Posted on 05/14/2016 8:48:31 AM PDT by Salvation
Well yes, really. Notice you ignore the verses that make it clear that Jesus is God so that you don't have to synthesize that information with the verses you quote. If you're going to debate scripture, you need to consider the whole of scripture, not just one or two verses. As long as you continue to ignore most of the Bible, your heretical theology on God will remain, well, heretical and flawed.
**If you don’t believe that, you simply aren’t a Christian.**
If you don’t believe that the Father is in Christ giving him the divine words to speak, and giving him the power to do divine works, then it would seem, that scripturally, you don’t believe the testimony of Jesus Christ.
As usual you answer no questions. You just seem to deny the testimony of Christ. You try to point out the Son as separate from the Father, when the Father is in him everywhere he goes. The only distinction is that the Son is divinely created flesh with a mind and soul, and the Father is a Spirit.
Is John 14:10 somehow an inaccurate witness from the Son? Is the Father not in Christ giving him the words and doing the works, as Christ said?
Your argument is not with me, it is with Jesus Christ.
“He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.” John 12:44
I think that your problem is that you don’t believe on HIM that sent the Son. If true, that’s a big problem. I’m assuming that you will surely deny that being a problem, but your testimony seems to tell me otherwise.
I ask again:
Did the Son inherit his name, yes or no?
As usual you ignored 100 percent of everything I wrote. Who do you think you're fooling? Get back to me when you're really willing to debate the scripture, otherwise you're just trolling.
Did the Son of God exist prior to the incarnation? You must answer yes since that is what the Scriptures say. For example:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
And the Word was made 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. (John 1:14)
**As usual you ignored 100 percent of everything I wrote.**
Exaggerate much? Go back and read my posts to you.
**Who do you think you’re fooling?**
I’m serious as a heartbeat, and you won’t answer my questions because you apparently can’t.
Come on....man up!
Were the divine words that the Son spoke, from the Father?
Was the doctrine that the Son presented his, or the Father’s?
Show me where the Father is not in the Son. If you are so right, then you should have no problem presenting verses that declare that.
You are welcome to get back to me, when you decide to be more than clouds and wind with no rain.
I always had you pegged as a Monophysite.
I like how whenever you're covering up your own lies, you say "exaggerate" with some other word in the combination. When you grow a pair and can reply to my post straight, we'll continue.
**In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)**
“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” Rev. 3:14
Faithful witness?....hmmmm. The Son did say that the words that he spoke were not his, but the Father’s.
**And the Word was made 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. (John 1:14)**
Is your word flesh, or is the flesh how your word is presented to others in a physical world?
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:18
Notice that there is no disputing, no exceptions: No man hath seen God at any time.
The invisible God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself....
If you believe that the flesh is God, then you are in agreement with the RCC, who uses that as a basis for their ‘mother of God’ teachings.
I’ve done a lot more straight up replying than you.
I’ve replied to most, if not all of the verses you presented. You’ve replied to none of mine.
When the Son of God said ‘I am’, whose words was he speaking?
Does a question like that make you angry,....like when the Lord made the scribes and Pharisees angry, when he told them who was present before them?
They knew that God is a Spirit and not a man (as the Son of God pointed out in John 4:23,24), and that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. They just couldn’t accept the fact that He would have his attributes displayed in a (divinely conceived) mortal human body; a human body with a soul, just like every other human: eat, drink, sleep, sweat, etc.
This human had a will and soul just like any other human. A will and soul that didn’t want to experience death, but said ‘not my will but thine be done’.
“Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” Acts 2:27
As Peter said; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Not: “thou art the Christ, the living God the Son”.
The more one fights God, the less they will grow.
LOL, you didn't reply to a single one. Cut the crap troll. I ain't biting.
I'm not arguing with you about the words Jesus said, only the way you have come across in your interpretation of those words. Please answer the question I have asked you now for the fourth time:
Did the Son of God exist before the incarnation?
I am speaking of the second person of the Trinity and His preexistence from all eternity. He did not become the Son of God when He took on human flesh. Jesus, the incarnation of God, now exists in a glorified body - the kind of body ALL believers will receive at the resurrection unto life. But, we will NOT be God(s).
I disagree with the Catholic doctrine of Mary being the "Mother of God" precisely because the Son has always been and always will be. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God with us, God incarnate.
**I’m not arguing with you about the words Jesus said, only the way you have come across in your interpretation of those words.**
For example?
**Please answer the question I have asked you now for the fourth time: Did the Son of God exist before the incarnation?**
You mean that this verse I quoted doesn’t provide an answer?:
“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” Rev. 3:14
**He did not become the Son of God when He took on human flesh.**
“Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?” Heb. 1:5 (Ps. 2:7)
I don’t know about you, but I read a beginning right there.
“I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. Heb. 1:5
Will be,....shall be?? Looks like a beginning to me.
For Sola Scriptura folks, defining God as the scriptures define him is a must. The phrase the ‘Son of God’ is quite plain: the Son is of God. God gave the Son his beginning, which was before anything else.
Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, not ‘God the image’.
Are you unable to just answer a question? You quote Bible verses as your answers but show how your interpretation of them is different from historical Christianity. You also run into contradictions and ignore them. Here's one:
How can the EVERLASTING Father not also have an EVERLASTING son?
My Bible tells me God was manifested in the flesh.
Not believing that Jesus is God, is extremely dangerous to one's own soul.
(1 Timothy 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."
**Not believing that Jesus is God, is extremely dangerous to one’s own soul.**
Actually, not believing that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and that God the Father is the singular source of all things divine, goes against much of what is written in the book of John alone.
So you’re saying that Jesus Christ, Peter, John, and Paul were all wrong when they said that no man has seen God? Are you trying to pull the Son apart from the Father to make multiple divine distinctions? Christ never did that, why should anyone else?
God was indeed manifest in the flesh. The flesh had a beginning, the flesh died, and the flesh rose again,....by the glory of the Father. (Romans 6:4).
The flesh was the ultimate physical way that God made his attributes visible to mankind.
Jesus Christ said, “it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 7:63
As an OTR truck driver, I’ve had plenty of time to listen to radio preachers like Swindoll, Jeremiah, MacArthur, Stanley, etc. One day I tried to tally the times they used the phrases ‘Son of God’, and ‘God the Son’.
The result was about 2 ‘God the Son’ versus 5 for ‘Son of God’.
The phrase the ‘Son of God’ is found about 50 times in the NT. The phrase ‘God the Son’ is not found at all in the scriptures. That is fact, not interpretation.
The Prods rail against post-scriptural tradition that is used for doctrine. The three separate and distinct persons of God, trinity concept, is post-scriptural tradition used for doctrine.
I will close with a favorite passage:
“Father,....And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:1-3
**How can the EVERLASTING Father not also have an EVERLASTING son?**
So you are determined to prove that the Son did not have a beginning? So do you disagree with Heb. 1:5 and Rev. 3:14?
**You quote Bible verses as your answers but show how your interpretation of them is different from historical Christianity.**
Prods rail against post-scriptural tradition that is used for doctrine. The three separate and distinct persons of God, trinity concept, is post-scriptural tradition used for doctrine.
I was rolling down the road today, listening to AFR preachers admitting that the trinity is very hard to understand, yet they believe it.
The Godhead is easier to understand if one realizes that God the Father is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, AND dwells in Jesus Christ.
Yes, I use scriptures. Here’s another one:
“Father,....And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:1-3
**You also run into contradictions and ignore them. Here’s one: How can the EVERLASTING Father not also have an EVERLASTING son?**
How can the Son be heir to all things? He even inherited his name. But from who?
You can’t inherit something that you’ve always and forever had possession of.
Yes, the Son had a beginning. He is the beginning of creation, and therefore existed before the world and all therein.
No, it is not. It is Scriptural.
Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
In this verse we have the (Holy Ghost) descending upon him, upon who? upon (Jesus.) We have a voice from heaven, (the Father) three separate and distinct persons.
I do agree with you on the word 'Trinity,' I prefer to use words the Bible uses and try to stay away from words man likes to use to describe Biblical ideas. I prefer the word 'Godhead'
A second witness to the Godhead being three distinct and separate persons, and yet one God is:
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Now, I know the New World Order translations like to dismiss this particular verse, but I believe God can preserve His own word. If people don't believe God can preserve His word, then how can they believe He can preserve their soul.
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.