• 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.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Jesus is the SON not the Father.

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Sep 8, 2001.

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

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +37
    Friends,

    A lot of people mistakenly believe that Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."

    This is a false belief that can only lead to the lake of fire.

    In Matthew 3:17, God said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

    In Matthew 17:5, God repeatedly introduces Jesus as His beloved son before apostles Peter, James and John. Moreover, God commands them to listen to him.

    Thus, when Jesus asked Peter who he thinks he is, Peter answered: "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

    What fortune awaits those who truly believe that Jesus is indeed the son of God? Apostle John wrote: "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 21:30).

    Those who truly believe that Jesus is the son of God also believe that the Father is the only true God because that's what the son of God revealed as recorded in John 17:3.

    If you are in a church or group or congregation that believes in the doctrine that "Jesus and the Father are one and the same God," God says in Rev. 18:4: "Come out of her my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

    And seek the true path to salvation BEFORE it's too late!

    Ed
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    Whew.. good thing Christianity does not accept this idea... ;)
     
  3. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +37
    ZoneChaos,

    I wrote:


    Your reply:


    Thanks for proving me right - that Jesus and the Father are NOT "one and the same God."

    I guess this also does away with the third option to explain the mistranslated version of Zech. 12:10.

    Ed
     
  4. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    Sorry Ed.. didn't prove you right.

    While it is true that Christinaity does not beleive that Jesus is not the Father, Christianity does believe that Jesus is God ;)

    What you stated: " Jesus is also the Father and therefore believe that "he and the Father are one and the same God."

    We do not beleive. We do not beleive that the Son and the Father are the same person. We do beleive they are the One God. REad the post I put up for Fashala on the Trinity.
     
  5. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Ed, I think you should read up on the concept of the firstborn in Jewish culture..maybe that will help you understand that title a little better. The title son doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a physical realtionship such as father and son (dad and progeiny). God didn't come down and have sex with mary ed, that's not what you believe is it?
     
  6. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +37
    LouisBooth,

    You wrote:


    Whatever your concept is about Father and son Louis, you miss the point completely. The Father says Jesus is His son. Jesus acknowledges that he is the son of God and prays to the Father, telling Him (the Father) that He is the only true God.

    If the Father is the only true God, how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? Thus, the belief that Jesus is one God with the Father is false.

    Ed
     
  7. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    The "how" is something man will never understand on this earth. Nevertheless, the Son is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God.
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "how can the son be also God in addition to the Father? "

    Because the bible says so.

    "Whatever your concept is about Father and son Louis, you miss the point completely. "

    :lol: you don't know what the concept is but you automatically believe its wrong..:lol: ed, you need to listen to ideas before saying they are wrong. You' just being hard-hearted just like the priests of baal.
     
  9. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +37
    ZoneChaos,

    You wrote:


    For centuries, people have been taught that nobody can explain the "mystery" of the Trinity. The people who taught this could not explain it because the Trinity is the product of fertile imaginations that does not find support in the Bible. That's why the Bible was, for centuries, hidden from view.

    Today, the Bible is found everywhere and people even swear by it and claim to be their only basis for their faith. The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON, can be the same only true God as the FATHER (John 17:3) because the Bible does not support the idea that Jesus, the SON is also God, the FATHER.

    What I am saying is, the Trinity is no longer as mysterious as many people were led to believe. The truth is, the Trinity has now been exposed as FALSE.


    Ed
     
  10. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +37
    LouisBooth,



    Show us where in the Bible does it say that the son can alse be God in addition to the Father.



    I have listened to your ideas long enough to know that everything you say is wrong even before you open your mouth. The only reason I keep our conversation going is I'm hoping that one day, you'll run out of crazy ideas and suddenly see the light.

    Ed
     
  11. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    459
    +7
    Christian
    LouisBooth,

    I've been looking for information on this. Where might I find some?
     
  12. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    The Trinity Doctrine has never stated that the Son is the Father. On the ontrary, the Son and the Father are sperate entities within the doctrine of the trinity. The Bible, a you said supporets this, as well as the Trinity, thus:



    What you are saying is the the Trinty octrine says that the Son and Father ar the same. THis is ont true of the TZrinity Doctrine.. so, the Trinity Doctrine then has not been exposed as flase becasue the item above oyu use to expose it is false.
     
  13. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Show us where in the Bible does it say that the son can alse be God in addition to the Father. "

    "the father and I are one" "everything the father has is mine" "before Abraham I am" "I forgive your sins (paraphrase). Got alone can do and say these things ed. How many times do we have to show you this to get it?

    "I have listened to your ideas long enough to know that everything you say is wrong even before you open your mouth. The only reason I keep our conversation going is I'm hoping that one day, you'll run out of crazy ideas and suddenly see the light."

    And I'm hoping the same about you Ed, one day you will see the light weather it be here or on the other side :) I hope its sooner then later, that's what I've been praying at least.
     
  14. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    drmmjr there is a book called introduction to Judism I have, I'll get you the author, a cultural study is a great place to start too as well as any Jewish history.
     
  15. Pastor Carl

    Pastor Carl Guest

    +0
    To give answer as to God having sex with Mary - the answer is that in some mysterious way, that is exactly what happened. The angel told Mary that she would conceive when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Since the Holy Spirit is also co-equal with God, the answer would be yes. You see, the blood shed at Calvary could not be merely human blood. No blood, animal or human, could take away the sin of the world. Only God, Himself, shedding His own bloold could do that. God came in the form of a human, not only to die for our sins, but to live, as Hebrews tells us, as a human so that He could truly empathize with man and man's frailties.

    When John wrote Reveleation, his guide, you might say, was an angel. When he bowed down to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it, but rather worship God. We see, in Revelation alone, numerous times where angels and saints alike worshiped Jesus. We also see in the Gospels where the disciples worshiped Jesus. And Jesus did not rebuke them.

    As has been pointed out. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was, I Am". This is a direct reference to the "I Am" in Exodus, when Jesus spoke through the burning bush to Moses.

    When Jesus told the one person he healed, "Your sins are forgiven", the pharisees went berzerk. They said, "No one can forgive sins except God." They are correct in that statement and Jesus did not argue the point. He merely stated to them that He had that authority.

    Thomas, upon seeing Jesus after His resurrection said, "My Lord, my God." This was NOT a statement of astonishment, but a declaration of recognition of who he now knew Jesus was.

    In Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God(Elohim) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim, on of the Hebrew names for God is in the plural, indicating more than one. "Let us make man in OUR image"(plural) "And God(Elohim) formed man..." Again plural, clearly indicating the co-equal existance of Jesus as God along with the Holy Spirit.

    "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Again indicating Jesus is God.

    No Jesus is not the Father, but in essence, in all things they are equal and one. Like water. Water has three forms, liquid, gas and solid(ice). Often on a cold day you can look upon a lake or river and see ice chunks in the lake, along with the liquid form and steam rising off the surface. Three different functions but still one (H20). The Trinity is the same.
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    >>You see, the blood shed at Calvary could not be merely human blood. No blood, animal or human, could take away the sin of the world. Only God, Himself, shedding His own bloold could do that.

    The part about this I have a tough time with is this notion that God needed to satisfy his vengence through blood in some way. Is this what you are trying to suggest Pastor Carl?

    >>God came in the form of a human, not only to die for our sins, but to live, as Hebrews tells us, as a human so that He could truly empathize with man and man's frailties.

    I actually agree with the last part. The interesting thing however is that most Christians deny Jesus' "humanity", in the sense they do not believe he ever "sinned" or made any mistakes.

    >>When John wrote Reveleation, his guide, you might say, was an angel. When he bowed down to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it, but rather worship God. We see, in Revelation alone, numerous times where angels and saints alike worshiped Jesus. We also see in the Gospels where the disciples worshiped Jesus. And Jesus did not rebuke them.

    I think that this idea that Jesus didn't rebuke people "worshiping" him, particularly in prophesy, is hardly a good arguement to refute Jesus himself on the subject. It's not as though he didn't say we were all capable of this same union in God.

    >>As has been pointed out. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "Before Abraham was, I Am". This is a direct reference to the "I Am" in Exodus, when Jesus spoke through the burning bush to Moses.

    It shows he believed in "preexistence", but it does not prove he was claiming to be God himself. Again, you are taking a single sentence to build a house of cards when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why for instance would Jesus be praying to God for help the night before his death? Why would he fear? What would he fear? Why does he pray to God the father and refer to him as the one true God?

    >>When Jesus told the one person he healed, "Your sins are forgiven", the pharisees went berzerk. They said, "No one can forgive sins except God." They are correct in that statement and Jesus did not argue the point. He merely stated to them that He had that authority.

    Yet in the Lords Prayer Jesus tells us *ALL* to forgive sin.

    >>Thomas, upon seeing Jesus after His resurrection said, "My Lord, my God." This was NOT a statement of astonishment, but a declaration of recognition of who he now knew Jesus was.

    It was a recognition of his divinity to be sure. Again however, you are taking a single sentence from the lips of an apostle and raising it to become more important than the teachings of Jesus himself. What do you think he meant then by the whole John 17 prayer?

    >>In Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God(Elohim) created the heavens and the earth." Elohim, on of the Hebrew names for God is in the plural, indicating more than one. "Let us make man in OUR image"(plural) "And God(Elohim) formed man..." Again plural, clearly indicating the co-equal existance of Jesus as God along with the Holy Spirit.

    "Elohim", as I recall, were themselves "created" beings. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

    >>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Again indicating Jesus is God.

    The WORD as I see it is the emination of God's will and love through creation. This is in fact the way Judaism has always described God, as the source from which all things manifest.

    >>No Jesus is not the Father, but in essence, in all things they are equal and one. Like water. Water has three forms, liquid, gas and solid(ice). Often on a cold day you can look upon a lake or river and see ice chunks in the lake, along with the liquid form and steam rising off the surface. Three different functions but still one (H20). The Trinity is the same.

    The only real complaint I have about the Trinity doctrine is the notion of exclusivity. This implies that only Jesus can achieve this union with God, and that is *NOT* what he himself said in John 17. It is indeed the WORD or Holy Breath, manifesting within Jesus that unified him with the father. The problem here is that Jesus himself said we are *ALL* one in God, and capable of this UNION IN AND WITH GOD.
     
  17. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    God has always required blood as atonement for sin. Not becasue of its chemical makeup, or becasue He thinks it looks cool or to satisfy HIs vengence, but becasue blood is life. Blood is the symbol for life. And life must me the patment for sin, which is death.

    Animal sacrifice was required, in the Old Testament, so that the blood from the animlams would atone for thier sins, however, this was not a permanent solution.

    God sent Jesus to die for us, and by His blood, we have had our sins atoned for. The reason why, is beacause Jeus did not have any sin in which to pay for, thus being more of a sacrifice than any other person, becaue He was sinless. If he had sinned, then HIs blood would not have covered us, because it owuld have needed to atone for His sin, but becasue He had none, it could atone for ours.



    First, sinning and mking mistakes are different things. Christinaity holds true, that Jesus was sinless, this does not mean he neve dropped a carving tool while carving. He had to be taught things like anyone else. But through it all, He never sinned.

    Second, if sin defines humanity, then what was Adam before He sinned, if not human?



    This is also true in the gospel accounts as well. Many times Jesus was worshipped and He did not rebuke them.



    It shows more than that. "I Am" in Exodus is a name God gave Himself. Jesus was saying He was "I Am" in reference to that name of God in Exodus. He was calling Himself the name that God called Himself.



    The Lords prayer gives us the right to forgive others of things they have done agaisnt us, but not things they have done against God. The differecne is that, we should forgive those, and not let it be a wall between them ans us, however, if they sinned, that sin is still not forgiven becasue we fofgave them, in God's eyes. He must still forgive them as well. Jesus did this. He said their sins were forgiven. He forgave them their sins, not sins that were commited toward him, but sins in general. Only God can do this.



    WHich shows He was God. Either Jesus is God, thus He is Devine, or else Jesus is God and their Are more than one God.

    Jesus cannot be devine unless He is God. The only way to accept Jesus as Devine is to accept that He is God, or that their are more than one God.



    Recall from what?



    But is "as you see it" the truth? What verses support what youn say that do not support the fact that the Word is Jesus?

    And Judism alo defines GOd as much more that that. And either way, it still does not say that thnk the Word is an emination.

     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    >>God has always required blood as atonement for sin.

    Not according to Isaiah. :)

    >>Not becasue of its chemical makeup, or becasue He thinks it looks cool or to satisfy HIs vengence, but becasue blood is life. Blood is the symbol for life. And life must me the patment for sin, which is death.

    Why do you use that "slogan"? Why would the wages of sin be death? Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?

    The symbolism of blood=life, is fine, but blood itself is a life bearing "gift" from God. What does this have to do with violence?

    >>Animal sacrifice was required, in the Old Testament, so that the blood from the animlams would atone for thier sins, however, this was not a permanent solution.

    According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin, which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well. Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.

    >>God sent Jesus to die for us, and by His blood, we have had our sins atoned for. The reason why, is beacause Jeus did not have any sin in which to pay for, thus being more of a sacrifice than any other person, becaue He was sinless. If he had sinned, then HIs blood would not have covered us, because it owuld have needed to atone for His sin, but becasue He had none, it could atone for ours.

    Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent? In order for this concept to work, Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?

    M>The interesting thing however is that most Christians deny Jesus' "humanity", in the sense they do not believe he ever "sinned" or made any mistakes.

    >>First, sinning and mking mistakes are different things.

    The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark". It's really one and the same thing. Even if it was a real "sin" in the sense that it was "selfish", we tend to learn and grow from our mistakes. That is a natural part of our learning process, a key design element of our "NATURE" which God herself created. Why would God not understand our hearts when we learn from our selfishness? Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.

    >>Christinaity holds true, that Jesus was sinless, this does not mean he neve dropped a carving tool while carving. He had to be taught things like anyone else. But through it all, He never sinned.

    Of course he stayed around in the synagog, and didn't bother telling his family where he was first. Other than that, we know little about his childhood from the bible. His ministry seems to begin *AFTER* the Holy Spirit descends upon him. There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".

    >>Second, if sin defines humanity, then what was Adam before He sinned, if not human?

    You should talk with Archon about this fairytale. This Adam and Eve thing is simply alegory. There is nothing in nature to suggest that any lifeform is born with complete knowledge of reality, or complete understanding of what the repercussions of their actions might be. Adam and Eve would have been no different than any human child, and they "sin" all the time.

    M>I think that this idea that Jesus didn't rebuke people "worshiping" him, particularly in prophesy, is hardly a good arguement to refute Jesus himself on the subject. It's not as though he didn't say we were all capable of this same union in God.

    >>This is also true in the gospel accounts as well. Many times Jesus was worshipped and He did not rebuke them.

    Many Times? How MANY times?

    It is not as though we do not have a direct explanation from Jesus himself about all this. He is really direct in John 17. There is no beating around the bush going on. He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys. He makes no claim of being the one true God, rather he prays to him as son to father, for brothers and sisters who will eventually comprehend his meaning.

    M>It shows he believed in "preexistence", but it does not prove he was claiming to be God himself.

    >>It shows more than that. "I Am" in Exodus is a name God gave Himself. Jesus was saying He was "I Am" in reference to that name of God in Exodus. He was calling Himself the name that God called Himself.

    If was all Jesus had ever said on the subject, that might be useful here. Since he did say a lot more about his connection to God however, there is no point in denying that part of his teachings either. Jesus called himself a "man". He didn't claim to be "God", and Abraham, I AM also, as are you. All our souls are ancient.

    M>Yet in the Lords Prayer Jesus tells us *ALL* to forgive sin.

    >>The Lords prayer gives us the right to forgive others of things they have done agaisnt us, but not things they have done against God.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?

    It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.

    >>The differecne is that, we should forgive those, and not let it be a wall between them ans us, however, if they sinned, that sin is still not forgiven becasue we fofgave them, in God's eyes. He must still forgive them as well. Jesus did this. He said their sins were forgiven. He forgave them their sins, not sins that were commited toward him, but sins in general. Only God can do this.

    Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

    Could you explain this to me then?

    M>It was a recognition of his divinity to be sure.

    >>WHich shows He was God.

    No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.

    >>Either Jesus is God, thus He is Devine, or else Jesus is God and their Are more than one God.

    Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".

    >>Jesus cannot be devine unless He is God.

    Yes he can.

    >>The only way to accept Jesus as Devine is to accept that He is God, or that their are more than one God.

    No, this is not the way Jesus explained his relationship, and our potential relationship to God. By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".

    M>"Elohim", as I recall, were themselves "created" beings.

    >>Recall from what?

    From Jewish apocrapha. Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us? :)

    M>The WORD as I see it is the emination of God's will and love through creation. This is in fact the way Judaism has always described God, as the source from which all things manifest.

    >>But is "as you see it" the truth?

    It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".

    >>What verses support what youn say that do not support the fact that the Word is Jesus?

    John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.

    >>And Judism alo defines GOd as much more that that. And either way, it still does not say that thnk the Word is an emination.

    In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.

    M>The only real complaint I have about the Trinity doctrine is the notion of exclusivity.

    >>Explain. Is it the notion of exclusivity of being God, or exclusivity of being in union with God?

    By elevating Jesus to the role of God, it implies that no one else may achieve this same union in God, and with God that he enjoyed. This is *NOT* what Jesus said. He constantly referred to God in the third person. If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.

    >>I the first, then yes, you canot be God, ony 3 persons can.. thus a Trinity. If the later, then no, the rinity does not deny us the union with God, that Jesus...

    Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion. It has externalized the connection between God and man when in fact it is an "internal" one. The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature. He'll come through our hearts, through the presense of the Holy Spirit within us. Jesus said that in the end we would know that he is in us, we are in him, and we are all one in God. I believe that.
     
  19. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +23
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican


    OK.. show me in Isaiah where God says blood atonement is not needed.



    What slogan would that be?



    Yes.



    Yes life is a gift.



    I don't see the connection with your analogy. Parents do not cause death. NIether does God. Death is not from God, so why use this analogy?



    And I saiah, being a prophet of God, knew that soon, this would be true, that Jesus would come and end the animal sacrifice once and for all. This passge in Isaiah was not for the time in ehihc it was written, but for a time in the near future when Jesus ould come and die for us.



    Good for him. Your point?



    Which it is. It wasn't always so, but it is now. It became hllow and the death of Christ.



    Umm.. who said He doesn't forgive sin? Not me. He does forgive sin.


    In order for Jesus to atone for our sins, he had to be sinless. Define that as you will, but for me, Jesus had to be sinless.



    If that makes you feel better, ok. But since English words have more than one definition most of the time, I chose to use the definition of sin that is in the Bible:

    1. Sin is Lawlessness

    2. Sin is attitudes that are inconsistant with the law and will of God

    3. Sin is any want of conformity, or transgression against the law of God.



    Can yo say the same thing about sin, without adding "of unity with God:? I find it intersting you added that at te end of the statement, after trying so hard to show it was also just making a mistake.



    Only his nature.



    We will just drop this since we with never agree on the facts of Adam and Eve.



    Here are a couple times off the top of my head... but really, one one time is enough.

    Matt 14:33; 28:9



    I agree. Whats your point?



    I agree. What's your point?



    But never did He say He was just a man, and nothing more. And never did He say He was not God.



    You are correct. What's your point?



    On behalf of God, but not as God. And for those being forgiven, they had better know it was God forgiving them and ont the priest. Also, Jesus forgave as God, not on behalf of God.



    You don't understand this verse?

    That our heart has to be right with God. And that if we are willing o forgive, then so is He. But if we are not willing to forgve, then why should God forgive us? Part of being a Christian is having the ability to forgive. If you cannot forgive others who do you wrong, then how and why should God forgive you of doing Him wrong?



    Heh. Interresting you bring this up.. considering the Jews do not beleive their Messiah has come yet... :)



    Maybe.. but good luck in convincing anyone of it.



    Any other exmaples of someone who is devine and not God? Forinstance.. the closest thing to Godm as far as a nature goes, wouod probably be Lucifer. Tell me, do you think Lucifer was Devine?



    And by that staement either we cease to exist as independant from God in thought or deed, devoid of any sentient thought, or else there are multiple gods.



    Sorry, I don't recognize the Jewish Apochrapha's authority on the issue when it conflicts with the Bible.



    Maybe I am feeling a litle trigger happy.. I don't know, I have already banned one user from this board for calling myself and others a liar, and/ormis-representing us.

    I consider the statement above in that category. I never said what you claim I am saying.. so consider this a warning.



    So to answer my question.. you are not sure. You percieve it as so, but can't be certain beyond your perception.

    So then.. if both truths are based upon perception, then why are you here again? I mean, it is obvious to me, by that bstatement above that we are going to beleive what we want, regardless of what others say we should, so to me, it seems that your think your efforts here are futile.. why bother?



    Before you cna use this verse, you mjust establish that the Holy Spirit=Word. Since you never have, you can't us ethis verse to answer my question. Any other verses up your sleeve?


    The idea that Jesus is God would not contradict that core doctrine of Judaism, since God couldn't manifest Himself. The Messiah of Christinaity was not merely a messanger from God, but was God too. You assume that Judaism is more right then Christianity.. why?



    Did He? Or did Jess refer to the Father, who is God, in the third person?



    So then give me the verses that Jesus refers to God in the third person.



    Lets see.. I am a Christian woh holds to the Trinity doctrine, and I see no skism.. you are not a Christian and do not hold true the Trinity doctrine... and are in no position to see the alleged skism, sincethe Trinity in which it exists does not exist to you, thus who are you to say you know Christianity and the Trinity beter than I to judge wether or not there is a skism?



    WOW! oh man.. you know what.. When he does come back.. and all the Christians vanish.. please come back and read all the posts in this board.. ;) You will find answers there. And when He does return, and oyu are trying to figure out what the heck hapopened.. don't be fooled by the person claiming to be Him...
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    >>OK.. show me in Isaiah where God says blood atonement is not needed.

    Isaiah 1:11: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

    M>Why would the wages of sin be death?

    >>Yes.

    Yes? It wasn't really a yes or no question actually.

    M>Is that really what a loving parent would do to their children for learning and growing and maturing?

    >>I don't see the connection with your analogy. Parents do not cause death. NIether does God. Death is not from God, so why use this analogy?

    Why would the punishment for sin be death? What loving parent would do that to their child? If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think? Without life, there can be no death.

    M>According to Isaiah, this was no better than trying to buy your way out of sin

    >>And I saiah, being a prophet of God, knew that soon, this would be true, that Jesus would come and end the animal sacrifice once and for all. This passge in Isaiah was not for the time in ehihc it was written, but for a time in the near future when Jesus ould come and die for us.

    Now you're really leaning pretty heavily on rationalizations. :) You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?

    In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?

    M>which Martin Luther aposed about the Catholic Church as well.

    >>Good for him. Your point?

    My point is that Jesus referred to those perpetuating this animal sacrifice as "theives". This suggests they weren't doing anyone any good. Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.

    M>Isaiah called the practice hollow, and compared the practice to killing human beings.

    >>Which it is. It wasn't always so, but it is now. It became hllow and the death of Christ.

    All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God. I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin. This is ultimately what you seem to believe.

    M>Why couldn't God simply forgive sin like any normal human parent?

    >>Umm.. who said He doesn't forgive sin? Not me. He does forgive sin.

    Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood? Aren't even we mere humans capable of greater compassion than that? Didn't Jesus command us to have more compassion than that?

    M>Jesus had to have been "perfect" in every way, blemish free, and never have made a mistake in his life. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?

    >>In order for Jesus to atone for our sins, he had to be sinless.

    Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?

    >:D efine that as you will, but for me, Jesus had to be sinless.

    I think you are asking a lot from a "man", and that is how Jesus described himself. I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.

    M>The root of the word sin comes from the concept of "missing the mark".

    >>If that makes you feel better, ok. But since English words have more than one definition most of the time, I chose to use the definition of sin that is in the Bible:

    That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?

    M>Sinning is making a mistake, to miss the mark of unity in God.

    >>Can yo say the same thing about sin, without adding "of unity with God:?

    Yes. :) I'm not sure it would convey the entire meaning properly however. :)

    >>I find it intersting you added that at te end of the statement, after trying so hard to show it was also just making a mistake.

    The concept of missing the mark was indeed rooted in the notion of unity in God. I'm sure you could define the term in the absense of God, but it would not convey the same meaning.

    M>There is nothing in the bible to suggest his childhood was completely "sin free".

    >>Only his nature.

    Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before then?

    M>Many Times? How MANY times?

    >>Here are a couple times off the top of my head... but really, one one time is enough. Matt 14:33; 28:9

    33: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

    You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?

    28:9: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.

    M>He says we are all capable of this same Union with God that he enjoys.

    >>I agree. Whats your point?

    My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.

    M>he prays to him as son to father

    >>I agree. What's your point?

    So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?

    M>Jesus called himself a "man".

    >>But never did He say He was just a man, and nothing more. And never did He say He was not God.

    Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.

    M>Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't Jesus begin that prayer with *OUR* father?

    >>You are correct. What's your point?

    Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????

    M>It seems to me that untold numbers of Priests since then have felt quite confortable forgiving sin on behalf of God. I fail to see how this alone proves he's God.

    >>On behalf of God, but not as God. And for those being forgiven, they had better know it was God forgiving them and ont the priest.

    How do you know Jesus did this any differently?

    >>Also, Jesus forgave as God, not on behalf of God.

    This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?

    M>Matthew 6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

    >>You don't understand this verse?

    I understand the verse. The question is "do you?" Jesus makes it clear many times that we will be judged as we judge others. He also makes it clear that we can all forgive sin.

    M>No, it shows he was the Messiah. Would you please look up the term Messiah to the Jews. He was to be a "MAN" sent by God.

    >>Heh. Interresting you bring this up.. considering the Jews do not beleive their Messiah has come yet...

    Yet they still claim he'll be a "man" sent from God, not God.

    M>Or Jesus is unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit, and is thereby "divine".

    >>Maybe.. but good luck in convincing anyone of it.

    It certainly seems rather clear to me.


    >>Any other exmaples of someone who is devine and not God?

    Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.

    >>Forinstance.. the closest thing to Godm as far as a nature goes, wouod probably be Lucifer. Tell me, do you think Lucifer was Devine?

    I think Lucifer is another one of those alegories you aught to talk with Archon about.

    M>By this definition, then all beings who achieve this union with God are "divine".

    >>And by that staement either we cease to exist as independant from God in thought or deed, devoid of any sentient thought, or else there are multiple gods.

    You might want to talk to some folks that have gone through a near death experience. They talk about unity and individuality at the same time.

    M>From Jewish apocrapha.

    >>Sorry, I don't recognize the Jewish Apochrapha's authority on the issue when it conflicts with the Bible.

    I'm not talking about conflicts here. I'm simply noting the history behind these beliefs.

    M>>Are you saying there are *MANY* Gods? Have you suddenly become a Hindu on us? :)

    >>Maybe I am feeling a litle trigger happy.. I don't know, I have already banned one user from this board for calling myself and others a liar, and/ormis-representing us. I consider the statement above in that category. I never said what you claim I am saying.. so consider this a warning.

    Well, what are you saying then exactly? (I know it's been a hard week on everyone, and you must have missed the smiley face)

    Who did you ban by the way?

    M>It is truth as I percieve it, just as your "truth" is also "subjective".

    >>So to answer my question.. you are not sure. You percieve it as so, but can't be certain beyond your perception.

    I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?

    >>So then.. if both truths are based upon perception, then why are you here again? I mean, it is obvious to me, by that bstatement above that we are going to beleive what we want, regardless of what others say we should, so to me, it seems that your think your efforts here are futile.. why bother?

    Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?

    M>John 3 for starters. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the only begotten Son of God. He said it goes where it wills, and it would testify for him. Indeed it does.

    >>Before you cna use this verse, you mjust establish that the Holy Spirit=Word. Since you never have, you can't us ethis verse to answer my question. Any other verses up your sleeve?

    Not off the top of my head. I'll do some research for you though. We seem to be making some progress here however since we both seem to be in agreement that whatever the "WORD" is, it is not a book.

    M>In traditional Judaism, all things come from one God, from whom all things are made manifest. This is a basic and a core tenet of Judaism. The Messiah of Judaism was a "begotten" messanger *FROM* God, but was never considered to be God himself. This is a "christian" invention.

    >>The idea that Jesus is God would not contradict that core doctrine of Judaism, since God couldn't manifest Himself. The Messiah of Christinaity was not merely a messanger from God, but was God too. You assume that Judaism is more right then Christianity.. why?

    I'm simply noting the roots of history here. Jesus was after all the JEWISH Messiah. Judaism understood that there was the manifestor, and the manifested.

    M>He constantly referred to God in the third person.

    >:D id He? Or did Jess refer to the Father, who is God, in the third person?

    We're off onto more wild goose chases now. Jesus was quite clear that all his power came from God, and that he was a "man" like you and me.

    M>If we were to total up the one of two sayings you are building your case on, and total up all the times he refered to God in the third person, there would be no comparison in terms of numbers alone.

    >>So then give me the verses that Jesus refers to God in the third person.

    Huh? How about the whole of John 17? Who's he praying to?

    M>Yes, it does. It has created a skism within the religion.

    >>Lets see.. I am a Christian woh holds to the Trinity doctrine, and I see no skism.

    You've heard the expression that one cannot see then the forest for the trees? You may not acknowledge this skism, but it's there none the less.

    >>you are not a Christian

    I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.

    >>and do not hold true the Trinity doctrine.

    Not as an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God alone. This is not what Jesus said.

    >>. and are in no position to see the alleged skism,

    Quite the contrary. I've had about 15+ more years to look at my belief systems than have you. I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.

    >>sincethe Trinity in which it exists does not exist to you, thus who are you to say you know Christianity and the Trinity beter than I to judge wether or not there is a skism?

    The only way to answer that is that I've shed my own belief systems, not once here, but twice. When I first became an athiest, I finally began to see how I was chained by my beliefs. As God introduced herself to me later on, I began to see how I was again chained by my own ego and beliefs. I think I am in an unique position to see the skisms of various religions. Christianity is certainly not unique in this way.

    M>The second coming of Jesus isn't going to be physical in nature.

    >>WOW! oh man.. you know what.. When he does come back.. and all the Christians vanish.. please come back and read all the posts in this board.

    I'll be long gone by then. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...