Titles Jesus doesn't share with God

[Josheb]

No it's all sola scriptura. The Bible isn't a red herring.

ROTFLMBO!

The op is the antithesis of sola scriptura. Post 38 is another red herring. The op is a series of abusive proo-texting that has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity and hiding behind a gross abuse of sola scripture makes things worse, not better. I'll ask you once more: Are you aware most of the op is red herrings?

The Bible isn't a red herring.

LOL! No one said the Bible was a red herring! That statement is a red herring! The protest proves the point!
.

 

[Runningman]

The op is the antithesis of sola scriptura.

Not according to the OP. The OP demonstrably shows using scripture there are a lot of titles Jesus doesn't share with God. That isn't changing any time soon. If you had an actual scriptural rebuttal to any of it you would have used it by now. Page 3 and every post/comment has gone unchallenged.

 

[Fred]

Page 3 and every post/comment has gone unchallenged.

Total delusion.

 

[grace2]

That isn't changing any time soon.

It will not change at all.

 

[Josheb]

Not according to the OP. The OP demonstrably shows using scripture there are a lot of titles Jesus doesn't share with God. That isn't changing any time soon. If you had an actual scriptural rebuttal to any of it you would have used it by now. Page 3 and every post/comment has gone unchallenged.

Here is a simple, op-relevant, valid question intentionally worded so it can be answered immediately, directly, and concisely with a single word, "Yes," or "No."

Is it good practice to single out verses, and remove them from their surrounding text and the contexts inherent in the passages from which a single verse is removed?

 

[prism]

Summary:

Matthew 15:14 NKJV
Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."

 

[Runningman]

Here is a simple, op-relevant, valid question intentionally worded so it can be answered immediately, directly, and concisely with a single word, "Yes," or "No."

Is it good practice to single out verses, and remove them from their surrounding text and the contexts inherent in the passages from which a single verse is removed?

The OP is what the OP is. If you think that the scriptures quoted are "red herrings" then the burden of proof is on you to establish that. Let me help you. How about you begin with one of the verses you feel are a red herring and explain how.

Is Jesus called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob anywhere in the Bible? Yes or no.

 

[Mr GLee]

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Colos 2
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Yes the word that was with God of God was not the word of the apostle Jesus .But the living word given to Jesus the apostle to preach the gospel

Eternal God is not a Jewish man as King of earthly kings God destroyed all kings (pagan foundation) during the three days and nights demonstrations.

Two is the witness eternal God has spoken A work of the Holy Fathers labor of his love or called a work of faith working in the Son of man Jesus the temporal seen "The let there be" as a law of faith and "it was good" the substance seen. God worked in the Son of man just as he does today with all sons of God Christians

In him dwelt the fulnes the fulnes is not of him eho has no poer libig in a dying body

Jesu the son of man cried out for the power of the father .not by my will( powerless) but you Father with will the power of His faithfulness . the let there be and it was .

Jesus would never stand in the place of eternal God the one god teaching master

Whatsoever applies to us applies to our brother in the lord Jesus the Son of man

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[grace2]

Is Jesus called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob anywhere in the Bible? Yes or no.

excellent point.

 

[Fred]

excellent point.

No, it isn't.
See Exodus 3:6.

 

[Runningman]

excellent point.

Indeed, Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

 

[Fred]

Indeed, Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

https://christcentered.community.fo...ination-of-the-son-ess.1473/page-5#post-61101

 

[grace2]

Indeed, Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

There are so many glorious characteristics of God that no one shares with anyone, not even His Son Jesus that "Jesus is God" believers.

Especially in the OT.

Triune god believers are not reading much of the OT and NT Bible.

They underestimate God's greatness greatly.
it is so sad.

 

[Josheb]

The OP is what the OP is. If you think that the scriptures quoted are "red herrings" then the burden of proof is on you to establish that. Let me help you. How about you begin with one of the verses you feel are a red herring and explain how.

Is Jesus called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob anywhere in the Bible? Yes or no.

I will gladly answer your question when you've answered mine.

Is it good practice to single out verses, and remove them from their surrounding text and the contexts inherent in the passages from which a single verse is removed? Yes or no?

 

[grace2]

I will gladly answer your question when you've answered mine.

Is it good practice to single out verses, and remove them from their surrounding text and the contexts inherent in the passages from which a single verse is removed? Yes or no?

manipulative question for your doctrine.

It is a bait and dishonest question.

 

[Josheb]

manipulative question for your doctrine.

It is a bait and dishonest question.

Fail. That question has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with the right handling of scripture. The question asked is a valid and necessary question, one for which the answer is easy and EVERYONE should instantly and unequivocally answer uniformly "No!"

But we can all see that's not what has happened. Instead, the abuse of scripture is avoided. Avoidance is a very old and very common practice.

2 Timothy 2:11-15
It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with him, we will also live with him; If we endure, we will also reign with him; If we deny him, he also will deny us; If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

The question asked is very important and the silence is fatal to the op.

John 3:14-21 NIV
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

It goes all the way back to Eden.

The op mishandles God's word and will not acknowledge that fact. It is NOT okay to single out selected verses, removing them from their inherent text and contexts and make them say things they can't be made to say when the whole of scripture is considered. It's not the places where scripture does not apply divine titles to Jesus that are germane. It's the many, many examples where it does do so that is germane. Arguments from silence are fallacious.


The entire op is scripture abusing red herring and its defenders will not even go one record answering one single, solitary, valid and very op-relevant inquiry.

 

[grace2]

Fail. That question has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with the right handling of scripture.

There is nothing wrong with quoting the verses.

In fact, that's the right way to do it.

This is his thread and he is quoting all relevant verses to prove his claims.

What you are doing is luring away from the OP.

and it is so indigenous and not a good Christian thing to do.

 

[Runningman]

I will gladly answer your question when you've answered mine.

Is it good practice to single out verses, and remove them from their surrounding text and the contexts inherent in the passages from which a single verse is removed? Yes or no?

I made the OP. You responded with a claim about the verses I supplied being red herrings. I responded, now it's your turn to own the burden proof for your claim.

Actually, if you have any way to debunk anything I said or demonstrate the error of the verses I quoted then you're in the best possible position to wield the power of scripture over any one or all of my 20+ scriptural references on page 1 & 2 of this thread. On the other hand, If you don't have anything then trying to change the subject and asking question unrelated to the OP would be your best bet to back pedal on out of the corner you're in.

So once you address the OP in any meaningful way if you want to ask unrelated questions I would be happy to answer.

 

[Runningman]

The op mishandles God's word and will not acknowledge that fact. It is NOT okay to single out selected verses, removing them from their inherent text and contexts and make them say things they can't be made to say when the whole of scripture is considered. It's not the places where scripture does not apply divine titles to Jesus that are germane. It's the many, many examples where it does do so that is germane. Arguments from silence are fallacious.


The entire op is scripture abusing red herring and its defenders will not even go one record answering one single, solitary, valid and very op-relevant inquiry.

Another claim on your part. Since you feel I have mishandled scripture and taken something out of context then please feel free to correct me. Aside from talking about your opinion as to how the Bible should be understood, so far I have not seen any demonstration about what you think the Bible should say or how what I said is wrong.

"You are wrong" or "that's a red herring" is not a valid reply. Please explain. Thank you.

 

[prism]

Jesus is not the invisible God:

Colossians 1​

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.​

Correct, Jesus is God made visible.

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-

John 1:1,14 NKJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.