• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Is John 17:3 or the Trinity a doctrine of Christ?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Aug 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +230
    Messianic
    What I find rather insulting, but later I come to understand it as ignorance on your part, is that you Ed honestly believe my experiences are fairy tales concocted for the sake of whatever you think I may be making them up for.

    Time and again I've offered to mail you proof of these experiences, pictures, recordings, journals, emails, account information, and so much evidence you'd have to be one blind skeptic to dismiss it as all a hoax. But you seem to have a distate for peope showing you proof of the truth you can not deny - like the constant reminder I give you to respond or refute the Zech 12:10 post and imaged evidence of the actual Hebrew of that text - and it's just one of many texts I have. If you can't handle that one piece of proof, then I suppose you can't handle anything else I send you. Until you respond to the Zech 12:10 post - doesn't matter if you agree with it or not - I just want you to acknowledge it, then you have lost my respect in using normal logical proof-text processes to convince you of the truth.

    If this is the case - that you will refuse to acknowledge the very proof you seek with Zech 12:10, then how can I even be sure you will acknowledge the truth of the answer to your most recent challenge? I can prove by scripture that we are not saved by being a member of some physical church. I have imaged texts proving that the Israelites and GENTILES were forgiven for their atonement ONLY by and because of the "Day of Atonement" sacrifice (it too is in the Hebrew), and not by their identity as Jews, or their identity as Gentiles. We have a precedent. I can also show you that the Ethiopian Eunich Peter baptized probably didn't have an Ingelsia Ni Christo to go to! And you forget the theif on the cross. In my bible, God plays no favorites or hold people higher than others - God is totally fair, and if the theif is an "exception" to many things regarding salvation (like baptism, praying the sinners prayer, being a member of the church, and other traditions), then I don't believe God is fair because if what you are saying is true concerning HOW to be saved, then here is proof God showed favortism to the theif in and now He justs lets everyone else follow some strange routine to be saved, and the theif gets into heaven a much easier way than we will. Heck, even ABRAHAM was credited as RIGHTEOUS because of his faith in God. If the Gentile Abraham can be saved from eternal death by being made righteous by his own faith, then why not others on the planet?


    So before I even BEGIN to discourse with you about your most recent challenge, how about you answer mine first?

    What do you have to say regarding the Hebrew text for Zech 12:10, ed?
     
  2. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Josephus,

    You haven't even replied to dmmjr's query whether it is the Hebrew text you read or the English text under it.

    The RSV, TEV AND TLB translations are Bibles too Josephus. And they don't agree with wht you are reading. What you are reading is a mistranslation.

    If it is God talking in Zechariah 12:10, then He is Spirit according to Jesus (John 4:24). And if God is Spirit, can a spirit be pierced?

    It was Jesus whom they pierced. We know fully well that by all accounts, Jesus bled when he was pierced. Therefore, it was not a Spirit that was pierced but a man who had flesh and bones.

    Don't you believe anything that Jesus said Josephus? Do you really think that anyone who doesn't believe what Jesus says will be saved?

    Ed
     
  3. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "If it is God talking in Zechariah 12:10, then He is Spirit according to Jesus (John 4:24). And if God is Spirit, can a spirit be pierced"

    If he "puts on flesh" yeah he can..See John chapter 1.
    YOu assume too much ed, in OT it is clearly shown that God reveals himself in a tangable way. a burning bush, a column of fire, the list goes on and on....a column of fire isn't spirit...can you see a spirit ed? Moses saw the trail of God's robe..
     
  4. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +230
    Messianic
    FYI, here is my response to drmmjr in the other thread, ed. You must have missed it. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner:

    drmmjr, I can not read hebrew very well, but I understand letters, and being a Messianic Jew, it comes with the territory in that our pastor offers Hebrew classes. Zech 12:10 was one such verse he used as an example, and later with my own research I once looked up the hebrew words specifically written to see and understand what it was I thought was very confusing: that somehow it can only be translated as Me, and then somehow (and illogically) the pronoun switches to Me:

    aleph lamed yud (on Me)

    ayin lamed (kamatz) yud vav (for Him)

    The kamatz changes the tense altogether - and in the original Hebrew before the vowel kamatz was invented, a dot is listed above the lamed, also changing the tense. Many translators that choose to reject it do so on the basis of it not making sense and they reason that it was copyer error. But what those particular scholars fail to realize is that all the texts we do have, there is a dot above the lamed that changes the tense in all the copies available. Of course this tense doesn't make sense if you have a bias concerning doctrine, but the copeyer that put it there obviously didn't put their bias into it as it it probably remained confusing for him, but for him to change the scripture one little jot would amount to blasphemy on his part as he copied it.

    <><
    Ryan

     
  5. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    LouisBooth,

    You wrote:
    You say "you assume too much ed". You don't even know what "assume" means.

    Do you say I assume too much when I say that God is Spirit and cannot be pierced? Do you say I assume too much when Jesus himself shows his Apostles that it was he whom they pierced by showing his scars? Do you say I assume too much when it was Jesus "the one whom they pierced" who says tht he is "ascending to HIS Father and to YOUR Father and to HIS God and YOUR God?

    On the other hand, you assume too much Louis. It is not God who became the burning bush or the column of fire. If God could create the heavens and the earth and everything on it (without becoming the heavens and earth himself) why do you assume that God MUST become a burning bush or a pillar of cloud to make himself tangible? The Bible says we see God through the works of His hands.

    If God the Spirit became Jesus the flesh whom they pierced, who was the voice who said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" on two occasions?

    Clearly, by your assumption, there are two separate and distinct Spirit-Gods. Yet why do you keep denying that there are really two Gods by your assumption?

    Ed
     
  6. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Josephus,

    You wrote:
    Thanks for responding Josephus. Your post reveals the following:

    1) The Hebrew you are reading is NOT the original manuscript afterall. It is a Hebrew text copied from an original;

    2) You admit that the dot above the lamed changes the tense and this does not make sense;

    3) You admit that the dot above the lamed could be a copyer error;

    4) You admit that there are two assumptions on why there are two contrasting versions of the verse: one, that Bible scholars reject what the copyer did because it does nt make sense and it could be copyer error; and two, that although it doesn't make sense (even to the copyer), the copyer did put the dot anyway; and

    5) All Bibles were translated from this copied Hebrew text that you are talking about.

    The fact is, you are assuming that the copyer is right and the Bible scholars are wrong because they put their bias concerning doctrine that: 1) God is spirit and cannot be pierced; and 2) it was God the Father speaking about Jesus, His son.

    You take the translation that doesn't make sense because you put your bias into it that God became Jesus who was pierced. And again I say, your bias is against what the Bible teaches.

    Ed
     
  7. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "? Do you say I assume too much when Jesus himself shows his Apostles that it was he whom they pierced by showing his scars? "

    So? It clearly shows that God inserted himself into our reality to be an example and died a sacrifical death for our sin. No one other then God could do that, no one else was good enough.

    "It is not God who became the burning bush or the column of fire. "

    who was it then Ed? was it noah or abraham?

    "why do you assume that God MUST become a burning bush or a pillar of cloud to make himself tangible"

    Because that's what he did Ed. He did that because 1. we cannot see him in all his glory (God the father) for we would die instantly (physically) What do you think moses saw on the mountain ed? When God passed by him and he hid in the cleft of the rock? Hmm? What did he see? Must be something "tangalbe" because you can't see something that's not.

    "If God the Spirit became Jesus the flesh whom they pierced, who was the voice who said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" on two occasions? "

    Jesus was not just flesh ed ;) the biblical term used for flesh is the "bad" spirit in us all. If you mean he became physical flesh, yes you are right, but then again after he rose he wasn't like us at all..not the same "flesh"
    Do you think God saying son had something to do with God the father having sex with marry and Jesus was produced? Do you think that is how it happened ed?


    "Clearly, by your assumption, there are two separate and distinct Spirit-Gods. Yet why do you keep denying that there are really two Gods by your assumption?"

    No there are not ed. I am not a polytheist. I think this is the part you don't understand. Would you like me to use an anology to try and clearify..think about an egg...it has 3 parts, but it is still just ONE egg.
     
  8. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    LouisBooth,

    You wrote:
    You are wrong Louis. After Jesus was raised by God from the dead, he told his apostles to touch his scars and said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)

    And as if that's not enough, Jesus asked for food and they gave him a piece of broiled fish and he ate! (Luke 24:41-42).

    You wrote:
    I'm used to this kind of smoke screen Louis. Protestants do it all the time. God's saying that Jesus is His son does not have anything to do with how Jesus was begotten or as you say produced (as God coming out of the production line? - LOL!). Jesus is the son as differentiated from the Father.

    The voice from heaven (above) says Jesus is his son (twice - once in Matt. 3:17 and again in Matt. 17:5) and Jesus prays to the one in heaven and calls him Father (John 17:1). Jesus continues praying and says: "And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU (referring to the Father - verse 1), the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ whom YOU (again referring to the Father) have SENT." (John 17:3)

    I wrote:
    Your reply:
    Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg.

    On the contrary, Jesus teaches that the only true God is the Father (one part - NOT three). Your other part (Jesus) is a man (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:3; 1 Tim. 2?:5).

    Clearly, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of Christ. It is anti the doctrine of Christ as recorded in John 17:3.

    Ed
     
  9. White Knight 777

    White Knight 777 Guest

    +0
    since it seems that most went off on other subjects that had little, if anything to do with the question.

    Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

    My Bible and history correctly teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is manmade. The Trinty doctrine did not exist during the time of the early church. It became official doctrine after the Harlot took over.

    The remarks that the True Church 'disappeared' after the first century is only partially correct. It disappeared from public view, but did not cease to exist.

    There is a BIG difference.

    While on earth, Christ was human, composed of flesh and blood, but this in its self, does not negate the fact that He was part of the God family, incarnate.

    WK

     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,087
    Christian
    I think I'll enjoy getting to know you. :)
     
  11. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Oh, and back to the original question: Trinty or chapter 17? I'll take both.

    Welcome to the KT WK ;)
     
  12. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    WK,

    You wrote:
    When you say "after the Harlot took over" do you mean the Catholic Church which introduced and affirmed the Trinity doctrine and the deity of Jesus?

    You wrote:
    You say the true church disappeared from public view but did not cease to exist. Where was the true church all these time then? And what BIG difference does it make?

    You wrote:
    When you say Jesus was part of the God family, what do you mean? And where in the Bible does it say "God family?" What does "incarnate" mean?

    John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. The Trinity doctrine says the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost IS the only true God. Which of these is a doctrine of Christ? Please clarify your stand on this.

    Ed
     
  13. White Knight 777

    White Knight 777 Guest

    +0
    One: Yes.

    Two: The True Church went underground. A good read of what happened to them, scripturally, is covered in Rev 2 and 3. The BIG difference that I refer to, is that the Church and her daughters that were in full view, is the apostacing group that STOLE the name of Christ and some of the doctrines of Christ, and then paganized them, to conform to the ancient Babylonian religion. The True Church is indeed a very small group, just as Christ addressed them to be. They were never to grow to become a major institution. In fact, they were to remain so small that Christ had to assure them that even the gates of hell (death) would not totally overcome them.

    Three: The real beginning of the Bible as far as historical events are concerned, is found in John 1:1-3,1414 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.


    1 ΒΆ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    14 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.

    It is obvious to those that have an eye to see, and an ear to hear, that the Word spoken of here, is Jesus Christ. He is said to be WITH God and also WAS God. This clearly shows at least TWO personages.

    Christ existed prevously as a separate person with the Father, even before His human existence.

    Jn.1:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


    It also states that all things were made BY Him. When one adds the fact that Christ came to REVEAL the Father and in addition stated to the Jews (as a nation, now and previous) that you (the Jews) never saw or knew the Father, it becomes obvious to the logical mind that the God of the OT was not the Father, but Christ as the living Word of God.

    This is confirmed in the scripture that states that the Rock that followed them in the wilderness, was Christ.

    In the re-creation account (for this was not the orginal creation) it is derived that the Word is the One that spoke and it was done, this is confirmed by John 1:3.

    Four: Eph 3:15 mentions a family in heaven. John in the beginning verses also reveals a FAMILY relationship and composition. Christ is the Son OF God, who has a FATHER.

    Is it any wonder why the Human Family, also is based on the same family relationship?

    The word 'God' is a uniplural, such as family, team, etc., it does not mean just one personage. It is ONE FAMILY, just as mankind is ONE FAMILY. In this family, the God family, is now only composed of two personages; the Father and the Son.

    Therefore, John 17:3 which points to the HEAD of that family, could also be worded:

    Jn.17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (family), and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

    Just as our own physical sons are part of our family, and their surnames are the same as ours, Christ is very much God as the Father is God, but just like us in our physical families, the Father's authority and power, is much, much greater.

    Why, oh why, can't so many see this?

    Perhaps, Rev. 12:9

    WK


     
  14. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    WK,

    You wrote:
    Up to when did the true church remain underground?

    You wrote:
    Where was the true church all the time that this church and her daughters were in full view?

    You wrote:
    Where in the Bible does it say that they were never to grow to become a major institution? On the contrary, the Bible teaches that at one time, 3,000 were baptized and added to the church in one single day (Acts 2:41). And when persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem, they were all scattered throughout Judea and Samaria except the apotles (Acts 8:1).

    You wrote:
    You're wrong WK. John 1:1-3, 14 is not the real beginning of the Bible. The Bible is the term ascribed to both the Old and New Testaments together. The Jews referred to the OPld Testament as the Holy Scripture.

    The Old Testament contains the WORD of God regarding the enemy of satan (Gen. 3:15); the seed of Abraham (Gen. 17:7); a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:1:cool: ; and a son whose name shall be called Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

    John 1:1 is John's description of the WORD of God. It does not refer to Jesus. John 1:14 is John's description of the fulfillment of God's WORD regarding Jesus.

    You wrote:
    The WORD spoken of in John 1:1 is NOT Jesus Christ. It is NOT Jesus who was with God in the beginning. It is NOT Jesus who was God.

    John 1:1 is apostle John's figurative description of God's WORD (expressed IDEA, plan or promise) regarding a savior. John 1:14 is John's figurative description of the fulfillment of God's WORD (expressed IDEA, plan or promise) regarding a savior in the person of Jesus.

    Your belief that there are two personages of God contradicts what the Bible teaches. There is only one God and that only one God is in the person of the Father only (Is. 63:16; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

    You wrote:
    If Christ existed previously as a separate person from the Father, even before his human existence, what was he? Was he God? Then there would be two Gods and that would contradict what God says.

    You wrote:
    What your logical mind comes up with DOES NOT override what the Bible teaches.

    The Old Testament teaches that God is the Father (Is. 44:8; Is. 46:9; Ps. 100:3; Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

    Matt. 3:17 and Matt. 17:5 records God saying that Jesus is His son. And God MADE His son both Lord and CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

    You wrote:
    The Bible does not support what you are saying. Anything that is not supported by the Bible must be thrown away. God does not mean "family". God is a title that is given only to the creator of heaven and earth. Nobody except the creator has the right to use the title of God. The Father is the Lord God Almighty who created all things (Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev. 4:11).

    You wrote:
    This is a classsic case of TWISTING the word of God to fit a false doctrine. And even if we twist the verse to your liking, it still doers not make sense to say that "the Father is the only true God (family)."

    You wrote:
    Now you are saying that God is a surname. When will this deliberate distortion of God's word end?

    Why don't you just believe what Jesus says about himself in John 8:40, that he is a man? Thus, if Jesus is a man and the Father is the only true God, how can Jesus be God unless you TWIST the word of God and make Jesus a liar?

    Ed
     
  15. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "You are wrong Louis. After Jesus was raised by God from the dead, he told his apostles to touch his scars and said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)"

    :lol: exactly..saying he wasn't a ghost..then he arose to heaven in THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM. He was imperishable ...a glorified body..that's why he said that...he also said that he was imperishable ed :) so you're still a little off.

    "Jesus is the son as differentiated from the Father. "

    So you do think God the father had sex with Mary? You didn't answer the question ed. If he wanted to differenate himself he would say I am the prophet of God, not the son, as other teachers had before him.

    "Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg."
    I think you missed the word "like" ed. Yes he is like an egg. it is a simple way to explain the trinity since you OBVIOUSLY dont' understand the concept. The bible teaches there is one God and Jesus, the HS and the Father are all God. So 3 in one and one in three.

    "Clearly, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of Christ"

    yes it is..see John chapter 1, and that's just for starters..to get Jesus not to be God you're going to have to rip out John chapter 1 from your bible ed, along with several parts in Matthew and Luke where Jesus forgives sin and any place where he accepts worship. I guess you're willing to do that though...





     
  16. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    LouisBooth,

    First, you agree that Jesus is NOT a ghost. You do agree of course that a ghost is also a "spirit?" Don't you?

    Second, you say that Jesus ascended to heaven IN THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM (with flesh and bones).

    How then can you say that Jesus is God when he said plainly and understandably that God is Spirit (John 4:24)?

    What makes you think that God the Father had sex with Mary? This thought never entered my mind Louis because this is immaterial to the issue.

    Jesus is the SON and he said that the FATHER is the ONLY true God. That's what matters, NOT as you say, God having sex with Mary.

    [quot] ED: "Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg."

    LB: I think you missed the word "like" ed. Yes he is like an egg. it is a simple way to explain the trinity since you OBVIOUSLY dont' understand the concept. The bible teaches there is one God and Jesus, the HS and the Father are all God. So 3 in one and one in three.[/quote]

    What Bible are you reading this from Louis? My Bible teaches that God is NOT like an egg with three parts. My Bible teaches that God is only one in the ONE (not three) person of the Father only (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

    This only shows that you DON'T read what others post. You are only interested in your own posts. How many times habve I posted that:

    1) John 1:1 is NOT about Jesus. It is about God's promises regarding Jesus.

    2) John 1:14 DOES NOT say that GOD became man. What John 1:14 truly says is that the WORD of God BECAME man.

    3) God GAVE Jesus the power and authority to forgive sins (Acts 5:31; Mark 2:10; Matt. 28:1:cool: .

    4) God MADE Jesus both LORD and CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

    5) God DID miracles, wonders and signs THROUGH Jesus, the MAN (Acts 17:31).

    6) God RAISED Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9).

    7) God COMMANDED angels to worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6). And Jesus knew this.

    :cool: God GAVE Jesus a name which is ABOVE evey name that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow... and every tongue shall confess that Jesusm is LORD to the GLORY of the Father (Phil. 2:9-11). Jesus knew this too. That's why he allowed people to worship him.

    9) God EXALTED Jesus to His right hand as Prince and SAVIOR... (Acts 5:31).

    10) After everything is placed under Jesus' feet, he himself will be placed UNDER Him who placed evrything under his feet (1 Cor. 15:27-2:cool: .


    Please take your Bible and go over these verses that I quoted in this post. These should tell you that Jesus is NOT God.

    Ed
     
  17. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    While it is true that God is Spirit, it is also true that HE is more than that. Asa Christian, I accept this, becasue it is what the bible teaches.

    Ed, you did infer this by saying that God had to of had sex with dirt in order to make Adam. IN this way, you say God had sex with Mary.

    This verse does say that God is one person, the Father, only.

    Nor this one.

    Nor this one.

    Nor this one.

    Nor this one.

    Care to explain how a promise (idea or concept) can be a god (sentient, self-aware and omnipotent entity)?
     
  18. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Second, you say that Jesus ascended to heaven IN THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM (with flesh and bones).

    How then can you say that Jesus is God when he said plainly and understandably that God is Spirit (John 4:24)?
    "

    First you are not reading that verse in its context. Read this verse in light of the section..;) Second yes Jesus did arise in a gloried physical body because it says he did in the NT.

    "What makes you think that God the Father had sex with Mary? This thought never entered my mind Louis because this is immaterial to the issue. "

    Umm..cause that's the way you get a human ed. If he was just a man then he had to come from somewhere.

    "What Bible are you reading this from Louis? My Bible teaches that God is NOT like an egg with three parts. My Bible teaches that God is only one in the ONE (not three) person of the Father only "

    Well ed, that's EXACTLY what it teaches, why don't you read it again. Now lets go through those verses..

    Is 63:16 says nothing about God being one God..so this one is out as is Is 64:8. Are you just throwing random verses out?

    Mal 2:10 This verse is taken out of context. It says we have one father and didn't one God create us..refuting the fact that many Gods created us. One God did create us..the tribune God. This also applies to John 17:3..God is one God..the tribune God.

    1 Cor 8:6--Explained this to you already. He calls Jesus Lord here..why don't you check to see what that means in greek ;) the Lord with a capital L.

    "1) John 1:1 is NOT about Jesus. It is about God's promises regarding Jesus."

    Yes it is. Verses 15-18 and verse 30 prove that.

    "2) John 1:14 DOES NOT say that GOD became man. What John 1:14 truly says is that the WORD of God BECAME man."

    No it makes it very clear in John 1:1 that the word WAS God..so then God became man.

    "God GAVE Jesus the power and authority to forgive sins "

    Don't you understand ed, only God can forgive sins..;) Get it?

    "God MADE Jesus both LORD and CHRIST (Acts 2:36)."

    That's right ed and we are baptised in his name..so are we baptised in God's name or a man's ed? I think if you search the NT we are baptised in Jesus' name..ie God's name.

    "God DID miracles, wonders and signs THROUGH Jesus, the MAN (Acts 17:31)."

    Ed, Acts 17:31 says onthing of this. Try again. Jesus did do things for the glory of the father yes, but that's what its all about anyway :)

    "God COMMANDED angels to worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6). And Jesus knew this. "

    So you've got the God that said you should worship no other one but him and now he is saying..worship this man? Whatever Ed, I guess God was lying in the OT huh? :lol: This further proves that Jesus is God. check commandment #2 for more details ;)

    "Please take your Bible and go over these verses that I quoted in this post. These should tell you that Jesus is NOT God."

    I did Ed, and it confirmed Jesus was God. ;)


     
  19. Pastor Carl

    Pastor Carl Guest

    +0
    There are only two requirements for salvation, Ed. Just two, and it is not found in any single church, creed, denomination, etc.

    You said that to be saved one must be "In Christ". How does one become "in Christ". Paul laid it out quite simply in Romans 10:9, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED!!! Period!!! End of statement. You: (1) Confess that Jesus is Lord. What does that mean? It simply means you give up all your rights as an individual and defer to Christ in all things. He becomes Lord of your entire life. (2) You beleive that God raised Him from the dead. Why? The death on the cross would have been invalid had the resurrection not taken place. In Romans 15 Paul states that"If Christ is not raised then we are still dead in our sins." The atonement of sin is validated by the resurrection. Jesus rose and presented His blood to the Father.

    Scripture tells us "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

    You become "In Christ" and "adopted sons" and "ingrafted Jews" by Romans 10:9.

    It seems that most Christians would agree with you on the forgiveness of sins, becoming adopted sons, etc., but when one church, one individual, other than Christ, sets themselves up as the supreme authority, then it is that organization that had best beware spiritually. It is by grace, and grace alone, that we are saved. Belonging to one group does not make one saved. If it claims that, then it has put itself above Jesus Christ Himself and that, my friend, is pride.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,087
    Christian
    >>Paul laid it out quite simply in Romans 10:9, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED!!! Period!!! End of statement.

    Yet this isn't what Jesus said about it. He *NEVER* implied that lips service alone was going to cut it. Paul however was "selling" a new religion. Paul also said women should not speak in church, and that God essentially plays salvation bingo with souls just because it pleases him too.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...