Oneness of God

Second Adam,

Could it be because Adam was the first 'sinless' man that Jesus is the second 'sinless man'?

Sin= disobedience which inturn causes seperation from God?

I wonder why Adam attempted to hide from the omnipresent one? Wouldn't he have known that God is everywhere?

Becks,

Hey sorry to hear bout the tragic loss. Take care, and I'll look forward to your next lot of well reasoned input at a later time.

God bless.

BTW - I attended a UPCI Bible school here in little ole New Zealand for a few months last year. Another one should be starting up soon this year....can't wait!

GJG said:

Second Adam,

Could it be because Adam was the first 'sinless' man that Jesus is the second 'sinless man'?

Sin= disobedience which inturn causes seperation from God?

I wonder why Adam attempted to hide from the omnipresent one? Wouldn't he have known that God is everywhere?

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I don't think Adam knew that God was omniscient or omnipresent unless God taught his so. There is no scriptural record of God teaching that. The only knowledge Adam gained from eating the forbidden fruit was the knowledge of good and evil.[/size]

Thanks GJG. I'll be back in a week or so. I think the funeral will be either Tuesday or Wednesday.

Did you hear about the huge UPC Convention at the end of this month at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto? It's gonna be awesome! There will probably be around 10 to 15 thousand Pentecostals there!!!!! (www.upci.org) Too bad you live so far away!

Anyways, you take care. Keep up the good work yourself - you've posted some excellent posts.

Remain patient with the dear Der Alter. I noticed in the last post that he is arguing with your second Adam statement. Wouldn't it be more fruitful for you two to bind together to teach JesseDance the Truth that Jesus is God?

To everyone: I'll be back at the end of the week or so.

GJG and Der Alter - I'd like to give a Scripture passage you as you share the Truth with JesseDance.

(11 Timothy 2:24-26) "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

Alter: "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. "Mal 3:6 (KJV).
Since God doesn't change then he does not change from a god to a a man. and since God doesnt change, he doesnt say that he is not a man and then latter change his mind and decide he is a man.
Thomas saying "my lord and my God" to Jesus probably means that Thomas saw God in Jesus. Jesus said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "The Father that is in me he doeth the works". Or possibly it is a primitive error and was orginially an exclamation, or possibly trinitarians inserted that in the bible.
"the only begotten God" is not supported by the internal evidence and I think only one translation translates it that way.. And actually, the external evedince supports "the only begotten Son" because Christian Fathers writting in the 2nd and 3rd centurys (predating any manuscripts we currently have) said "only begotten son". Most scholars suspect a primitive error.the word son and the word god in greek sound very much alike, and you only have to add a slightmark to change the greek word son into theon or god. there are web sites with much more detailed information on this subject. If you want i can find one for you.
"the word was god" is not a good translation of the greek even though it is very literal. The reason being is that in greek a definite article is much more important than in english. to convey the idea of "the word being god" you would have to say in greek literally " the word was the god" but the greek manuscritps say literally "the word was god". since god does not have the definite article before it it means that the word is an aspect of God. there is more to this argument than i am familiar with. perhaps there is also a web site with much more detailed info.
"the word became flesh" just means that gods plan or word took on its greatest fullfillment with the birth of Jesus. It is not to be taken literally.. God's words are not God anymore than my words are me. There is not someone walking around in heaven named word, and never has been.

GJG: Correct, Jesus was sinless just like adam was originally. Jesus grew in grace and favor with God."And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."

Luke 2:52 (KJV)
THis is what Adam was suppose to have done but he , unlike Jesus resorted to sin.
I would say Adam felt the presence of the Lord near him and attempted to hide from that manifestation of God. God is always with me but I dont always feel it. but sometimes I feel the presence of the Lord very strong, especially when I worship him.

Hi Everyone. I know I said I'll be away for awhile, but I'm just sitting at my computer right now talking to my sister and I read this thread by JesseDance and I had to respond.

JESSEDANCE:

[font=Helv,Arial]Jesus Christ is referred to as the Son of God approx. 40 times in the New Testament but is only referred to specifically as God about half a dozen times or so. Why is this? Is it because Jesus Christ is indeed a separate Being from God the Father?

Think about this: Just because more verses say Jesus is the Son of God compared to those verses which say Jesus is the God, does that mean that we should only focus on the multitude set of verses rather than the smaller handful of verses? Should we view the verses that say Jesus is THE GOD as invalid since the greater precentage of verses say that Jesus is the SON OF GOD?

Should we assert that the Trinitarians actually inserted those verses into the Bible? God forbid. The Word of God today is still completely intact. God said that not "one mark or tittle" would be removed from His Word. (Of course, there are non-Christian versions of the Bible - such as the Jehovah's Witness Bible - and they have definitly changed the verses to mean other things by adding or taking away certain words. And surprise surprise, they have changed every verse that says that Jesus is God!)

A friend of mine, (a professing Christian) told me that since the New Testament only makes a couple of references to homosexuality being sin; it's pretty much a non-issue. He said that if God really wanted us to believe that He considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then He would have devoted way more verses to the topic.

So tell me, if only one verse in the Bible said that murder is wrong, would that mean that murder is pretty much a non-issue? "If God wanted us to get the point that murder is wrong, He would have devoted way more verses to the topic". I hope my point is clear here!

If the Bible only said that Jesus is God one time, then we still need to reverence that declaration as infallible Truth!

At this point, you may be thinking that I am being hypocritical. "You say it's wrong to ignore the smaller passages of Scripture and only pay attention to the big passages, but here, you seem to be doing the opposite: favouring the smaller passages over the larger passages."

What I'm trying to explain is that we need to take all Scripture together as a whole! The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus IS God. Is this a contradiction? Does this mean that Jesus is a separate Being from God?

When Jesus and the disciples taught, they used words and terms that the people would understand and relate to. As author David K. Bernard says: "The title of Son refers to God's incarnation. The man Christ was literally conceived by the Spirit of God and was therefore the son of God (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35)."

Jesus Christ was and still is, God incarnate. God became a man so that He could pay the penalty for our sins. In the Old Testament, it says that God was not a man. (Numbers 23:19) This is not a contraction. God became flesh only two thousand years ago and this is recorded in the New Testament. Until then, it is true - He was not a man. Matthew chapter one says that the baby Jesus born in Bethlehem was exactly as the Prophet Isaiah said - "Emmanuel". Isaiah said that his name would be Emmanuel. In Matthew chp. one. this truth is further expounded - it says, "his name shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us."
[/font]

Bekah:
You assert that the bible says Jesus is God but that is untrue. There are verses that you interpret to mean Jesus is god but they dont say that, and i assert that they dont mean that. To me it is quite plain and simple. If Jesus is the son of God then he cannot be the God, who is the only God there is,that he is the son of. And clearly, we all agree, that Jesus is the son of God.
I would agree with you that there are many more verses that can be used to prove Jesus is the son of God than there are verses that are used (erroniously i would say) to prove that Jesus is God.
you said "The Word of God today is still completely intact" . OK, which bible is the word of god that is completly intact then? None of the different translations of the bible that we have agree on every verse. KJV? ASV? NASB? NIV?
which one?
No two of the ancient greek manuscripts that scholars use to translate the bible from agree completly. All of them are different in places.
So since they all differ in places that means that someone changed them at some time in places. which they did. Many errors are not even translated into modern bibles because they are so blatenetly additions. some are open to debate as to whether they are genuine or not.
One addition that catholics made to the bible which is a biggiee and which most christians are unawre of is math 28:19
That verse blatently contradicts other scriptures whic hsay to baptise in Jesus name. Catholics added the part about "baptise them in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost" after the council of nicea in 325 ad. then they burned every bible that had what it realy said and repalced them with there new scripture. there are no manuscripts, no papyri written before 325 ad that have that verse (math 28:19)
catholics destroyed them all. But eusebius quoted math. 28:19 some 20 times or so in books he wrote and he quoted it differently
eusebius had acces to bibles that predate any we have today
esusebius was a chruch father and a memeber of the council of nicea.
after the council of nicea he quoted math 28:19 3 times with the triatic formula. they made him. there is much more proof of this but i dont have the time to go into it.
God was in christ, there fore everywhere Christ ( annointed OF GOD) went God went too. Jesus brought God, who indwelt him, to the people so that the people could say god was with them , when Jesus came. The words Jesus spoke were not his own but his fathers for his father spoke in him heb 1:2. So the people heard God speak to them through Jesus too.

JesseDance - what Bible do you use?! I use the KJV and use NIV just for reference.

You said:
_____________________________
One addition that catholics made to the bible which is a biggiee and which most christians are unawre of is math 28:19
That verse blatently contradicts other scriptures whic hsay to baptise in Jesus name. Catholics added the part about "baptise them in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost" after the council of nicea in 325 ad. then they burned every bible that had what it realy said and repalced them with there new scripture. there are no manuscripts, no papyri written before 325 ad that have that verse (math 28:19)
-------------------------------------------------

Sweety, Matthew 28:19 doesn't go against the book of Acts. I don't believe for a second that the Catholics added that verse. See, dear friend, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus said, "Baptise them in THE NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". *The name is singular*. The name is Jesus. So, the rest of the Bible, the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus. Matthew 28:19 is in no way contradictory to the book of Acts.

[font=Helv,Arial] [/font]

Bekah: well there is much evedince that they did tamper with matth. 28:19. If interested go to this site http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html#Manuscripts.

I have about 20 or so different bibles I use. I rely mostly on the Rotherham version which is a vry literal translation. for beauty of language none surpase the kjv in my estimation. There are many good translations but none of them are totally reliable in every instance. sometimes even a poor translation, such as Darbys will be right when the better translations, such as niv or rotherham or asv are wrong.

JesseDance, I'm sorry - but I don't want to visit that website. In God's Word - it says in Matthew 5:18,

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

I have no interest in visiting a website full of lies - a website that tries to say that God's Word is all screwed up now. I don't believe that for a second no matter what anyone says. Matthew 5:18 is clear - I believe the Word of God - not the clever written words of men who think they are so knowledgeable.

JesseDance - you say you love God and yet you do not even trust His Word! You have to rely on dozens of translations so that you can piece it all together to form the picture that you like - not the True picture.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my Post on Revelation chapter One. Will you be responding to those clear Scripture verses?

JesseDance - I agree with you that some of the modern translations are not as accurate. That is why I personally rely on my KJV bible for proper translation. I do not trust the NIV - I only use it occasionally for reference. Matthew 5:18 says that God's Word will remain intact! God's Word is still intact today and God's Word makes it clear over and over again that Jesus IS God.

Please do not respond by saying, "Oh, Matthew 5:18" was added by the Catholics. I don't know where you get this kind of information but I am afraid that you are gravely decieved.

I am praying for you, Jesse.

Bekah;
You say God became a man. That would mean that God ceased to be god and became something else a man. No one is 2 beings. The bible plainly states emphaticaly that God is one. therefore; if god became something else, a man, then he ceased being god. and that cannot be. As an example, if I become a muslim I am no longer a christian. You can't be both. If I a pentecostal suddenly believe tongues are of the devil and decide to b ecome a baptist I am no longer a pentecostal. can't be both.
Jesus was not two beings in one. Jesus also was one being.
As to the Holy Spirit, well the bible says God is holy and God is spirit ,therefore; God is THE holy spirit. God is elohim, God is yahweh. God is God the Father. God is yahweh ratha. etc. same being just different titles and posistions. But , God is not a son of anybody.
" the express image of God's person" A statue is an image of the person it represents it is not that person. a picture is an image of the person the camera lens snaps a photo of. Jesus is the visibile image of the invisible God because Jesus has all the attributes of God because. He grew in grace and favor with God. and became like his Father who is god. Something that is an image of something is not the thing it is an image of.
In the verses from Revelation that you quoted, Jesus is used as a metonymy for God. Becasue God indwells Jesus so fully and operates out of Jesus. a metonymy is like when we say " drink this cup" . we mean to drink what is in the cup not the ceramic cup. Same principle here.
let me give you a better example. Jesus said "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. "
John 12:46 (ASV).
This verse says that Jesus is the light.
"And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb "
Rev 21:23 (ASV).
Here God is the light, or the glory of god. And Jesus is the lamp that lights shines through.
"And there shall be night no more; and they need no light of lamp, neither light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. "

Rev 22:5 (ASV).

In john 12:46 Jesus said he was the light but revelation says god is the light and clears it up to by saying that jesus is the lamp. So in john 12:46 jesus is plainly a metonymy for God , who is the light.

"

Words don't mean much to me Jesse. Your interpretations of the Scriptures rely completely on "reading between the lines". Your theology may appear logical to some, but illogical when compared to the Word of God. 1 Timothy 3:16 says, "God was manifest in the flesh". Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost and the child born was Jesus - who is called "Emmanuel: God with us" in Matthew chapter one. Our omnipresent and invisible God came to earth as a man. He didn't cease to be God - he remained God but took on flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16) Jesus Christ was not just an ordinary man - he was a man whose very Spirit was the Spirit of the Living God - God in the flesh. Jesus was both Divine and human.

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate!

Excerpt by David K. Bernard

1. God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons (Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20).
2. Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9).

if words dont mean much to you bekah then how are we going to communicate?

Hi there Jesse.

I was referring to your comment that Matthew 28:19 was added by the Catholics and therefore invalid. I am interested in the Word of God - you see a verse that says that Jesus is God and you try to say that the verse is an errant translation of Scripture - either made up or added to the Bible.

That's the kind of talk I"m not interested in. You haven't give me ANY Scripture that says that Jesus is not God.