Posted on 02/04/2016 12:39:52 PM PST by metmom
They believe the flesh of Jesus Christ is God
Lol, there is only one person Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man.
Jesus Christ says he is the alpha and omega, which can only mean He is God.
Unfortunately, the Scriptures tell us the true Church will face a falling away and false teachers will arise and fool many.
There you go.
So you refuse to believe what Jesus Christ tells you in John 14:10,11?....
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
I’ve given you many scriptural references in this back and forth, and you’ve replied to hardly any of them. You have used maybe 2 or 3, and each easily confirm the Son’s description given in John 14:10,11, and many other references. You’ve been told. My job is done.
There is one holy catholic apostolic church and true doctrine was definitively decided and promulgated long ago.
Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Oh I believe it alright.
I also believe the Father and Son are in me.
Do you believe that?
So I understand you, who is Jesus to you? A created being like an angel or human? Did he exist before he was born of Mary? Is it ok to worship Jesus or would that be idolatry?
**I also believe the Father and Son are in me. Do you believe that?**
God the Father and the mind that he put in Christ. This is supplied by the Comforter (Holy Ghost). Not two or three separate and distinct persons of God.
You do realize that until Jesus Christ departed, the Holy Ghost outpouring could not happen. He had to go away in order for the Comforter to come (John 16:7-15).
“Howbeit when the he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall NOT speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.” vs 13.
Sound familiar?....”For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.’ Jn 12:49
The Father is the source of all truth.
**So I understand you, who is Jesus to you? A created being like an angel or human?**
I believe God the Father made soul of the Son before any other thing created. (see Rev. 3:14 below). And of course, the Father later made the human body for that soul to dwell in.
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” Col. 1:15.
At that point, the Father was in him, giving power to create, unless you think that the Father didn’t make anything.
The Father told the Son what he needed to know, when he needed to know it, even after the resurrection, but before ascending to the Father to be glorified, telling Mary Magdalene:
“..I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father, and to my God, and to your God.†Jn 20:17
..And before his ascension to heaven after being glorified:
“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.†Acts 1:7
..And after his ascension to heaven:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..â€. Rev. 1:1
“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;†Rev. 3:14
**Is it ok to worship Jesus or would that be idolatry?**
The Father is in Christ, so of course it’s okay to worship Jesus Christ. Unlike the Ark of the Covenant, where God said he would dwell between to cherubims, and thereby keeping people from worshipping the work of men’s hands. The Son is begotten of God, not man, and the Father dwells in Son.
As much emphasis as your church puts in the mass, one would think that that would be in your creed as well.
**I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.**
Starts out good, then starts hitting bumps in the road:
**God from God, Light from Light,**
Should be: Son of God from God, God is Light (in him is no darkness at all. 1Jn 1:5
**true God from true God,**
Should be: true Son of God from true God.
**begotten, not made**
Should be: Firstborn of the creation of God.
They make that clear early in the creed, and then change it. It’s best to stick with the Word.
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:†Col. 1:15.
“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” Rev. 3:14
(that all the time I have right now.)
It seems to me you are recreating re-forming the Christian religion according your own personal knowledge and experience. This is the regressive devolution of Protestantism.
How be it when HE the spirit of truth has come..........
Did you catch that - the Holy Spirit is called “He”, a force or power is not a HE. A person is a He. The Holy Spirit hears, the Holy Spirit speaks. These are attributes of a person.
Next error - “ I believe God the Father made the soul of the Son”
Jesus Christ is God, one of the attributes of God is He isn’t created. John 1 tells us the Word was God.
Secondly John 1:3 tells us all things were made thru Jesus and without him nothing was made that was made. So Jesus could not have been made because it tells us nothing was made without Jesus, which would include Jesus.
Isaiah 44:6 declares the Lord says I am the first and the last.
This is God speaking.
Well look at what Jesus says about Himself in Revelation 1:17:
Fear not, I am the first and the last.
This is God speaking.
Notice Jesus doesn’t say I am the first and the last because the Father is in me. No, he flat out declares his deity.
Curious, are you Oneness Pentecostal by any chance?
**Did you catch that - the Holy Spirit is called “Heâ€, a force or power is not a HE. A person is a He. The Holy Spirit hears, the Holy Spirit speaks. These are attributes of a person.**
Of course I caught that. You just didn’t seem to catch that the Holy Ghost is a complete servant of God the Father, just as the Son of God is.........
“Howbeit when the he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall NOT speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.†vs 13.
Sound familiar?....â€For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.’ Jn 12:49
Both are attributes of God the Father, that are sent by the Father to do his will. We can’t relate to having such utterly amazing attributes since we are not the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
**Jesus Christ is God,**
Jesus Christ called himself the Son of God. Are you wiser than him?
**one of the attributes of God is He isn’t created. John 1 tells us the Word was God.**
And once again, the divine Words that came out of the Son of God’s mouth originated where?
**So Jesus could not have been made because it tells us nothing was made without Jesus, which would include Jesus.**
Is that some sort of circular reasoning?....once again here’s the Word:
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:†Col. 1:15.
“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” Rev. 3:14
The Father was in him, giving power to create, unless you think that the Father didn’t make anything.
**Notice Jesus doesn’t say I am the first and the last because the Father is in me. No, he flat out declares his deity.**
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass...” Rev. 1:1
He is the voice of God the Father. He flat out defined the Godhead to John and the other apostles decades before Revelation. They already knew that the omnipresent Father was in him, giving him power and majesty. That’s why, in Isaiah 9:6, the Son is called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the EVERLASTING FATHER, and the Prince of peace.
You apparently believe that God the Father literally sits on one throne, and Jesus Christ literally sits on his own throne right beside the Father. What’s you understanding of this?.........
“And immediately I was in the spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Rev. 4:2
The next verses seem to describe a image on the throne similar to that of Jesus Christ in chapter 1. Chapter 3:21 seems to point out that the Son’s throne is IN the Father’s throne. It is all very hard for people in a finite physical world to understand. But, try we do.
Yes, I’m Oneness Pentecostal.
Thanks for your honesty.
Oneness is impossible because Jesus prays to his Father in John 17 and many other verses show quite clearly two separate persons.
For example, at the baptism of Jesus.
The other huge problem you have of course, is the Church left behind by the Apostles believed in the Trinity.
When was the first post Apostolic age person to teach Oneness?
Wasn’t in the 19th century?
**Oneness is impossible because Jesus prays to his Father in John 17 and many other verses show quite clearly two separate persons.**
You trinitarians admit that the Son of God was a man in every sense of the word, including having a soul. Oneness believe that as well. We simply believe that the ‘all power’ in him is God the Father.
“..I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.” Acts 2:25-28
While those are words from the prophet David, is not about him. For one, David was not the Holy One. Also, David’s body stayed in the grave and saw corruption.
Oneness believe that the image of God is not God, but the Son of God, for God is a Spirit. We believe that the Holy One was the first creation of God the Father in the beginning, and was incarnated to save mankind.
**For example, at the baptism of Jesus.**
I can talk, drive a car, and engage a garage door opener all at the same time. Jesus Christ points out several times in chapters 14,15, and 16, that he is from the Father, and so is the Holy Ghost. What do you limit the Father to in spiritual ability? What things can he do at the same time, and what can he not do at the same time?
**The other huge problem you have of course, is the Church left behind by the Apostles believed in the Trinity.**
The apostles left behind the teachings that they were given by the Lord. As the Lord never used the phrases ‘God the Son’, or ‘God the Holy Spirit’, neither did they.
After the apostles died, there were men that, like the Pharisees, wanted to be the foremost teachers. Paul, John, Peter, and Jude warned of it being a present problem in their time. Consequently, there was plenty of push and shove about the spiritual understanding of the Godhead. We know that the devil loves deception and confusion; a little or a lot, but I’m sure he prefers a lot.
There is plenty of history to show the disagreements from approximately 100 A.D. onward. It was even brought to the forefront when the great John Calvin (cough) encouraged the execution of oneness witness Michael Servetus. At least (it is said) Calvin just wanted him beheaded, not burned at the stake like he actually was (isn’t that nice/sarc).
Why has oneness been small in number (in our opinion)?....well, there are any number of reasons. The biggest being the Lord’s own declaration: “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it.”
Paul wasn’t the only high-strung Pharisee; maybe the most zealous though. Why didn’t God literally blind a couple more around the same time, straighten them out, and send them into Asia (China, Japan, India, etc)?
God only knows. He has his reasons for doing things his way.
For us, they are past finding out.
I don’t know if you take offense at the term and if you do please tell me and I won’t use it ( no offense is meant ) but I always thought another term for Oneness was modalism.
Further, I thought modalism teaches God is the Father at one point, then he became the Son and after that the Spirit. Three ways of presenting the One God, but not three separate persons in the one God.
But my understanding seems incorrect from your last post where you indicate Jesus was just a man, but with the Father in him.
Is Oneness modalism?
**Further, I thought modalism teaches God is the Father at one point, then he became the Son and after that the Spirit.**
Just as there are people, in any particular organizational church structure, that really are to some degree or another unqualified to teach doctrine, Modalism is a poor way to define God. Mainly because God the Father never has, and never will cease to be God the Father. Not even for a minute. Some oneness preachers (and organizations) use the feeble ‘three manifestations’ description. I don’t.
And the Trinity is a poor way to define God, seeing that it promotes using unscriptural definitions, such as ‘God the Son’, and ‘God the Holy Spirit’.
Unfortunately, every attempt to define God, in an ‘our own words’ condensation, is just a weak attempt, without using the scriptures. Jesus Christ’s words on the subject are probably a third of the Gospel of John alone. A church organization’s statement of faith (which MUST include doctrine) is almost always a feeble attempt at abbreviation.
There is so MUCH to learn. Jesus Christ spent 3 years training the disciples, and then told them they would later be filled with the Spirit, which would lead and guide them into all truth. Anyway......
The Son of God was made to be the earthly express image of the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient invisible God (as pointed out in Col. 1:15, and Heb. 1:3. And one of the shortest overall descriptions (certainly not a detailed one) of the Godhead, imo, is 1Tim. 3:16:
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
And if God is three co-equal individual, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient ‘persons’, why does one need the other for anything? One thing is certain. How ever one wants to try and numerically define God, the fullness of the Godhead is found bodily in Christ (Col. 2:9), including the seven Spirits of God (Rev. 3:1).
1Cor. 15:20-28 “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept”....”Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”.....
....”And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Also himself be subject?.....and to HIM that PUT all things under him? That would be God, even the Father (see vrs 24).
You see, God the Father completely empowered a complete man (body and soul, that he made) to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), by dwelling in him.
Here’s a thought provoker:
Jesus Christ to Nathanael: ...”Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Jn 1;50,51
You’ve no doubt heard the commercials or seen the labels on computers that say: powered by Intel. Well, imo, no matter how you look at it, the Son of God is powered by God the Father.
Bed time. (I’m not normally a night owl. I just usually sleep some in the evening, then wake up in time to welcome home my wife the nurse, from her very draining second shift job. She appreciates having someone to talk to at the end of her day. The Obozocare effect has cut the staff at all the nursing homes in our area, making the job much tougher.)
Using any language is a poor way to define any infinite being as God.
But since we must use language as it is how God decided to reveal Himself to us.
The problem I see with what you are proposing is you take a verse here or there and try to build a theology around it, and read all other verses thru the lense of those verses.
Historical Chrisitanity is able to take all the verses and harmonize them perfectly.
For example, you keep stressing God the Father was in Jesus and that is true. But that doesn’t negate the Son’s deity separate from the Father. For example, John 1 declares the Word was God, it doesn’t say the Father was in the Word.
In Revelation, Jesus declares He is the first and the last, the exact phrase used in the OT of God. It doesn’t say he was the first and the last because the Father was in him.
Acts 5 declares the Holy Spirit to be a person by calling him he and states he is God.
These verses don’t make any sense with your interpretation, only the Trinity is able to make each verse harmonize with the whole Bible and the Apostolic Tradition received from the Apostles.
(I included you, af vet, because you also use a similar defense: discredit the messenger, instead of addressing all of the points I’ve made.)
I figured to just let it go. I’ve done my job. But I keep coming back to this comment of yours, oLofob:
**The problem I see with what you are proposing is you take a verse here or there and try to build a theology around it, and read all other verses thru the lense of those verses.**
That’s an odd position to take, seeing that I probably presented 4 or 5 times as many scriptural references as you did in this back and forth.
And then there are points I made, such as the Christ and his apostles original TRADITION of using the phrase ‘Son of God’, but never, ever, using the phrase ‘God the Son’. That’s basically making 45 references of FACT in one comment.
**Historical Christianity is able to take all the verses and harmonize them perfectly.**
Inventing the phrase ‘God the Son’, is NOT historical Christianity.
**For example, you keep stressing God the Father was in Jesus and that is true.**
God the Father ‘was’, and still is in the Son, and the Son is still in the Father. I’m glad that you see that. But, God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24), and invisible. So where can you say he is not present?
**But that doesn’t negate the Son’s deity separate from the Father. For example, John 1 declares the Word was God, it doesn’t say the Father was in the Word.**
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Keep in mind, the following is presented using your separate and distinct, co-equal persons of God idea: the Son is the Word, and the Father in NOT the Word. But then there is that pesky problem about the Son saying repeatedly that the words that he spoke were not his, but are sourced to the Father.
But, you demand that the Word be the Son, separate and distinct, when they aren’t separate. Anywhere you find the Son, you find the Father. John 14 makes that quite clear. Jesus Christ is the mouthpiece (among many other things) of God the Father.
**In Revelation, Jesus declares He is the first and the last, the exact phrase used in the OT of God. It doesn’t say he was the first and the last because the Father was in him.**
The apostles, and those that were taught by them, already knew that the Father was in Christ, and Christ in the Father. Therefore they needed not to point out a separation in power and authority, as the Trinitarians insist on doing.
**Acts 5 declares the Holy Spirit to be a person by calling him he and states he is God.**
The Holy Spirit is sent/proceeds from the Father (a spiritual dimension that is incredibly hard for us mortals to imagine). The Holy Spirit is God the Father’s primary means of communicating with mankind since the ascension of the Son. I referred you to Jn 16:13, remember? You lie to the Spirit of God, and you are lying to God the Father.
So with the Trinity, and the separation that it demands, are these accurate conclusions?......
The Father...
-is one of the creators,
speaks words, but is not the Word,
-is Father to the Son, but didn’t perform the actual work,
-is considered a saviour, maybe co-saviour,
-is co-redeemer with the Son,
-is first and last, Alpha and Omega,
-is no longer the Judge.
The Son...
-is one of the creators (but gets most of the credit),
-is the Word (but gives the Father credit as being the source of the words),
-is the Saviour (or at least gets most of the credit),
-is the redeemer, or at least co-redeemer with the Father,
-is first and last, Alpha and Omega (even though he was begotten),
-is the Judge.
The Holy Spirit...
-is one of the creators (but was the one that did the initial heavy lifting in Gen. 1:2; therefore beating the Son to punch),
-is not the Father of the Son (but did the actual work),
-gives the words of God to mankind (but is just a relay; -having no separate and distinct words of his own),
-is not a redeemer,
-is not first and last, Alpha and Omega (by the apparent assignment of those attributes to the Father and the Son),
-is not the Judge.
Let us take a verse (2Cor. 13:14), and put it in what I call the unofficial Trinitarian Amplified Version:
The grace of God the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of God the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Let us use another verse (Acts 10:38). Remember, the Lord commended Peter for his God-given understanding of who he (Jesus Christ) was. So, there is no confusion on Peter’s part as he relates to Cornelius who Jesus Christ is. But, here it is using the T.A.V.
How God the Father anointed God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, with God the Holy Ghost and with power.....
Anyway...
In his epistles, does Paul ever go into a second person of God mode, using the phrase: God the Lord Jesus Christ? No.
Your trinity concept divides God (the use of word: separate, in defining God).
A brief example of the confusion trinitarian creeds display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called Athanasian Creed:
10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.
Eternal=begotten??
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it:
25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.†John 14:28
And this:
12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable??
More confusion:
13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones......????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord,
But, in the scriptures, there cannot be found the phrases: God Jesus Christ, Lord Holy Spirit, or, God the Holy Spirit.
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
At least they got that part right.
Another favorite verse of Trinitarians is this:
“Unto the Son [God] saith, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,..†Heb. 1:8
As I said before, you apparently believe that God the Father literally sits on one throne, and Jesus Christ literally sits on his own throne right beside the Father. What’s you understanding of this?.........
“And immediately I was in the spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.†Rev. 4:2
The next verses seem to describe a image on the throne similar to that of Jesus Christ in chapter 1. Chapter 3:21 seems to point out that the Son’s throne is IN the Father’s throne.
Is the separate and distinct Father conceding ownership of the throne? No. The omnipresent Father now has image to dwell in, to actually, physically, sit on a throne. That image was obedient to the Father in all things, even unto death. That image is now resurrected, and STILL the one filled with Spirit without measure (the fullness of the Godhead bodily).
With Trinitarian reasoning, Satan is one person, taking on (and losing to) three persons; each side having angels. But, in the tribulation Satan tries to copy God the Father. Satan (the dragon) completely controls and brings forth his messenger (God calls the False Prophet), and has his own seemingly omnipresent force (God calls the Beast).
Of course, God the Father, with the power that he placed in his Son, will physically and spiritually defeat Satan. Notice that Rev. 19:13 calls the name of the Son: the Word of God, not God the Word.
Too many points to reply to them all. Let me address a couple:
Does Paul ever go into God the Son mode?
You seem very hung up on the phrase God the Son.
Hopefully we both agree Jesus is the Son of the Father. Does Paul ever call Jesus God? Absolutely!! Just one example, Titus 2:13......the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Again, notice it doesn’t say he is God because the Father is in him. No, the verse calls Jesus God, independent of the Father.
Your comment on my pointing out Jesus refers to himself in Revelation as the first and the last, exact language taken from OT reference to God.
You reference the apostles already realizing the a Father was in Jesus.
That completely misses my point. Jesus is calling himself the first and the last, appropriating a title which can only be used by God. He doesn’t reference the Father at all.
Same with Acts 5. Over and over, the Holy Spirit is spoken about in language that indicates another person, separate and distinct from the Father. He is directly called “he” and is directly called God. The phrase “ another comforter” again shows He is not the Father.
Lastly, Trinitarians have the witness of the men who were taught directly by the Apostles or by men who were taught by those who were taught by Apostles. One example, Ignatius of Antioch, very early second century taught by Apostle John, refers to Jesus as God. I think if you or I were taught personally by John, we would know if John taught the divinity of Jesus. If He is indeed true God as well as true man, it is very appropriate to use the term God the Son, even if it is not found in the Scriptures.
That’s all I have time for tonight.
I do appreciate your respectful tone and hope you feel I have been respectful towards you.
A quick point before bed:
**Does Paul ever call Jesus God? Absolutely!! Just one example, Titus 2:13......the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Again, notice it doesn’t say he is God because the Father is in him. No, the verse calls Jesus God, independent of the Father.**
God is invisible:
Jn 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
Bosom represents the innermost, centralized place possible.
The only way see God appear in his fullness, is when his Son, the image of the invisible God, reappears.
As I said before, Jesus points this out in Jn 14. Start with verse 6. Look at what he says in verse 7:
“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye KNOW him, and have SEEN him.”
Philip still didn’t understand, and (like a Trinitarian, looking for a separate image of the Father) asked, “Shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.”
To which Jesus replied, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known ME, Philip? he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou NOT that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me? the words that I speak unto you I speak NOT of myself: but the Father that dwelleth IN me, HE doeth the works.”
As I asked before: Where is the Father NOT present?
**Same with Acts 5. Over and over, the Holy Spirit is spoken about in language that indicates another person, separate and distinct from the Father.**
He is another form of God’s power to speak and connect with man. He couldn’t come to live inside believers until the Son was gone from this earth. He only does what the Father sends him to do, and say what the Father tells him to say. He is OF God the Father, and proceeds FROM the Father. If he has a self will, he never gets to use it.
**One example, Ignatius of Antioch, very early second century taught by Apostle John, refers to Jesus as God.**
Since he is not mentioned in the scriptures, I have to regard his opinions as they compare with the scriptures.
And I appreciate the respectful tone. I was debating a Calvinist last year that was incredibly hateful. But Calvin had some issues of his own, that showed his hate. A very studious person, and well educated. Proud. But deep down, not very Christ like.
It is precisely historical, and do you have another name in actual history for Historical Christianity ? For example, which denomination (or sect) do you assemble with ? I have a very good idea who it is not, but who is it ? That burden is on you when you claim the Holy Trinity is not Historical Chrustianity. Are you a lone ranger or is there provenance behind your protestations against the one holy catholic apostolic church?
..**precisely historical,**..
Precisely. The answer is in that word you thoughtfully added. Thank you for that.
The scriptures, that your organization claim to have preserved, give precise doctrine. That precise doctrine is provided by God. He never used the phrase, God the Son; so it was never included in the scriptures. He saw to it that the phrase, Mother of God, was never used either.
God’s history is correct. Man’s recordings and opinions of history are subject to scrutiny.
“These were noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11
There is one holy catholic apostolic church in actual recorded history.
The scriptures, that your organization claim to have preserved, give precise doctrine.
And did preserve; my brethren the Jews preserved the Jewish Bible, and my brethren the Catholics preserved the Catholic Bible, which then became the Protestant Bible.
That precise doctrine is provided by God.
Then there is no need for you to teach any doctrine, since it is already provided by God.
He never used the phrase, God the Son; so it was never included in the scriptures. He saw to it that the phrase, Mother of God, was never used either.
None of your English is in the scriptures, and yet Miriam/Mary as the Mother of "God with us" is certainly in the scriptures. Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses ten to sixteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty three,
God’s history is correct. Man’s recordings and opinions of history are subject to scrutiny. “These were noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.†Acts 17:11
One group of Jews was more noble than another group of Jews, and that does not make you a Jew. What the Apostle to the Gentiles taught was true, whether you search the scriptures daily to see if you agree with him or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.