Titles Jesus doesn't share with God

[Arial]

Same exact person on earth too. The Son of God is a human through and through. You are missing out on so much by not understanding who Jesus is.

I never said He wasn't. You are arguing a straw man because you are unable to process beyond your own beliefs and argue according to your beliefs and as though they were mine. There is no subtraction here. There is an addition. The preincarnate Son became---- He did not lose what He had, His eternal existence. He added to that the nature of man, humanity. It is the only way God could redeem man. Study what redeem means. A redeemer cannot redeem---stand in the place of--- anything other than of the same type as the one he substitutes for. And if you say God did not do this because He cannot, and He cannot because it makes no sense to you and you can't understand it, is to place your own limitations of God, who has no limitation as to what He can do. Nothing is impossible for Him.

You are the one who is missing out on the glory and power and love of what Jesus did at Calvary. Compared to the truth of the atonement and redemption yours is flat, one dimensional. It might as well be a painting rather than a reality. When in fact it is breathtaking and multifaceted.

 

[Josheb]

Seems you have no intention of explaining how the verses I provided are red herrings.

What is overtly, blatantly, and undeniably in evidence is the red herrings have been explained and ignored. Either the posts haven't been read, or they haven't been understood. The premise "no intention of explaining," is utterly false. Go back and re-read the posts and read them as many times as it takes because this op is piled with red herrings that begin with a selective use of scripture to make its argument, an abusive use of proof-texting that teaches nothing of value or substance, several fallacies that include but are not limited to argument ex silentio, false equivalence, and straw man.

I guess because they aren't red herrings and there is no discussion to have on the matter. I suggest that you just believe what the Bible says.

Discussion begins when the question asked in Post 2 is answered honestly and that discussion engaged with integrity because it doesn't matter whether a person is Trin or non-Trin when it comes to the ability to be honest with themselves and others. Plenty of opportunity to do so in the last six pages availed itself and Post 72 readily shows the poverty thereof.

 

[Arial]

Matt 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

What is different about what Peter said and what others were saying?

Remember these are Jews Jesus is talking to, who were not casual acquaintances to the Law and Prophets, but were steeped in it from childhood. So who is this Christ (Messiah) they knew about? And why was what was revealed to Peter so profound and shocking? The Jews had been waiting for Messiah for centuries.

That doesn't mean he is equal to God. Contrary to that false accusation Jesus denied it.

John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

John 10:24-30 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about me,but you do not believe because you are not aong my sheep. My sheep hear my voice,and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of hte Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

They were going to stone Him because He said He and the Father were one. So you are wrong again. Skipping applicable portions of a whole discours will cause that to happen. You should have learned that by now. Jesus in His response in verse 36 both what He meant by He and His Father are one and what Son of God means and meant to His audience. He was claiming deity.

What you really should be paying attention to at this point in that set of scriptures is what Jesus said to them when He told them why they did not believe He is God. 26-25 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear by voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

 

[Arial]

I just take into counsel the whole of Scriptures rather than knee jerking on proof texts. For example you may read John 8:58 and see Jesus said "I am" and say "wow must mean Jesus is God!" but when does reading Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 where Jesus is not the I AM not change anything?

Instead of just picking up phrases and words that are used by those who have you on the rails, and put to shame your efforts at defending your position, and thinking that just by using them you have added weight to what you say----find out what they mean and then actually do them instead of just saying you do and accusing the ones who brought them to your attention of not doing them.

You have never used the phrases counsel or whole of Scriptures, knee jerk, or proof texts, just to mention the ones you borrow here, until you began hearing them when people made arguments against your proof texts, selective use of Scripture, with solid exegesis and you could not adequately defend your position. It is clear that you do not understand the meaning of those things, even in your use of them. The phrase is "the whole counsel of God, not take into counsel the whole of Scriptures. The counsel is not your counsel but God's and includes all of Scripture on any given subject. It refers to not arriving at any interpretation of doctrine from isolates scriptures, that is clearly contradicted in other places.

It is clear that you do not know the difference between a proof text and a single text used to prove a point, the meaning of which is not changed from its context. You use a scripture to prove your position, taking it out of its context----surrounding Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, and the who,what, where, when, and why. When it is put into these contexts, it is not saying what you claim it says. It does not actually mean what you make it to mean, if it stands all by itself. But then you have also illustrated that you do not understand what context is.

Not only that, here you give the "I Am" example of something no one did, as an example of "take into counsel the whole of Scripture", and call two other proof texts "taking into counsel the whole of Scriptures". And as though we had not already dealt with your "I AM" defense.

 

[Arial]

There is an error in interpreting absolutes as being literal because there are usually outliers and exceptions. Sometimes all can refer to literally all, but Jesus isn't literally the Lord of all. For example, All of Jesus' enemies aren't under his feet yet therefore Jesus isn't their Lord. However, when they are all put under his feet Jesus will lose his Lordship by being made subject to God.

Let's deal with the passages we are talking about instead of avoiding them by jumping to something else to where you think you have found something that supports your rape of Scripture by finding another "all" passage (which I will get to in a moment. What is not absolute or literal about "all" in "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named" in Eph 2:21-22?

Jesus is Lord of all no matter who they are. The fact that many do not believe Him and are unsaved does not change who He is. A Lord when it comes to God, is Lord. And all His enemies are under His feet, and Jesus will never lose His Lordship. I have no time, and no inclination at the moment to try and get you to understand anything, and especially not what the Bible means by Jesus becoming subject to God. I think it is above your comprehension level and that is because you gospel premise is wrong. You don't know who Jesus is.

 

[grace2]

If you are going to use that as your proof, then answer the question I asked @Runningman. Where does Jesus say "I am not God."?

Yes, the Father says over and over that Jesus is deity and you don't even recognize it.

you guys are a sad case.

your panicky mode is showing.

 

[Arial]

you guys are a sad case.

your panicky mode is showing.

Answer the question.

 

[grace2]

Answer the question.

Why should I?

You don't answer the question of ours.

You claim Jesus is God.

Where does it say it?

 

[Fred]

You claim Jesus is God.

Where does it say it?

You claim, 'Jesus is not God.'

Where does it say it?

 

[Runningman]

What is overtly, blatantly, and undeniably in evidence is the red herrings have been explained and ignored. Either the posts haven't been read, or they haven't been understood. The premise "no intention of explaining," is utterly false. Go back and re-read the posts and read them as many times as it takes because this op is piled with red herrings that begin with a selective use of scripture to make its argument, an abusive use of proof-texting that teaches nothing of value or substance, several fallacies that include but are not limited to argument ex silentio, false equivalence, and straw man.

Discussion begins when the question asked in Post 2 is answered honestly and that discussion engaged with integrity because it doesn't matter whether a person is Trin or non-Trin when it comes to the ability to be honest with themselves and others. Plenty of opportunity to do so in the last six pages availed itself and Post 72 readily shows the poverty thereof.

None of that explains why you called the verses I quoted a red herring. Okay then. Moving on to someone who actually wants to engage the OP of this thread.

 

[makesends]

24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

Obviously, you think this indicates that the Son is not God, in part because it talks in terms of God doing this or that in relation to the Son doing the other. Doubtless you also consider the Son Himself being made subject to Him who put all things under Him, and so you see that last phrase, so that God may be all in all as buttoning the whole business down.

Well, you are partly right. God being all in all does button it down, but the structure there indicates the unity of the two —the Son as subjected to the Father is part of what it means for God to be 'all in all'. Why, if God is all in all, would it matter that the Son be made subject to the Father? If the Son and the Father are not one within the Trinity, God is 'all in all' whether the Son is subjected to him or not.

 

[Runningman]

I never said He wasn't. You are arguing a straw man because you are unable to process beyond your own beliefs and argue according to your beliefs and as though they were mine.

I never said that is what you said. Some of my commentary is just to supplement a point I want to make or something I want readers to be aware of. How about instead of blaming me for something you think I am doing and rather than talking about me, you just talk about the points I make. Or don't.

There is no subtraction here. There is an addition. The preincarnate Son became---- He did not lose what He had, His eternal existence.

That would be an addition. You have not established any such proof of a pre-incarnate Son. I have asked many others to quote a single quote by Jesus from the Old Testament and they can't. Why do you think Jesus pre-existed the day he was begotten and God became his Father according to Hebrews 1 :5?

He added to that the nature of man, humanity.

Verse?

It is the only way God could redeem man.

Verse?

Study what redeem means. A redeemer cannot redeem---stand in the place of--- anything other than of the same type as the one he substitutes for.

True.

And if you say God did not do this because He cannot, and He cannot because it makes no sense to you and you can't understand it, is to place your own limitations of God, who has no limitation as to what He can do. Nothing is impossible for Him.

John 3:16-17 basically said God sent His Son to save the world through him. God and Jesus can work together without one being the other. Can God save the world through a man because He's God? Aren't all things possible with God? Then why do you seem to deny that God can't save the world through a man? Do you also deny that God can save the world any way He wants?

You are the one who is missing out on the glory and power and love of what Jesus did at Calvary. Compared to the truth of the atonement and redemption yours is flat, one dimensional. It might as well be a painting rather than a reality. When in fact it is breathtaking and multifaceted.

If Jesus is God then who or what died according to you?

 

[Runningman]

What is different about what Peter said and what others were saying?

Remember these are Jews Jesus is talking to, who were not casual acquaintances to the Law and Prophets, but were steeped in it from childhood. So who is this Christ (Messiah) they knew about? And why was what was revealed to Peter so profound and shocking? The Jews had been waiting for Messiah for centuries.

Christianity is the New Covenant promised to the Jews and also Jesus commissioned it be preached to the Gentiles in Acts 1. There isn't some different New Covenant for Jews as there are for other people. The same exact Christianity for Peter is the same exact one for non-Jewish people.

John 10:24-30 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about me,but you do not believe because you are not aong my sheep. My sheep hear my voice,and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of hte Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

They were going to stone Him because He said He and the Father were one. So you are wrong again. Skipping applicable portions of a whole discours will cause that to happen. You should have learned that by now. Jesus in His response in verse 36 both what He meant by He and His Father are one and what Son of God means and meant to His audience. He was claiming deity.

The part I quoted contains the false accusation of his alleged claim to be God. Contrary to that false accusation, Jesus explained that not only did he not claim "I am God" but also simultaneously denied it by saying he's the Son of God. Therefore, being the Son of God is not equal to being God. I'll post it again, see verse 33.

John 10​

33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”​

34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?​

What you really should be paying attention to at this point in that set of scriptures is what Jesus said to them when He told them why they did not believe He is God. 26-25 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear by voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

The bit from John 10:24-30 where Jesus said "I am my Father are one" is also not a claim to being God.

If you will read John 17:21, the same oneness Jesus has with God he also wanted the disciples to have with each other and himself with his God. Jesus said the disciples can be one with God. Being one with God isn't a reference to deity.

John 17​

21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.​

 

[Runningman]

Instead of just picking up phrases and words that are used by those who have you on the rails, and put to shame your efforts at defending your position, and thinking that just by using them you have added weight to what you say----find out what they mean and then actually do them instead of just saying you do and accusing the ones who brought them to your attention of not doing them.

You have never used the phrases counsel or whole of Scriptures, knee jerk, or proof texts, just to mention the ones you borrow here, until you began hearing them when people made arguments against your proof texts, selective use of Scripture, with solid exegesis and you could not adequately defend your position. It is clear that you do not understand the meaning of those things, even in your use of them. The phrase is "the whole counsel of God, not take into counsel the whole of Scriptures. The counsel is not your counsel but God's and includes all of Scripture on any given subject. It refers to not arriving at any interpretation of doctrine from isolates scriptures, that is clearly contradicted in other places.

It is clear that you do not know the difference between a proof text and a single text used to prove a point, the meaning of which is not changed from its context. You use a scripture to prove your position, taking it out of its context----surrounding Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, and the who,what, where, when, and why. When it is put into these contexts, it is not saying what you claim it says. It does not actually mean what you make it to mean, if it stands all by itself. But then you have also illustrated that you do not understand what context is.

Not only that, here you give the "I Am" example of something no one did, as an example of "take into counsel the whole of Scripture", and call two other proof texts "taking into counsel the whole of Scriptures". And as though we had not already dealt with your "I AM" defense.

That's just your false narrative about me.

In addition to John 8:58 where Jesus said "I am" there is also Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 where Jesus is not the I AM. The common denominator here is that John 8:58 with Jesus alleged declaration of being God is misunderstood by Trinitarians.

The God of Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob is the I AM and known as Yahweh:

Exodus 3:14,15​

14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”​

15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.​

Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then he isn't the I AM, isn't Yahweh, isn't God:

Acts 3​

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

 

[Runningman]

Let's deal with the passages we are talking about instead of avoiding them by jumping to something else to where you think you have found something that supports your rape of Scripture by finding another "all" passage

While that's an extremely classless way to talk about what the Bible says, discussing how interpretation of a doctrine is formed is necessary because it's the base of sound exegesis in hermeneutics. When reading the Bible we should be well aware about when and/or if an absolutely like "all" is literal and without exception, if there are exceptions, and if there is a context to when and/or where it applies.

(which I will get to in a moment. What is not absolute or literal about "all" in "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named" in Eph 2:21-22?

I think you mean chapter 1 of Ephesians, but that applies to a specific context. The church on earth and the church in heaven. There is a hierarchy. Jesus is above all except God. Yes, Jesus is also above all of the unbelievers, but he isn't their Lord. If someone is a Lord it would require doing what they say.

Why do you think Jesus asked this? His point was if he's Lord you need to obey him. If someone isn't obeying Jesus then they aren't under his lordship. Therefore, the context applies to the church.

Luke 6
46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Jesus is Lord of all no matter who they are.

Luke 6
46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The fact that many do not believe Him and are unsaved does not change who He is.

Now this is rich right here. I am saved and in God's grace.

A Lord when it comes to God, is Lord.

Jesus isn't God though.

And all His enemies are under His feet, and Jesus will never lose His Lordship.

He will because he isn't the Sovereign Lord and Creator. He isn't God.

1 Corinthians 15
28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

I have no time, and no inclination at the moment to try and get you to understand anything, and especially not what the Bible means by Jesus becoming subject to God. I think it is above your comprehension level and that is because you gospel premise is wrong. You don't know who Jesus is.

Sounds like you just need to blame me for being unable to back up your beliefs using scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Obviously, you think this indicates that the Son is not God, in part because it talks in terms of God doing this or that in relation to the Son doing the other. Doubtless you also consider the Son Himself being made subject to Him who put all things under Him, and so you see that last phrase, so that God may be all in all as buttoning the whole business down.

That seems about right. Yes.

Well, you are partly right. God being all in all does button it down, but the structure there indicates the unity of the two —the Son as subjected to the Father is part of what it means for God to be 'all in all'.

So God isn't all in all now?

Why, if God is all in all, would it matter that the Son be made subject to the Father? If the Son and the Father are not one within the Trinity, God is 'all in all' whether the Son is subjected to him or not.

The way 1 Cor. 15:28 reads to me is that God will be "all in all" when the Son is made subject to God. The way I understand that is that Jesus will eventually not have the same authority as he previously does. Revelation 21-22 actually does seem to allude to this a bit.

 

[Mr GLee]

It is a statement of His eternal sovereign existence.

The Alpha and Omega has to do with work he started in us he will continue working until Omega ( Phillipian 1:6)

He is both the author and the perfecter (Alpha and Omega)

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of (our new born again ) faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus the Christ, the Holy teaching (anointing) Spirit of the Father. Not Jesus the Son of man . Satan would say it is altogether one in the same. teaching God is a Jewish man as King of kings and Lord of lords.

A distinction must be made.

 

[Arial]

discussing how interpretation of a doctrine is formed is necessary because it's the base of sound exegesis in hermeneutics. When reading the Bible we should be well aware about when and/or if an absolutely like "all" is literal and without exception, if there are exceptions, and if there is a context to when and/or where it applies.

Says the person who never does it and just says things like this when it is done for them. How many times do I have to give you the context before you address that instead of posting things like this?

I think you mean chapter 1 of Ephesians, but that applies to a specific context.

The context begins in Eph 1:1.

Why do you think Jesus asked this? His point was if he's Lord you need to obey him. If someone isn't obeying Jesus then they aren't under his lordship. Therefore, the context applies to the church.

Jesus isn't asking anything in Eph 1. You simply changed the subject.

Luke 6
46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The Lordship of Jesus is not dependent on what people do and don't do. They said they knew Him and acted like they knew Him, but He did not know them.

Now this is rich right here. I am saved and in God's grace.

NA

Jesus isn't God though.

If that is what you believe, then you don't yet know Him. "I have told you but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." John 10

He will because he isn't the Sovereign Lord and Creator. He isn't God.

"I have told you plainly, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." John 10

Sounds like you just need to blame me for being unable to back up your beliefs using scripture.

That's ok. I understand it is necessary for the sake of self image to believe that.

 

[Arial]

Christianity is the New Covenant promised to the Jews and also Jesus commissioned it be preached to the Gentiles in Acts 1. There isn't some different New Covenant for Jews as there are for other people. The same exact Christianity for Peter is the same exact one for non-Jewish people.

NA. What I said had to do with one of the aspects of context in sussing out the meaning of what the person speaking/writing in the scripture means. WHo, what, when, where , why. How old are you that you have so much trouble with things like this?

The part I quoted contains the false accusation of his alleged claim to be God. Contrary to that false accusation, Jesus explained that not only did he not claim "I am God" but also simultaneously denied it by saying he's the Son of God. Therefore, being the Son of God is not equal to being God. I'll post it again, see verse 33.

The part you quoted is a part of what I quoted, not separate from it. Context, context, context.

 

[grace2]

NA. What I said had to do with one of the aspects of context in sussing out the meaning of what the person speaking/writing in the scripture means. WHo, what, when, where , why. How old are you that you have so much trouble with things like this?

The part you quoted is a part of what I quoted, not separate from it. Context, context, context.

You have been asking questions and getting the answers.

And come back with this kind of false accusation.

Do you have to get down so law?

I'll tell you why I don't take your bait questions.

You are not interested in the Truth like most triune believers.

Your loyalty belongs to your triune god.

You have studied Calvinism diligently.

You ought to read the Bible instead of devoting to man's teachings.

so so sad.