method of communication besides through personal comments about people?

 

[Eleanor]

That doesn't say anything about Jesus creating the world. Jesus isn't a word. The logos of God refers to God's words, etc.

Logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the universe.
John makes the staggering declaration in the opening of his gospel that the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

You can read more about the context refers to God being in the world, but John 3 and 6 say Jesus came from heaven. That means Jesus isn't omnipresent, i.e., he wasn't in the world.

Furthermore, Jesus isn't the "true light" who gives light to men. The light which Jesus received was given to him by God.

Wow!

"The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world" said John the Baptist (Jn 1:6-9).

"In him was life, and that life was the light of men." (Jn 1:4)

"The life" is Christ (Jn 14:6) who is "the true light" of men (Jn 1:6-9), from whom comes all spiritual illumination as "the light of the world." (Jn 8:12)

On whose authority do you deny the clear word of God in the above?

You cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Eleanor]

That's the Truth.

Jesus says His Father is God yet you claim Jesus is God according to your false doctrine.

Only when
". . .the Word was God. . .the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:1, 14)
is false doctrine.

So that makes this site triune god-centered.

plain and simple truth.

As the NT is "triune God-centered," while you deny the plain testimony of Jn 1:1, 14 that Jesus the Word was God.

Yours that "Jesus is God according to your false doctrine" is heresy.

 

[Arial]

Please note, Jesus is never referred to as the Lord of heaven and earth in the Bible because he isn't the creator.

Acts 10:36-42 "Jesus is Lord of all---"
Jesus is called Lord throughout the NT and if He is called Lord, He is Lord. And if it says all things were created through/by Jesus, (and it does as you have been shown, the language unequivocal, and still deny in defiance of the word of God itself) then Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt 11
25At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27...Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.

Acts 17
24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands.

This is an example of zero hermeneutics, a complete failure in any attempt to reconcile all of scripture with itself, of arriving at doctrine from single passages instead of these passages being within the whole. In other words not rightly dividing (handling) the word of God. This is proof texting. Why is it proof texting and if I quote a single scripture it is not? I am not saying I never do that, but here is the difference in what is a proof text and what is not.

A proof text taken out of its context, (which includes such things as the surrounding text, who is writing, who they are writing to and why, any cultural aspects that may play into how and why something is being said, and most of all, all the other teaching on the same subject in the Bible), may appear at first glance to be saying one thing. But if all those things are taken into consideration in finding what the passage means, it says something entirely different than what first appeared.

Here you quote scriptures disconnected from the whole counsel of God. And you do so in a very deliberate way. I say deliberate because you have been shown repeatedly, by several people, even in different threads, scriptures that contradict your use of these scriptures. You simply ignore them.

So when it comes to Jesus being creator and therefore deity, and you are quoted John 1:3; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; John 1:10; Heb 1:1-2, it is not proof texting. It is showing you that you are making a contradiction in the Bible because the Bible indeed says that all things were created by/through Christ. And since that is the case, Jesus must be eternal and pre-existent within God. That He is not a creature. But rather came as one of us.

You truly divide the word of God according to the literal definition of divide. You only keep the parts you can use to hold onto your conviction that Jesus is a creature like you. The scriptures you quote to deny His deity in no way do deny His deity. The discrepancy you see, half of which you simply ignore, is not in the scriptures. It is in your view of Jesus. That is why you quote them and then quibble over direct words that were said of the Father and those same direct words were not said of Jesus, and therefore your proof. As though no such thing as concepts existed or could be found in the scriptures and verified in them. And could be seen with just a modicum of use of the brain God gave us. A person has to intentionally blind themselves to it. Not good!

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Most modern Unitarians are humanists, skeptics, liberals, and very few of them are religious or hold to the Bible. When you do find one, you find the mystical and the occult has been added to their view of the Bible. They have an interest in the paranormal.

They no doubt have some spiritual experiences. But many can attest to having those before they were born again by God in reality.

Nobody can deny their new birth and how it is radically different to any "spiritual "experience they had before that time. They know the Bible in a different way to before. They understand it and they accept it as the words of God and do not try to change it in any way. Of course, it takes some work to produce theologies from the Bible, but a real Christian (Not a Unitarian, Mormon, JWs etc) would never deny the deity of Christ or that the Bible presents a Trinity. That is thousands of years of study, of people united by Orthodox Christian views, compared to the 1800 and 1900s when America produced a host of extra Biblical cults who often based their views on Hinduism, Buddhism, and east asian religious views and blended them in with a quasi-Christian interpretation.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Jesus did nothing of himself nor did he say that his power came from himself. The Bible's testimony about Jesus and his disciples power was that it came from God the Father, not the Son of God.

What circumstances was this said ander and to what power and things did it refer because Jesus also said, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. "

 

[Arial]

I will revisit my original words:

"The fallacy of Trinitarianism is that Jesus didn't actually die, but rather a body died. The real Jesus went off somewhere resurrected himself. In effect, nothing but lifeless human body was the sacrifice." (post #117)

So now let me ask you. When Jesus died, who or what died, and what exactly is your sin sacrifice in trinitarianism?

Jesus died. What kind of a question is that?! What gymnastics are you doing in your head to even ask it? His body died. Just as your body and my body will die.

The sin sacrifice in Trinitarianism is the same one we find in the Bible.
Heb 9:28 So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Heb 10:4 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, By his wounds you have been healed.

You are, when you ask me that question, once again overlaying your beliefs onto mine as though they were mine, and they are not. You are presuming that Jesus is a creature and the creature died, and that nothing else can be true. And if someone says it isn't true, then they have no sin sacrifice.

Whereas I say that God the Son came as one of us (according the the many scriptures you have been given by many people so I won't do so again), He came from out of God (Word made flesh)in the likeness of us, those He came to redeem. Fully human in nature, while also fully having the divine nature from which He came. A divine nature cannot be lost. A human nature was added to but not mixed with the divine, for the purposes of redemption and of necessity in order to redeem. So though Jesus died as Son of Man, Son of God---the divine nature---did not die. And it did not have to die to redeem man. Only the man had to die and rise again to life. And He did. And He returned to the Father who begot Him in the womb of the daughter of man.

Now pick any man. Pick a holy and righteous man in the Bible if you wish. Pick any human being, but make it specific so as to get an accurate picture, and attach a hypothetical perfect righteousness to him.Then send him to the cross. And tell me, there was inherent in him the power and glory to atone for all the sins of all believers in all the world in all of time, past, present, and future. Lets, call him Jake. And then lets say about Jake the same things we say of Jesus--- Jake exalted to the right hand of God, Jake sitting upon God's throne, Jake judge over all people, creation being done through and by Jake. Eternal life coming to creatures through faith in Jake. Jake is the beginning and the end. Jake our High Priest interceding for us with the Father. Jake coming again to earth bearing a sword. The last enemy, death. put under Jake's feet. Jake born of a virgin. Jake the Messiah and Servant of Prophecy. David calling Jake His Lord. Do you get the picture? You have made Jesus to be a hypothetical Jake.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I would offer the law. . .

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: (spirit life is not literal dead blood) and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

the blood that maketh a picture or parable an atonement for the soul.The invisible work of the J Holy Spirit pouring out his spirit life in jeapory of his own life . . . . . on drying flesh and blood. called drinking the blood metaphor.

Living sacrifice when the spirit died and return to the father of all spirt life the the lifetles blood returned to dirt or field of clay

Not dead sacrifices let the dead bury thier own

The law the life of the flesh is in the blood .(again not of literal lifeless ) but the kind of life needed was spiritual . Not literal blood dead. It must return to the dust from which it was temporally formed.

Literal blood without the essence of spirit life must be poured out at the foot of the altar as at was at the cross to indcate spirt life was given by the unseen Holy Father

Can't get spirii life from lifeless flesh and blood. It would be easier to get blood from a turnip. again both water rudiments of this dying world and blood are used as Poring out of the Holy Spirt

Blood like water rudiments of this dying world are used as metaphors in parables . they having a dual purpose to hide the unseen spiritual understanding from the lost and are used as the gospel light to draw the new creation to know and understand the unseen Holy Father.

It would seem some confuse the use of parables . like the robe dipped in blood and take it literal As if Eternal God who is not a man as us a creation.

Eternal God remains without a mother and father. As the Holy Father of early fathers and Kings of earthly kings or Lord of earthly lords

Trying to make eternal Holy Spirit into a man as us defines the abomination of desolation the dying creature standing the place of the unseen Faithful Creator

Simply blasphemy .

You have gone to great lengths to tell us that though the Bible plainly states this it really means that. But we can all read and do not need a person to reinterpret it for us.

Blaspheme is claiming to be God or take the place of God. That has not happened.

God has come as a man before when He met with Abraham under the trees at Mamre. He was even a bush once. You can imagine God has limits but He doesn’t.

To believe that the Logos was the law has zero support and even less evidence in scripture. Use ocam‘s razor.

 

[Arial]

Jesus wasn't saying he was going to raise himself from the dead. He was speaking prophetically about his own resurrection, something that John 2:22 proves that Jesus didn't do to himself.

Jesus directly said "I will raise it up" referring to, as the Bible says, His body as the temple and He would raise it up. The fact that He was speaking of something that had not occurred yet but would occur, in no way changes what He said. John 2:22 in no way proves what you claim, as was shown you in the very post you are responding to. It is willful blindness. It is willfully denying the unequivocal words of our Lord in order to maintain your unsupportable position.

Where is there anything explicit about Jesus raising himself from the dead after his crucifixion? If you take the time to look, you're not going to find anything. By all counts, you're going to find the Father doing it.

How many times does Jesus have to explicitly say something before you believe Him? What about those scriptures I gave you several days ago that you wisely chose not to respond to at all, that explicitly state both God the Father and the Spirit also being involved in the resurrection?

One would think that by now that a person would realize they cannot prove what is not true using the Bible to do so. They have to ignore and deny too much of what is in the Bible. Yet they keep on trying, not even learning that simple truth.

 

[grace2]

Only when
". . .the Word was God. . .the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:1, 14)
is false doctrine.

As the NT is "triune God-centered," while you deny the plain testimony of Jn 1:1, 14 that Jesus the Word was God.

Yours that "Jesus is God according to your false doctrine" is heresy.

You are still using the usual tactic. Still disregarding Jesus' word.

 

[grace2]

Most modern Unitarians are humanists, skeptics, liberals, and very few of them are religious or hold to the Bible. When you do find one, you find the mystical and the occult has been added to their view of the Bible. They have an interest in the paranormal.

They no doubt have some spiritual experiences. But many can attest to having those before they were born again by God in reality.

Nobody can deny their new birth and how it is radically different to any "spiritual "experience they had before that time. They know the Bible in a different way to before. They understand it and they accept it as the words of God and do not try to change it in any way. Of course, it takes some work to produce theologies from the Bible, but a real Christian (Not a Unitarian, Mormon, JWs etc) would never deny the deity of Christ or that the Bible presents a Trinity. That is thousands of years of study, of people united by Orthodox Christian views, compared to the 1800 and 1900s when America produced a host of extra Biblical cults who often based their views on Hinduism, Buddhism, and east asian religious views and blended them in with a quasi-Christian interpretation.

Still disregarding Jesus' word.

So dishonest.

 

[grace2]

Then you should be able to prove it.

You are the one making false accusations. So it is you need to provide proof of your claims which you never did.