• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

Status
Not open for further replies.

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No. But that is not because we could not be sinless and blamless. It is because we are not sinless and blameless. We have a choice. We choose to sin.
being without sin and blameless is only possible through Jesus Christ, so if He was only a man, how was He able to be without sin and blameless?
The scripture may say that no man does . . . . . but where does it say that no man can?
so your claim is that because scripture doesn't (according to your interpretation) indicate lack of possible, then out of all the millions of people on the earth and millions more already dead, and millions more to come, only one man was able and willing to be without sin? That is unfathomable....at least apart from deity, that is the kind of numbers that math would say is zero probablity. So let me ask you this...if this is really what your logic tells you, why was Jesus the only one willing to live a sin free life? I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up...Paul himself talked about how the things he wants to do he doesn't and the things he doesn't want to do he does. So why or how is it possible that only Jesus was willing enough to be without sin? What secret did he know that the rest of mankind doesn't know?
No. We could have remained without sin, but we did not, and do not remain without sin. If the case is that we could not help but sin, then God, who is a just and a fair God, would not condemn us even as we, for an example, would not punish our 10 month old baby for wetting its diaper. God would not punish us for doing something that we could not keep from doing.
separation from God is not a punishment, it's a consequence. consider our 10 month old child, let's say that he wets his diaper, we don't punish him but he still get's diaper rash. Why? The diaper rash is a consequence, not a punishment. Likewise, death is a consequence of sin and salvation is our way of escape, our medication so to speak that stops and soothes the diaper rash.
God meant it when He said, "Thou shalt not." . He never would have given that command if He didn't know that we were capable of obeying it.
In Christ we are capable, without Christ we are not.
There is a vast difference between 'could Not' and 'would Not'. And we are guilty, guilty, guilty! Because we could have but did not.
see above, I'm anxious for your response.
 
Upvote 0

Don Scott

Newbie
Sep 22, 2010
8
0
✟22,818.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
This is an interesting verse to choose to start an argument about a Biblical truth about what Jesus really is, particularly because it is a quote from a demon.
In that case you would have to take issue with Our Lords own Brother and leader of the Church at Jerusalem... 'Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.' (James 2:19)
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟25,319.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
razzelflabben said:
being without sin and blameless is only possible through Jesus Christ, so if He was only a man, how was He able to be without sin and blameless?]/quote]

Because God gave him that abilty to be so. God also gave us that same ability. But none but Jesus used that ability.

so your claim is that because scripture doesn't (according to your interpretation) indicate lack of possible, then out of all the millions of people on the earth and millions more already dead, and millions more to come, only one man was able and willing to be without sin?
That is unfathomable....at least apart from deity, that is the kind of numbers that math would say is zero probablity.

Yes, isn't it!

Rom. 11:33. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?"


So let me ask you this...if this is really what your logic tells you, why was Jesus the only one willing to live a sin free life?

What I have said does not come from logic. It comes from having the mind of Christ to lead me. But to answer your question of why He was the only one willing to live a sin free life: according to your own words about yourself, which were: " I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up... " You are willing to live a sin free life, but can't. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus was the only one willing, or there are others such as yourself, who are willing as Jesus was, to live a sin free life.

I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up...Paul himself talked about how the things he wants to do he doesn't and the things he doesn't want to do he does. So why or how is it possible that only Jesus was willing enough to be without sin? What secret did he know that the rest of mankind doesn't know?

I did not say that out of millinons and millions of human beings Jesus was the only one who was able to be without sin. On the contrary, I said that ALL human beings are able to be without sin. The question about the willingness to be without sin is beside the point, since His willingness to not sin was not something that He thought over and made a decision about.

separation from God is not a punishment, it's a consequence.

Agreed.

consider our 10 month old child, let's say that he wets his diaper, we don't punish him but he still get's diaper rash. Why? The diaper rash is a consequence, not a punishment. Likewise, death is a consequence of sin and salvation is our way of escape, our medication so to speak that stops and soothes the diaper rash.
That is not a good analogy. Because the 'diaper rash' that ensues from wearing a wet diaper has nothing to do with whether or not he was able to keep from wetting his diaper.



Evergreen48 said:
]God meant it when He said, "Thou shalt not." . He never would have given that command if He didn't know that we were capable of obeying it.


razzelflabben said:
In Christ we are capable, without Christ we are not.

Your answer is not relevant to my comment. If we are to have an intelligent discussion each of us will have to give answers which are relevant to the other's comments.

But, even though one is not 'in Christ' this does not change the fact that they are still able to obey His laws. Not being 'in Christ' does not set anyone free from their guiltiness of breaking God's laws. They are just as capable of being able not to sin whether they are 'in Christ' or not 'in Christ'.

Evergreen48 said:
There is a vast difference between 'could Not' and 'would Not'. And we are guilty, guilty, guilty! Because we could have but did not.

razzelflabben said:
see above, I'm anxious for your response.

'The above' does not reply to my comment. Either you agree with my comment, or you don't agree with it. If you don't agree, it behoves you to explain why you do not agree with it. This is the way a discussion of this kind is kept on an intelligent coherent level.

BTW, I am pleased to meet you, razzelflabben. :) ( I should have told you that first thing. Excuse please.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What have I claimed to know more about than than trinitarian scholars? Saying that they are wrong [about their trinitydoctrine], or that I do not agree with them concerning this or that, is not claiming to know more than they. And I have never said, "I know more than all the Trinitarian scholars and they are wrong." That is a false accusation from you about me. But that is okay. I understand how frustrated you must be.

That is not what you said! You made a blanket statement "All scholars are not trinitarians. But the ones who are trinitarians are all wrong."

I am not familiar with any 'anti-trinitarian Bible scholars' writings. I do not depend on those who may be called 'Bible scholars; either trinitarian or non-trinitarian, to tell me what I should believe.

Are you accusing me of, "depend[ing] on those who may be called 'Bible scholars; [ . . . ]to tell me what I should believe?"

I will, after you have disproved it from scripture.

You made scripturally unsupported assertions,
A church is not necessarily an 'organized body'. And you cannot see Christ's church with earthly eyes. It is kind of like the pictures and types in the OT in that respect. If one cannot see it on their own, it cannot be shown to them.
I asked you to support them with scripture. Since you can't support the assertions from scripture, there is nothing for me to disprove.



That is quite an accomplishment. I am happy for you. But having accomplished all this still does not make your word on scriptural matters any more authoritative than that of anyone else.

You asked me a question, I answered it, now you insult me because I did. How does me answering your question about my knowledge of languages equal claiming my word is more authoritative than anyone else?

And as I said, I have a Strong's and I do not think that I am a Bible expert. And as far as the leaders of the paricular cults or denominations that you mentioned leading someone astray because they do not know Greek or Hebrew, I don't believe that would be the reason why they would be taken in by false doctrines. I am aware that the KJV has many translational errors in it, but none so grave that they would prevent the true and sincere truth seeker from being able to discern the rights and the wrongs of these men's doctrines. (All of the doctrines purported by these men have some right things in them, and some wrong things in them.)

If you could talk to the 900+ people who died in Guyana following Jim Jones and the 80 + people who died in Waco following David Koresh, I'm sure they could open eyes on this.

Did you serve in the U. S. Army with Elvis?

During Elvis' year in Germany I was stationed on the same base with him for a time.

Just as I suspected. You can't do it.

Another one of those "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!" answers. I just love the arrogance of those so intensely indoctrinated by their false religious group that is the only kind of answer they can come up with. These scripture blow your argument away, Luke 1:33, Rev 11:15, 22:5. Now let see if you can address arguments and the scripture I posted?

No, you didn't.

I proved from scripture in this post that the 24 elders and the 4 beasts were not in the middle of the throne.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7485621-29/#post55708987

No, the taking of the book was not in the past, but the prevailing of the 'Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, the lamb which had been slain' had already been accomplished.

I don't take wooden nickels.

Read the scripture again.
Rev 5:5-6
(5)
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
(6) And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.​
"The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof." All past tense. Prevailed/overcame, open and loose.

Everything John saw was a vision. Nothing was a real happening. It was all shown to him in heaven. And according to the following, there were Jews in heaven:
<< Revelation 7 >>
[ . . . ]

Were there gentiles in heaven trampling down the streets of Jerusalem for 42 months? Now tell me again where the temple that John was measuring was?
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.​
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
one thing that makes the argument confusing is the use of the word god. Lots of different kinds of beings can be and are gods. money can be your god. a stone statue can be your god, some demon masquerading as a god can be one's god.

To make it more simple , consider this.

god is a spirit, the bible says Yahweh is god and that he is one.

so the real question to ask is , Is Jesus Yahweh? Is Jesus a spirit?

If you say Jesus is the spirit being Yahweh, and the human of flesh, human spirit and soul named Jesus, then it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus isn't a spirit being and a human being, He is one or the other. And the bible clearly states that Jesus is a man in no uncertain terms. No scripture says Jesus is a spirit, in fact Jesus himself said he is not a spirit in luke 24.

So to ask if Jesus is god or not is to put the question in murky waters.. to ask if Jesus is the omipresent, omnipotent, omniscient spirit being named Yahweh, makes the question crystal clear. I don't think many people are going to say Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human being because it is so utterly ridiculous. Nor is anyone going to say that the omipresent spirit named Yahweh became and is a man, because likewise to assert that is so utterly ridiculous.

so of necessity, the question has to remain in murky waters for trinitarians to claim Jesus is god and man, because they cannot claim Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human of flesh, and soul and human spirit.


then it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus isn't a spirit being and a human being, He is one or the other.

Uh . . we are spirits and humans . . .

False dilemma AND dichotomy.

As ur premise is skewed, the entirety of your post bares the same traits as its foundation . . . askew.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well 1:3 cant be any clearer

John 1:3
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

The latter statement is the clincher. ANYTHING that can be said to have a beginning does so APART FROM HIM. Anything that can be in the category of having been GENERATED is so THROUGH HIM and apart from Him this category (something that "has come into being") DOESNT EXIST.

He is NOT PART OF THE CATEGORY OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME INTO BEING. For that category IS IN HIM not he in it. IOW, He is not only creator, HE IS UNCREATED.

Further, the tense of John 8:58 in the Koine places the generation of Abraham (with the word genesthai in the aorist) as over and against the "am" ness of Christ (with the word eimi in the present tense).

This word play, in the Greek and by its tenses, MEANS ETERNALITY. Abraham had a beginning and I DONT. He could have used the imperfect tense emen to stress that he merely existed before Abraham w/ no clear connection to eternal existence. He could have used first person aorist with egenomen, to say that before Abraham was generated I had a beginning (something similiar to Arianism where Jesus exists before Abraham but still is created in some sense). But he did none of these, he placed eimi (which by itself really means nothing special, hence the blind man also says ego eimi) alongside genesthai, which refers to created existence, MAKING A CLEAR CLAIM TO ETERNALITY, UNCREATEDNESS. He IS. John 8:58 is the SELF CLAIM OF JESUS TO THE STATEMENT OF JOHN in 1:3.

It has nothing to do with interpretation by INTENT of the author. Someone wants to believe John is wrong, OK . . . John didnt write it, sure . . . but someone cannot claim that the Bible itself doesnt teach it . . . IT DOES.

The connection to Ex 3:14 is NOT that the LXX uses the same greek, tho it does in the FIRST statment of "I Am" (it doesnt in the second, it is "o on" or the being), BUT IN THE CLAIM OF THE PERSON WHO SPEAKS (YHWH) to being ETERNAL HIMSELF. Jesus claims the SAME QUALITY.




U r correct, it is not the Bible or letters that is the subject of 1:1 but the person of Christ in 1:14 per antecedant usage.

But there really is no other interpretation that is tenable in the Greek. Greek is rather precise as to what it says of itself.

Say I say the word "fly" to u, what do I mean?

1. Bug
2. to soar through the air
3. my zipper
4. A slang term for a goodlooking lady (man she is fly)
5. a fishing lure
6. To go really fast (we were flying down the road)

What determines meaning? Context and intent of the author determined by context.

So if I say to you "I was down by the water with my rod and reel and my fly got stuck"

well it really can mean only two things, my zipper as I was fishing, or my lure.

Say I ADD to the statement "I was down by the water with my rod and reel and my fly got stuck. It took me a few minutes to get the hook undone from the tree it was stuck in and then I could fish"

well the rule of antecedant take the "it" that was stuck in the tree and qualifies the term as refering to the "fly" and now we see THAT ONLY ONE OPTION REMAINS AS TO WHAT THE WORD MEANS. It is a fishing lure.

Same principles work with biblical interpretation. In both cases, the CLEAR meaning of the author (meaning being found in the intent of the author) is that JESUS IS ETERNAL.



Of course your not. You are using a catch phrase to confer exclamation. I hope ur not trying to make this be the same as Thomas' statement ^_^ if u are I can deal rather easily with dismissing that.



I am saying that within the scope of the entirety of scripture, it can be demonstrated per a proper systematic, interpreting scripture by its whole scope, that the "being" called "father" as refering to "God" can be shown to demonstrate the qualities of personality. Thereby it is proper to say "He is a person" or "He has a personhood"



It is silly because generally it is not the personhood of the Father at which people balk, it is the deity of the Son and the personhood of the Spirit. The personhood of the FATHER is OVERWHELMING so much so that I dont kno of ONE person in the history of biblical theology who has questioned the personhood of the Father.



1. The term omnipotent is not in the bible either but we find the CONCEPT of all powerful EVERYWHERE . . . no dice. BAD ARGUEMENT.
2. 2 John states QUITE clearly that orthodoxy in understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son is ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION

this doesnt mean it IS trinity (tho I believe it is) but IF Trinity IS true, then Trinity IS essential for salvation. What ever the TRUTH is about the relationship between the Father and the Son, CORRECT understanding of it IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Hence IT IS A SALVIFIC ISSUE.

2 John 9-11
9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
NASU



Again, not having said these things means nothing. They are terms to express concepts that ARE in the bible . . . God never said the word car either or computer yet I am sure u travel on wheels and use a PC to interact with this site. BAD ARGUEMENT.



This is a form of false logic called a false dilemma. Ur creating a problem where there is none.

1. Being a person DOESNT PRECLUDE ONE FROM BEING GOD. We derrive personality FROM GOD, not the other way around. He is the FIRST BEING with personality . . . personhood is NOT UNIQUE TO HUMANS. IOW, being a person, or having personhood or being personal DOESNT MEAN ONE IS HUMAN. There is NO problem with God having personhood.
2. I have recently found a great parallel of Trinity in reality. I dont like metaphors of Trinity because all of them fail at some point. Clover, water, egg, etc. The problems with them, take water for example, is that they are not all three distinct AND the same AT THE SAME TIME. When water is steam, its molecular make up is the same as water as liquid or solid, but it is NOT STEAM LIQUID SOLID AND H20 AT THE SAME TIME.
However, I recently came across something called the "triple point" of water. It is a principle in thermodynamics in which the pressure and temp of a substance that can have three phases (in this case gas solid and liquid) exist in "thermodynamic equilibrium."
This means that the reason that "three persons of the same substance is illogical and, really, results in three gods" IS FALSE. U may not grasp it, but it is a REALITY as seen EVEN IN OUR OWN REALM. :thumbsup:

Cheers!:)

MTK

all of this kind of seals the deal . . . notice u didnt respond to it.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
razzelflabben said:
being without sin and blameless is only possible through Jesus Christ, so if He was only a man, how was He able to be without sin and blameless?]/quote]

Because God gave him that abilty to be so. God also gave us that same ability. But none but Jesus used that ability.
why? Why did God give Jesus alone the ability? Why can't I use the same ability and succeed? What about this passage...
1 John 1:8-10 (New International Version)


8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.


In addition, do we also have the power and authority to forgive sin, not offenses committed against us, but actual sin...where did that authority come from if Jesus was man only?


Matthew 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
Yes, isn't it!

Rom. 11:33. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?"
sounds to me like deity of Jesus the Christ, and yet you proclaim different, so which is it, Jesus was fully man and fully God, or He wasn't? I'm more confused now than I was when we started. In one breath you say that Jesus was man alone, now you say He was more than man, He was also God...which is your belief?
What I have said does not come from logic. It comes from having the mind of Christ to lead me. But to answer your question of why He was the only one willing to live a sin free life: according to your own words about yourself, which were: " I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up... " You are willing to live a sin free life, but can't. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus was the only one willing, or there are others such as yourself, who are willing as Jesus was, to live a sin free life.
and....
I did not say that out of millinons and millions of human beings Jesus was the only one who was able to be without sin. On the contrary, I said that ALL human beings are able to be without sin. The question about the willingness to be without sin is beside the point, since His willingness to not sin was not something that He thought over and made a decision about.
still don't get it, still haven't answered my question...what made Jesus able to be without sin when the other billions upon billions of people in this world could not...what made Him different? Are you trying to claim that His difference was that He didn't think, He was some kind of idiot that just assumed that the draws of the flesh weren't really calling Him? If so, why didn't they call Him? What is the difference between Jesus and the other billions of people in the world? What is the secret so that the rest of us can live the rest of our lives without sin?
Agreed.


That is not a good analogy. Because the 'diaper rash' that ensues from wearing a wet diaper has nothing to do with whether or not he was able to keep from wetting his diaper.
just as we are not able to be without sin according to scripture...but that is another part of the above and should be addressed once you have explained what the difference between Jesus and man is if not deity.
Your answer is not relevant to my comment. If we are to have an intelligent discussion each of us will have to give answers which are relevant to the other's comments.
I don't see how it was not relevant unless I misunderstood your comment, but okay...
But, even though one is not 'in Christ' this does not change the fact that they are still able to obey His laws. Not being 'in Christ' does not set anyone free from their guiltiness of breaking God's laws. They are just as capable of being able not to sin whether they are 'in Christ' or not 'in Christ'.
so explain then what is different about Jesus and how the above passages are justified if Jesus was not fully man and fully God.
'The above' does not reply to my comment. Either you agree with my comment, or you don't agree with it.
Apparently I don't understand your comment to know if I agree or disagree.
If you don't agree, it behoves you to explain why you do not agree with it. This is the way a discussion of this kind is kept on an intelligent coherent level.
I thought I understood it, apparently I don't have a clue, at this point, you can try to explain it in a manner in which I have some grasp, or you can continue to accuse me falsely and end the discussion before it gets really interesting.
BTW, I am pleased to meet you, razzelflabben. :) ( I should have told you that first thing. Excuse please.)
You may not feel that way for long, I am tireless with questions and love being asked questions so I can answer them myself.;)
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
razzelflabben said:
being without sin and blameless is only possible through Jesus Christ, so if He was only a man, how was He able to be without sin and blameless?]/quote]

Because God gave him that abilty to be so. God also gave us that same ability. But none but Jesus used that ability.



Yes, isn't it!

Rom. 11:33. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?"



What I have said does not come from logic. It comes from having the mind of Christ to lead me. But to answer your question of why He was the only one willing to live a sin free life: according to your own words about yourself, which were: " I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up... " You are willing to live a sin free life, but can't. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus was the only one willing, or there are others such as yourself, who are willing as Jesus was, to live a sin free life.



I did not say that out of millinons and millions of human beings Jesus was the only one who was able to be without sin. On the contrary, I said that ALL human beings are able to be without sin. The question about the willingness to be without sin is beside the point, since His willingness to not sin was not something that He thought over and made a decision about.



Agreed.


That is not a good analogy. Because the 'diaper rash' that ensues from wearing a wet diaper has nothing to do with whether or not he was able to keep from wetting his diaper.



Your answer is not relevant to my comment. If we are to have an intelligent discussion each of us will have to give answers which are relevant to the other's comments.

But, even though one is not 'in Christ' this does not change the fact that they are still able to obey His laws. Not being 'in Christ' does not set anyone free from their guiltiness of breaking God's laws. They are just as capable of being able not to sin whether they are 'in Christ' or not 'in Christ'.



'The above' does not reply to my comment. Either you agree with my comment, or you don't agree with it. If you don't agree, it behoves you to explain why you do not agree with it. This is the way a discussion of this kind is kept on an intelligent coherent level.

BTW, I am pleased to meet you, razzelflabben. :) ( I should have told you that first thing. Excuse please.)
Do you believe we are all born into sin, born sinners that is? Except Jesus. That's my belief, I beleive we all sin at times because we are sinners, we were born that way, whereas Jesus was like adam before the fall, sinnless, and whereas Adam failed in his walk with God, Jesus succeeded. Your statements suggest to me that you do not believe that we are born in sin, correct?

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Doesn't this verse mean that Jesus did not commit sin because he was born of God? amongst other things.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
razzelflabben said:
being without sin and blameless is only possible through Jesus Christ, so if He was only a man, how was He able to be without sin and blameless?]/quote]

Because God gave him that abilty to be so. God also gave us that same ability. But none but Jesus used that ability.
your not answering the question...why does Jesus have the ability or is able to succeed at what no one else in the world can succeed at? If Jesus is man only, what gives Him the ability to do what no one else can? (the difference between can and won't doesn't apply here because many of us try and try with all our beings) So what is the difference? What allows Jesus to succeed when no one else can?
Yes, isn't it!
isn't it what?
Rom. 11:33. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?"
this verse makes it sound like you are saying that Jesus is God, where only moments ago you said that Jesus was not God. Who can know the mind of God but God alone...I mean, who can know your mind but you and God. Even the interpretation of the heart and mind of Christ through the HS doesn't equal knowing His mind. What it equals is knowing what the HS reveals to you through His Spirit. So no one but God can know the mind of God, and notice the end, or who hath been his counsellor...only the HS is His councellor...so who then but God Himself can be this answer?

and btw, you didn't respond to any of the passages I presented so far, nor did you answer the question. How was Jesus able to do what no one else could do.
What I have said does not come from logic. It comes from having the mind of Christ to lead me.
How is a man (Christ) able to give you His mind, especially if He died a couple of thousand years ago? What would His mind gain you about God, isn't it the mind of God that would give you the "power" to be without sin?
But to answer your question of why He was the only one willing to live a sin free life: according to your own words about yourself, which were: " I mean, I would give my right arm and them some, figurative and literal to be without sin, but I still can't do it, because I mess up... " You are willing to live a sin free life, but can't. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus was the only one willing, or there are others such as yourself, who are willing as Jesus was, to live a sin free life.
I'm willing, I'm sacrificing to have it, and still I can't succeed at it and scripture tells us that if we deny this, we are liars and have no truth in it. So you still haven't answered the question...1. how was Jesus able to, and 2. how was Jesus able to make the claim and still not be a liar if scripture says any man making the claim is a liar?
I did not say that out of millinons and millions of human beings Jesus was the only one who was able to be without sin. On the contrary, I said that ALL human beings are able to be without sin. The question about the willingness to be without sin is beside the point, since His willingness to not sin was not something that He thought over and made a decision about.
Okay, let's reword...if we are all able to, why was Jesus the only one able to succeed?
Agreed.


That is not a good analogy. Because the 'diaper rash' that ensues from wearing a wet diaper has nothing to do with whether or not he was able to keep from wetting his diaper.
But it was the analogy you gave to illustrate your point. So in order for your analogy to work for what you are saying, the baby has to have the ability to not wet his diaper, so your own analogy didn't work for your claim and you are complaining because I used your broken analogy to make a counter point?
Do you believe we are all born into sin, born sinners that is?
not exactly, but that is a different discussion, I would think it prudent to finish this one first so that posts and discussion are managable.
Except Jesus.
actually, on the very basic premise, Jesus was born into sin as much as the rest of us, that meaning we was fully man, but being born into sin doesn't automatically make one a sinner, sin makes on a sinner, so I'm not sure how you think this applies to the discussion.
That's my belief, I beleive we all sin at times because we are sinners, we were born that way, whereas Jesus was like adam before the fall, sinnless, and whereas Adam failed in his walk with God, Jesus succeeded. Your statements suggest to me that you do not believe that we are born in sin, correct?
What makes Jesus different, that is the question I have been asking you. If He was only a man, why was He able to do what no other man in all of history could do and why was He able to claim this sinnlessness without being a liar as scripture says of all men. There has to be a reason, what is that reason?
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
yep, it's about salvation, so are you suggesting that Jesus alone was saved? What is the difference?
Doesn't this verse mean that Jesus did not commit sin because he was born of God? amongst other things.
Aren't we all "born of God" when we come to Christ..?
John 3:1-12
1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
3 Jesus answered and said to him,
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered,
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said to him,
"Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟924,660.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whoever denies God The Son can't possibly have the mind of Christ, nor do they have The Holy Spirit of God living in their hearts. In other words, they are lost.

The only man who ever walked the face of the earth without sin was also GOD - Jesus Christ - God The Son - fully God - fully man.

Faith in Jesus Christ as God is accounted to him as righteousness. Otherwise, a man's righteousness is as filthy rags. In other words, we are dependent upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:3-4 KJV For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Why is Jesus Christ righteous and holy - things that no man could achieve? He was and is God The Son. He was in the form of a man during His earthly ministry - but even then - He was fully God and fully man. He was not in the form of a man before or since His earthly ministry. He humbled and humiliated Himself by taking the form of a man - He IS GOD!

Faith in just a man will get you NOTHING.

Philippians 3:7-9 KJV But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
:) Hey there!

His point was that the exact same phrase is used in the Greek for the blind man except that the latter day translators use uppercase letters in Jesus case.as far as you comparing the "jewish leaders" to that writer,your "jewish leaders" didnt even know Jesus was the Messiah yet that writer does.whos word do you really want to trust?
And as for "before Abraham was" does not Ephesians tell us WE WERE chosen before the foundation of the World?

The problem with your out-of-context reference to the blind man is that the blind, like lepers, were outcasts forced to live outside the cities separate from the rest of society. They were believed to have been born in sin, John 9:34, thus they were not permitted in the temple or the synagogues and would have had no knowledge of the fine points of Jewish law any more than a foreigner. Also there was an implied predicate in the blind man's answer. "I am (the man born blind)," since he had just been asked if he was.

Unlike Jesus while we were chosen before the foundation of the world we were not with the father sharing his glory.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.​
Here Jesus was praying to, pouring out his soul to the father. Jesus never used figurative language when he prayed, he said what he meant and meant what he said.
 
Upvote 0

Nemo Neem

1 John 4:7-12
May 16, 2010
336
32
Massachusetts, USA
Visit site
✟23,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
This is the fundamental issue that I see with Christianity. It's supposed to be a monotheistic religion. Therefore, it's supposed to worship ONE GOD, and not three. I truly believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Yet, when a Mormon claims that God is indeed Three Gods, then how come they're shunned?

"I am My Father are One. [...] Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." (John 10:30, 34 - 38)

"Yes, but isn't Jesus bearing false witness?"

This is true, but I believe Jesus is referring to Himself in the third-person. It's a common literary device. As if I said, "Nemo Neem said this," instead of "I said this." God plays three roles. He's one god.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is the fundamental issue that I see with Christianity. It's supposed to be a monotheistic religion. Therefore, it's supposed to worship ONE GOD, and not three. I truly believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Yet, when a Mormon claims that God is indeed Three Gods, then how come they're shunned?
trinity is not about 3 god's, but rather about three different goals, personifications, (what other word might fit?...) manifestations, of the 1 God. In other words, it isn't 3 different God's, but rather 3 different ways of seeing the 1 God. An egg is a great example, 1 egg, 3 different parts, the yoke is not an egg unless it also is the white and shell. 1 egg, 3 parts. God is 1 God, 3 parts.
"I am My Father are One. [...] Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." (John 10:30, 34 - 38)

"Yes, but isn't Jesus bearing false witness?"

This is true, but I believe Jesus is referring to Himself in the third-person. It's a common literary device. As if I said, "Nemo Neem said this," instead of "I said this." God plays three roles. He's one god.
1 God, 3 parts, never 3 gods....amen
 
Upvote 0

Nemo Neem

1 John 4:7-12
May 16, 2010
336
32
Massachusetts, USA
Visit site
✟23,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
trinity is not about 3 god's, but rather about three different goals, personifications, (what other word might fit?...) manifestations, of the 1 God. In other words, it isn't 3 different God's, but rather 3 different ways of seeing the 1 God. An egg is a great example, 1 egg, 3 different parts, the yoke is not an egg unless it also is the white and shell. 1 egg, 3 parts. God is 1 God, 3 parts.1 God, 3 parts, never 3 gods....amen

That's exactly what i said...the Trinity is God expressing Himself in three roles/essences/persons.
 
Upvote 0
S

Superfast

Guest
That's exactly what i said...the Trinity is God expressing Himself in three roles/essences/persons.
you have just defined a role as an essence, and an essence as a person. the bible calls god the Father the one and only true or real god, you have called him here a role, an essence and a person. which means when Jesus was praying to God the Father he was praying to a role. I'd venture a guess here that you would like wise define nature as role/essence/nature/person. But role doesn't mean essence, essence doesn't mean nature, person doesn't mean role. So you are using the words to mean something , perhaps nothing, other than what the words mean, which means that your explanation is meaningless. But then all trinitarian explanations are no explanations. Just as yours is here. The major key everyone employs in explaining trinity is to use the words you used here to not mean what they mean, and really to use them to mean nothing, thus creating the appearance of having explained something when in fact you have not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nemo Neem

1 John 4:7-12
May 16, 2010
336
32
Massachusetts, USA
Visit site
✟23,172.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
you have just defined a role as an essence, and an essence as a person. the bible calls god the Father the one and only true or real god, you have called him here a role, an essence and a person. which means when Jesus was praying to God the Father he was praying to a role. I'd venture a guess here that you would like wise define nature as role/essence/nature/person. But role doesn't mean essence, essence doesn't mean nature, person doesn't mean role. So you are using the words to mean something , perhaps nothing, other than what the words mean, which means that your explanation is meaningless. But then all trinitarian explanations are no explanations. Just as yours is here. The major key everyone employs in explaining trinity is to use the words you used here to not mean what they mean, and really to use them to mean nothing, thus creating the appearance of having explained something when in fact you have not.

Ok, then. What did I mean?

Explain the Trinity. God is not Three Gods. He's One God. How can He both be the Son of God and God if what you say is true.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
you have just defined a role as an essence, and an essence as a person. the bible calls god the Father the one and only true or real god, you have called him here a role, an essence and a person. which means when Jesus was praying to God the Father he was praying to a role. I'd venture a guess here that you would like wise define nature as role/essence/nature/person. But role doesn't mean essence, essence doesn't mean nature, person doesn't mean role. So you are using the words to mean something , perhaps nothing, other than what the words mean, which means that your explanation is meaningless. But then all trinitarian explanations are no explanations. Just as yours is here. The major key everyone employs in explaining trinity is to use the words you used here to not mean what they mean, and really to use them to mean nothing, thus creating the appearance of having explained something when in fact you have not.
And yet, we and scripture used words common to man to explain something foreign to man and you accept it everywhere but here, why is that?

Also, you refuse to address the example of an egg, why? 3 distinct parts, 1 egg. It's a wonderful example of trinity in terms of what man is able to comprehend.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
you have just defined a role as an essence, and an essence as a person. the bible calls god the Father the one and only true or real god, you have called him here a role, an essence and a person. which means when Jesus was praying to God the Father he was praying to a role. I'd venture a guess here that you would like wise define nature as role/essence/nature/person. But role doesn't mean essence, essence doesn't mean nature, person doesn't mean role. So you are using the words to mean something , perhaps nothing, other than what the words mean, which means that your explanation is meaningless. But then all trinitarian explanations are no explanations. Just as yours is here. The major key everyone employs in explaining trinity is to use the words you used here to not mean what they mean, and really to use them to mean nothing, thus creating the appearance of having explained something when in fact you have not.

Dude, u have yet to refer to my post to you, which seals the deal. Jesus has the same nature of the Father, eternal. Nuff said . . . but of course if u continue to ignore it . . . then ur troll'icky
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.