• 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. Kevin Carter

    Kevin Carter Guest

    +0
    OK, came in on the tale end of this, but haven't seen this posted. This says it clearly enough for me.

    John 14
    1
    "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
    2
    In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
    3
    And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
    4
    You know the way to the place where I am going."
    5
    Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
    6
    Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    7
    If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
    8
    Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
    9
    Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?
    10
    Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
    11
    Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.


    and verse 20

    20
    On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
    {emphasis mine}

    While this doesn't show them as being the exact same entity, it does show that they were intertwined very closely together. We can also be intertwined with the Father, but not in the same way that Jesus was. Jesus will be in us, and since He will be in us, we will also be one with the Father.

    Hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much for you.
    :)
     
  2. Pastor Carl

    Pastor Carl Guest

    +0
    Ed,

    Yes I am indeed insinuating that blood was necessary for salvation. Why do you think that God had the Jewish people sacrifice animals at the Tabernacle or Temple? Sin needed to be covered. That blood covenant goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, God, it says, clothed them. Now how did He do that? God killed the first animal. God made the first blood sacrifice and then took the skins and covered Adam and Eve showing that, through His mercy and grace, He would forgive them.

    But Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls, etc., was not enough to cover sin. It could cover their sins on the Day of Atonement, but was unable to cover the sin of man. That inherited sin gene passed down from Adam. But the blood of Jesus did.

    The Bible says, "Without the blood of Christ, there is no remission of sin." "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

    How can you say the Trinity shows exclusivity? According to another thread, one must go to your church only in order to be right with God and know the truth. Now that's being exclusive.

    Elohim is not a race of people or gods. El is the Hebrew word for God "ohim" makes it plural. Jesus isn't just worshipped in prophecy. He is worshiped from His birth. The Magi worshiped Him, His disciples fell to their knees and worshiped Him.

    In Judges, the parents of Samson, declared that they "had seen God and lived". This is in reference to Christ's appearing, and announcing the prophetic word of thier soon to be conceived son, Samson.

    Again, study the Greek text of John 1:1 and the bold statement of Thomas when he said to Jesus, "My Lord; my God." These were titles, not exclamations of of surprise like, Oh my God" such as is used often today. If it were used in that way, then I believe Luke would not have chosen to make Thomas' reply public. But Luke used that statement of Thomas' to prove the very point that Jesus is God.
     
  3. Pastor Carl

    Pastor Carl Guest

    +0
    It is getting extremly late, but I have one last Scripture to share. In Isaiah 9:6 it says,referring to Jesus, "For unto us a Son is born; unto us a child is given, and the governemtn shall be upon His shoulders. And His Name shall be called: Wonderful, Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASING FATHER, the Prince of Peace."

    What more evidence do you want? Scripture is plain here. There is an axiom when reading the Bible that says, "When the plain sense, makes sense, don't try to make any other sense or you will wind up with nonsense.
     
  4. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    This verse shows me that God no longer requires the blood of animals as a sacrifice for the atonment of sin. I want you to show me where God does not want blood as the atonement for sin, ever.

    The Old Cavanent: GOd wanted animal sacrifice, which He himself gave the first exmaple of.

    The New Covanent, Jesus replace animal sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

    The verse you state above, first off, says that God no,onger requires animal sacrifice, secdonfly, this verse is part of a vision that Isaiah had of the future.. what he saw was the first coming of Christ.

    Sorry.. didn't see the "why". And to answer the why:

    This is shown in two places in scripture. In Genesis, we see that Adam, who was created perfect, attained the ability to die after commiting the first sin - by taking upon himself a sinful nature. Secondly, we see in Romans that the wages, or cost, of sin is death.

    Death is not the punishemnt for sin.. it is the result of sin.

    Don't thnk a parent would kill a child for sinning.

    Not at all.

    With life there can be no death. Without life there is death.

    Isaiah didn't write these things to condemn the resent poeple but to warn the poeple of what was coming.

    Yes he did. The animal sacrifice for atonement was only a temprary solution, until Jesus could come and die as a permenent one.

    And, the difference between animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a man. A willing sacrifice. The animlas were not willing in their sacrifice.. they didn't even know they were going to be sacrificed, or what it meant to die. Jesus did, that is why it is more important.

    Just the way God wanted it done.

    In its simplest way.. yes. Although.. I don't thikn God was suicidal.

    Who said God kills becasue of sin?

    I agree that He was a man. I also beleive that He was sinless.

    Who said anything about guilt?

    That's my point. You claim the definition is "mising the mark" That definition is not in the OT. I choose to beleive sin, in this context, is of the definition found in the Bible.

    Sinless

    I didn't miss it, but it does not excuse their worshipping Him if He was not God.

    But if they worshippped anything else, then they would be worshipping a false idol, which God tols them not to do, so either Jesus was God, or Jesus was a false god. Since Jesus didn't rebuke them.. which was the case?

    How do I go against His teachings? I do not deny that He was the Son of God, I only acept theay He was God at the same time. The Father is God, thus Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God. In either case.. we were tlaking about union here.. why did you change the subject?

    Agian, who said that the Father does not exist? I didn't.

    So He talked about the Fathetr there... what bout my question? He never stated He was not God, wohch all these worshipping poeple obviouly beleived. Why didn't he correct them?

    Becasue the prayer was not just for those on the earth at the time of Chrsit, but for us too. Since God is in Heaven, we pray to God in heaven. At the time Chrsit gave the prayer to us, only the Father was in Heaven, so the prayer is stated as so.

    Jesus always forgave sin by Himself and never on behalf of God.

    Been there, done that. You didn't see it.

    Well, you asked what it meant to me and I told you.

    Yes, I know it does.

    Oh my goodness.. now they were devine too? HA!

    Divinity:
    1. The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone.
    2. Having the nature of or being a deity.

    These are the definitions I apply to God, and thus apply to Jesus as God. Are you saying these definitions can also apply to others?

    Smiley face or no, Hard week or no, retractg the statement, or show where I said it.

    edpobre. I temp banned him to cool him off. I have since lifted the ban, and he has yet to return to give an apology.

    he differecne is that I can back up my beliefs without dismissing any of the Bible, where as you dismiss most of it.

    When you know the outcome? exactly.

    Tis true, He is the final Judge. So, do you consider yourself a type of christian?

    Why do you insist on blending the relationship desscribed in the Trinity as the one Jesus talks about when He says we can have union with God? Both are possible. Botyh are real. Both exist, and neitehr contradicts the other. We can have Union with God, as Jesus talked about. The Trinity does not exclude that union, nor does it make that union exclusice to Jesus. Why do you keep saying it does?

    You create one in my view.

    Gone where?
     
  5. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Good verse in Isaiah, PastorCarl ;)
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

    You might notice Kevin, that even here in John 14, Jesus uses the phrase "*also* in me", denoting a distinction between Jesus and the Father. Jesus didn't for instance say, "Trust in God, and trust in me for I am God incarnate". This would have been the apropriate thing to do under these circumstances too, since he's spending his last night with his apostles, and there is no reason to hide anything from them.

    20: On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

    Jesus is very specific both in John 14 and in John 17 that we are *ONE* *IN* God. Jesus does *NOT* describe this union in God as an exclusive one between himself and God. Quite the contrary, he suggests that we must all learn to love our enemies and be made perfect *IN* God.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>Yes I am indeed insinuating that blood was necessary for salvation.

    What specifically about "blood" is pleasing unto God?

    >>Why do you think that God had the Jewish people sacrifice animals at the Tabernacle or Temple?

    I don't think he did. I agree with Isaiah, that these are barbaric acts. How is this payment of sin by sacrificing animals any different than what Martin Luther railed against? Why did Jesus call the animal vendors and money changers, theives?

    >>Sin needed to be covered.

    Sin needs to be "forgiven". Why is violence and revenge necessary if God is loving and there is grace in the universe?

    >>That blood covenant goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

    It probably was a pagan idea handed down from prehistoric times alright.

    >>When Adam and Eve sinned, God, it says, clothed them. Now how did He do that? God killed the first animal.

    Let me ask you this. Do you really believe the earth is just 6 thousand years old? Do you believe there was a literal Adam and Eve?

    >>God made the first blood sacrifice and then took the skins and covered Adam and Eve showing that, through His mercy and grace, He would forgive them.

    As far as I can tell, this is just purely a metaphor to explain how we got here as a species. They didn't understand much about evolution back then.

    >>But Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls, etc., was not enough to cover sin. It could cover their sins on the Day of Atonement, but was unable to cover the sin of man.

    Isaiah rails against this false "sacrifice" of blood. He is quite clear that "sacrifice" of self was required, not blood. Why don't you accept Isaiah when he condemns this practice?

    >>That inherited sin gene passed down from Adam. But the blood of Jesus did.

    Guilt by birth eh? That hardly seems fair if you ask me. I'm not responsible for Adam's sin.

    >>The Bible says, "Without the blood of Christ, there is no remission of sin." "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

    Without applying his teachings, there can be no "salvation". On that much we agree. My question to you though is what about his blood specifically was pleasing to God? Why does God need blood? What would God do with blood? What about blood puts God in a good mood?

    >>How can you say the Trinity shows exclusivity? According to another thread, one must go to your church only in order to be right with God and know the truth. Now that's being exclusive.

    You are confusing me with Ed. I believe in universal salvation by the way.

    >>Elohim is not a race of people or gods. El is the Hebrew word for God "ohim" makes it plural. Jesus isn't just worshipped in prophecy. He is worshiped from His birth. The Magi worshiped Him, His disciples fell to their knees and worshiped Him.

    He was surely worshipped as Messiah, but that's a long way from saying Jesus is God.

    >>In Judges, the parents of Samson, declared that they "had seen God and lived". This is in reference to Christ's appearing, and announcing the prophetic word of thier soon to be conceived son, Samson.

    You seem to be jumping from God to Christ here. If they had seen God and lived, wouldn't this contradict other parts of the bible that say God is a Spirit and no one has seen God?

    >>Again, study the Greek text of John 1:1 and the bold statement of Thomas when he said to Jesus, "My Lord; my God." These were titles, not exclamations of of surprise like, Oh my God" such as is used often today.

    Sure, I can't ignore the reality of what Thomas said. I must however put it in context with what Jesus himself said about this complex subject too. It's totally possible that Thomas was simply recognizing him as Messiah, and his *unity with God". 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. Compared to where Thomas was hanging out, Jesus' unity with God, and the distinction between Jesus and God might have seemed quite indistinguishable in that moment. Philip however was asking Jesus to show them the Father the night before his death. Even at this late date, there is clear evidence they believed him to be the Messiah, but not God the father.

    >>If it were used in that way, then I believe Luke would not have chosen to make Thomas' reply public. But Luke used that statement of Thomas' to prove the very point that Jesus is God.

    I think you are absolutely right. I think Paul and his friends wanted to promote this concept, whether Jesus believed it or not. Fortunately we have the book of John to give us a more complete picture of Jesus' teachings on this subject as well. John himself says in 1st John, "WE ARE OF GOD". He's not preaching exclusivity as it relates to unity in God.
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>In Isaiah 9:6 it says,referring to Jesus, "For unto us a Son is born; unto us a child is given, and the governemtn shall be upon His shoulders. And His Name shall be called: Wonderful, Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASING FATHER, the Prince of Peace."

    I find it interesting that you too accept "parts" of what Isaiah says, but not others. I've been clear that I don't believe *ALL* of the bible to be completely "inspired", but you seem to believe the bible is flawless do you not? Why then will you only hear part of his message, yet ignore his condemnation of animal sacrifice? In chapter 66, he compares it to killing people. How are you deciding how to pick and chose which parts of his message to put value in, and which parts to ignore?
     
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>This verse shows me that God no longer requires the blood of animals as a sacrifice for the atonment of sin. I want you to show me where God does not want blood as the atonement for sin, ever.

    Are you trying to tell me that God changes his mind? If Isaiah claims God delights not in these things, why would he ever delight in these things?

    >>The Old Cavanent: GOd wanted animal sacrifice, which He himself gave the first exmaple of.

    Isaiah is OT material isn't it? You are again accepting the prehistoric legends at face value as I see it. Just because the Israelites believed this to be true, it's rather clear that Isaiah didn't much value the practice. Psalms 51 explains clearly that it's an INNER sacrifice that is pleasing unto God, not animal blood. How do you rationalize away Psalms 50 again?

    Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.
    I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.
    I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.
    For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
    I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.
    If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
    Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?

    >>The New Covanent, Jesus replace animal sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

    As I see it, you have a pagan belief worming it's way into a new "religion". This has nothing to do with "truth". What value is there in blood? What value is there in killing?

    >>The verse you state above, first off, says that God no,onger requires animal sacrifice, secdonfly, this verse is part of a vision that Isaiah had of the future.. what he saw was the first coming of Christ.

    Well, that's a very nice rationalization that ignores what he actually said. He was speaking after all to Sodom and Gamora.

    >>This is shown in two places in scripture. In Genesis, we see that Adam, who was created perfect, attained the ability to die after commiting the first sin - by taking upon himself a sinful nature. Secondly, we see in Romans that the wages, or cost, of sin is death.

    Let's have a reality check here for a moment. What DNA sequence on the planet, past present or future was ever designed to last forever? Even if it did, these physical bodies are frail. Even if human dna lasted forever, what happens when someone falls off a cliff or suffers a great physical injury? I hardly see how you can suggest that we as a species were ever "immortal".

    M>Why would the punishment for sin be death?

    >:D eath is not the punishemnt for sin.. it is the result of sin.

    How can you say that given the realities of physical reality as we understand it? What physical life form is immortal?

    >:D on't thnk a parent would kill a child for sinning.

    Me either. :)

    M>If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think?

    >>Not at all.

    Well, unless you have some explanation as to why no physical being is immortal, I'll have to assume that spiritual life is a gift from God, but physical life is by design transitory by nature.

    M>Without life, there can be no death.

    >>With life there can be no death. Without life there is death.

    In a "spiritual" sense, I agree with you. In a physical sense I do not. I don't believe physical reality was ever meant to be perminent.

    M>You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?

    >>Isaiah didn't write these things to condemn the resent poeple but to warn the poeple of what was coming.

    It seems to me he was trying to explain the failures of the people he was addressing at the time. He was very much speaking to a contemporary audience.

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

    >>Yes he did. The animal sacrifice for atonement was only a temprary solution, until Jesus could come and die as a permenent one.

    Again, I fail to see how you can simply ignore Psalms 51 and Isaiah outright here. Isaiah totally condemns the practice of animal sacrifice, calling instead for inner sacrifice. Jesus does much the same, claiming we must *DO* as he commanded, not simply give him lip service alone. Blood itself doesn't seem to be the key here to anything useful that I can see. It is the application of Christs teachings that seem to matter. He taught and lived a live of "self" sacrifice.

    M>Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.

    >>Of coarse he didn't approve. He was the sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was no longer needed. They could stop now. Jesus was that sacrifice.

    But the blood alone has no value to God. Jesus didn't say we could simply do his words lip service and find salvation through his blood. He commanded us to love our enemy and be perfect. I fail to understand the value of blood to God.

    M>All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God.

    >>And, the difference between animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a man. A willing sacrifice.

    This is right on the nose. Jesus was talking about "self" sacrifice, not blood covering sin. Jesus was a willing participant. He "sacrificed"(verb) himself, but he was not a "sacrifice" (noun) to appease an angry God.

    >>The animlas were not willing in their sacrifice.. they didn't even know they were going to be sacrificed, or what it meant to die. Jesus did, that is why it is more important.

    So what again is the author of Psalms 50 trying to say here?

    M>I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin.

    >>Just the way God wanted it done.

    God theatrics? God's mad so he goes to earth to become a human sacrifice to himself and be put to death by sinning humans? I fail to see the logic in that.

    M>This is ultimately what you seem to believe.

    >>In its simplest way.. yes. Although.. I don't thikn God was suicidal.

    Well, since physical reality doesn't define "life", the term "suicidal" has little meaning here. I still don't follow your logic here of why God has to come to earth to be put to death by ingorant humans just so he can forgive sin. Wouldn't stupid, sinning humans killing him just make him madder still?

    M>Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood?

    >>Who said God kills becasue of sin?

    This seems to be what you are saying. Must animals die for sin to be forgiven? Must anyone die for sin to be forgiven?

    M>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?

    >>I agree that He was a man. I also beleive that He was sinless.

    All I'm saying ZC, is that you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment if it turns out he was human after all. I fail to understand why you require this of him. I am perfectly willing to accept a fully "human" Messiah, with human faults and everything.

    M>I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.

    >>Who said anything about guilt?

    What motivates people to change behaviours that hurt others?

    M>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?

    >>That's my point. You claim the definition is "mising the mark" That definition is not in the OT. I choose to beleive sin, in this context, is of the definition found in the Bible.

    It is in the bible ZC. It's engrained into the very words used. Hebrew is a very complex, and wonderful language. It's very letters, and arrangement of letters convey meaning. The word sin, as found in hebrew, conveys the idea of missing the mark. That is in fact the definition of the word in Hebrew.

    >>So, to convey the entire meaning you are trying to convey, the answer would be "no".

    I cannot convey the *ENTIRE* meaning as separate from God. I can convey the vast majority of it, but comparing actions to the notion of "selfishness" vs. "selflessness", even in the absense of God. Unity is the key in a definition devoid of God.

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

    >>Sinless

    Perhaps. Perhaps he was quite human after all.

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

    >>I didn't miss it, but it does not excuse their worshipping Him if He was not God.

    You are suggesting that "worship" takes only a single form. The reality however is that people could surely "worship" Jesus as the Messiah, yet not as God the Father.

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

    >>But if they worshippped anything else, then they would be worshipping a false idol, which God tols them not to do, so either Jesus was God, or Jesus was a false god.

    Except it's not really that simple when you look at the fact that Jesus himself said that we would find UNITY IN GOD.

    >>Since Jesus didn't rebuke them.. which was the case?

    This is like me saying that reincarnation must be true because Jesus didn't rebuke his disciples for suggesting he was a reborn prophet.

    M>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.

    >>How do I go against His teachings? I do not deny that He was the Son of God, I only acept theay He was God at the same time.

    But that's *NOT* what he said. He said he was ONE WITH the Father, but he never claimed to be the FATHER.

    >>The Father is God, thus Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God.

    This is the part that defy's Christs own teachings. In John 17, Jesus calls the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD. He describes himself in terms of being a SON of God, and claims others would achieve UNION WITH God. The exclusivity you seem to be imposing here by elevating him to the status of God, is not what Christ himself taught.

    >>In either case.. we were tlaking about union here.. why did you change the subject?

    I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm simply discussing the connection between God, Holy Spirit, and man.

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

    >>Agian, who said that the Father does not exist? I didn't.

    You seem to want to gloss over the fact that in his hour of greatest need, Jesus is on his knees praying to God like any human being. He's feeling fear, as any normal human being would be doing at that point. What does God have to fear? Why do you elevate him to a status he didn't claim?

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

    >>So He talked about the Fathetr there... what bout my question? He never stated He was not God, wohch all these worshipping poeple obviouly beleived. Why didn't he correct them?

    Because they were "worshipping" him as the living Messiah. Why should he correct them?

    Why didn't Jesus correct the disciples when the suggested that he was a reborn prophet?

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

    >>Becasue the prayer was not just for those on the earth at the time of Chrsit, but for us too. Since God is in Heaven, we pray to God in heaven. At the time Chrsit gave the prayer to us, only the Father was in Heaven, so the prayer is stated as so.

    We seem to be going round and round now with the idea that God splits himself up into father, son and holy Spirit.

    M>How do you know Jesus did this any differently?

    >>Jesus always forgave sin by Himself and never on behalf of God.

    And priests do this even today. What's the difference? Jesus was after all, the living Messiah. What other "MAN" has that right anyway?

    M>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?

    >>Been there, done that. You didn't see it.

    You've not shown me a single sentence where Jesus simply says: I AM GOD THE FATHER or I AM YOUR CREATOR, or I AM God. Why is that? I can show you verse after verse where he claims to be the son of God, incapable of anything without the help of the Father.

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

    >>Oh my goodness.. now they were devine too? HA!

    It would depend on how you defined "divine" exactly.

    Divinity:
    1. The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone.

    Martin Luther King taught unity and love. Jesus did the same. Do these qualities belong to God alone?

    2. Having the nature of or being a deity.

    This is a bit more vague I'm afraid. What does that mean?

    >>These are the definitions I apply to God, and thus apply to Jesus as God. Are you saying these definitions can also apply to others?

    #1 sure seems to apply to others. I'm not sure about #2. You'll have to elaborate some.

    M>Who did you ban by the way?

    >>edpobre. I temp banned him to cool him off. I have since lifted the ban, and he has yet to return to give an apology.

    Ed is much closer to your brand of "christianity" than I am. He seems to believe in hell, and atonement, even if he shares some of my views about the connection between God and Jesus. For what it's worth, from my perspective, you seem to be "reactive" at times when I'm not trying to offensive.

    M>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?

    >>the differecne is that I can back up my beliefs without dismissing any of the Bible, where as you dismiss most of it.

    The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that the bible was written by human beings. I am not dismissing the teachings of Jesus, nor am I limiting my search for truth to a single book. If you feel it's somehow a benefit to be this restricted in your spirituality, I can't stop you. All I'm saying is that I can most certainly back up my beliefs through the teachings of Christ himself. All the rest is really just "interpretation" anyway.

    M>Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?

    >>When you know the outcome? exactly.

    How can anyone know the "outcome" of these conversations yet? Who knows what affects is will have on us both over the years?

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

    >>Tis true, He is the final Judge. So, do you consider yourself a type of christian?

    I try to follow Christs teachings in my life. In this sense, I am every bit as "Christian" as anyone on the planet. I do not subscribe however to all "Christian" dogma. It's not a yes or no question really.

    >>Why do you insist on blending the relationship desscribed in the Trinity as the one Jesus talks about when He says we can have union with God?

    Because that is what Jesus said in John 17, and in John 14. He doesn't claim this to be an exclusive "union with" God, in any way. In fact he goes out of his way in John 14 to say that others would do greater things, presumably with his help and blessings.

    >>Both are possible. Botyh are real. Both exist, and neitehr contradicts the other.

    If you do not allow for others to achieve this same union with God, then you go against what Jesus himself said about it in John 17. I can't do that!

    >>We can have Union with God, as Jesus talked about. The Trinity does not exclude that union, nor does it make that union exclusice to Jesus. Why do you keep saying it does?

    Because it does. It creates a "separation" between Jesus and us that did not exist, and he did not teach.

    M>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.

    >>You create one in my view.

    And from my perspective, I'm simply noting them.

    M>I'll be long gone by then.

    >>Gone where?

    Back to the loving arms of God from where I came.
     
  10. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Show me "inner sacrifice".

    Psalm 50 is an inditement against Israel. They had gotten to a point where their sacrifices were nothing more than wrote sacifices, lacking in maning or in faith if what sacrifce was for.

    At the very end of Psalm 51, Asaph wites: "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar." He is saying that only after we recognize the truth about sacrifice, and atonement, and salvation, can the sacrifices have meaning to God.

    IN verses 1-6, Asaph explains to Israel that the Lord is coming, or the Lord has a message., and He isn't happy. Notice in verse 5, the ones He is not happy with are the saints.

    IN verse 7, Asaph begins to tell Israel why God is unhappy. First, off, The Lord will not rebuke the sacrifices. The Lord is not upset with their sacrifices.. all the steps were there. They were done write, but heart behind the Israelite's sacrifice was not there. What God is upset with is their attitude of sacrifice. They would sacrifice, but afterward, they would go about with their sinning, forgetting that they just ask for forgivness of their sins. In verses 9-13, God isn't saying he doe snot want sacrice. He is saying that He does not just want sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, but He wants sacrifice for the sake of thanksgiving and faith in Him toward Salvation. He says that He doe snot need us to feed Him. God sees the sacrifices as hollow, and serving no more purpose than to kill an animla. The Israelites heart was not in it, and the meaning behind the sacrifice was gone. In the second hald of Psalm 50, God changes the subject, and then begins to talk to the wicked about their deeds.

    As we move into Psalm 51, we read about forgivness and repentance. This is David's response to God, about Asaph's message from God. Psalm 51 brings back to heart, the reason for sacrifice. And sacrifice is then re-affirmed at the end of the Psalm.

    Psalm 5 says nothing about an inner sacrifiece, and on the contrary, does mention animal sacrifice in the temple at the end, as acceptable unto God, as long as the heart and reason for sacrifice is there.
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>Show me "inner sacrifice".

    "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
    Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
    Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
    Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
    Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness."

    >>Psalm 50 is an inditement against Israel. They had gotten to a point where their sacrifices were nothing more than wrote sacifices, lacking in maning or in faith if what sacrifce was for.

    You are right, there was no INNER meaning. What value is there then in external events?

    >>At the very end of Psalm 51, Asaph wites: "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar." He is saying that only after we recognize the truth about sacrifice, and atonement, and salvation, can the sacrifices have meaning to God.

    On the contrary. What he's saying is that when we have done the "INNER" sacrifice, then and only then will this "burnt offering" of self have any value.

    "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
    The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
    Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
    Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

    Burnt offering here refers to the sacrifice of a "broken spirit", or "self-ishness" turned into "self-less" service to God. It is our burnt "self" that is pleasing to God. Cleansed by the fire of "self" sacrifice.

    >>Psalm 5(1) says nothing about an inner sacrifiece, and on the contrary, does mention animal sacrifice in the temple at the end, as acceptable unto God, as long as the heart and reason for sacrifice is there.

    I disagree, I think the whole thing is about becoming "cleansed" of selfishness.

    "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
    Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
    Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."

    This is about inner change, and inner peace, and sacrifice of selfishness to the will of God.
     
  12. Kevin Carter

    Kevin Carter Guest

    +0
    Michael, you and I have been down that road many times, I'm not about to do it again. :)

    Take from that verse what you will, that is fine with me. I'm learning to move beyond my doctrinal ideas and into what scripture says and drop behind things we've added.
     
  13. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Why stop their.. now that you have let go of your will, and have given your life to God.. why stop there? There is more to do. You must now atone for your sins, in order to finish the will of God in your life.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>Why stop their.. now that you have let go of your will, and have given your life to God.. why stop there? There is more to do. You must now atone for your sins, in order to finish the will of God in your life.

    And how would one "atone" for one's sin? Accept your personal dogma?
     
  15. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Anyone you see fit to.. I am asking you, Michael.. how do you atone for your sins? What makes oyu aco****able unto them? What is the penalty for your sins and how do you avois that penalty?

    If sacrifice is nothing more than finding eternal peace, then what good is it? if sacrifice, in order to pay for something oyu cannot payfor on your own is not there, how do you pay for youre sins? What are the wages of sin?
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>Anyone you see fit to.. I am asking you, Michael.. how do you atone for your sins? What makes oyu aco****able unto them? What is the penalty for your sins and how do you avois that penalty?

    I simply have faith in the love and compassion of God ZC, how about you? There is no way I can change my past sins, nor completely set right everything I have done wrong. No one can. If we can however learn to love and forgive one another, we can rise above it. If God cannot simply forgive, like all of us, what hope is there for anyone?

    >>If sacrifice is nothing more than finding eternal peace, then what good is it?

    Are you really asking me what good is finding eternal peace? If I gain the world, but lose my own inner peace, what have I gained?

    >> if sacrifice, in order to pay for something oyu cannot payfor on your own is not there, how do you pay for youre sins? What are the wages of sin?

    You seem to be suggesting that God simply cannot forgive sin like any mere human. Is that what you are really trying to suggest? If we have learned from our mistakes, and changed internally as a result, what purpose is there for tormenting someone eternally anyway? What kind of compassion is that? This certainly isn't the kind of God Jesus talked about. He said we should forgive one another as we would have God forgive us. Why would you believe God cannot forgive?
     
  17. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "I simply have faith in the love and compassion of God ZC, how about you? There is no way I can change my past sins, nor completely set right everything I have done wrong. No one can. "

    First micheal God is Holy, not just love and compassion. Secone, there is a way to change your past sins. That's what the blood of Christ is all about.

    "If I gain the world, but lose my own inner peace, what have I gained?"

    Umm..nothing..but there is more to it then inner peace micheal :)

    "You seem to be suggesting that God simply cannot forgive sin like any mere human. "

    Um...ALL sin is ulitmately against God so no, no mere human can forgive it. Only he can and he can't just forgive it without incuring a "punishment" for it because he is a Holy. But because he is Just we must pay for our sins, but he is also loving so he came to die for us because only he could atoine for our sins because they are ultimatly against him and him alone. So the blood covers us and by faith in Christ we are saved.
     
  18. Pastor Carl

    Pastor Carl Guest

    +0
    Michael,

    I didn't have you confused with Ed. The answer was for Ed. Sorry for the confusion.

    Yes, blood is necessary for salvation. However, there must be a line drawn somewhere here. I need to know. Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it, as Scripture claim, literally God-breathed, annointed, infallible, etc.? Because if you do not believe it to be such, then we are already going to have a real problem. I Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross to them that are perishing, foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleaverness of the clever I will set aside.'"

    Therefore, there is no common ground on which we have to stand if you have already rejected the Word of God as myth or merely allegories, metephors, etc. For you will argue from the worlds point of view while I will argue from God's point of view.

    I can show you many Scriptures on the blood, especially that of Christ's precious sacrifice. I can show you Scripture after Scripture concerning the Diety of Christ and further that of the Holy Spirit. But if you reject the Word of God, if you reject the blood sacrifice of Christ, then you have denied the whole reason Christ came in the first place.

    I will answer a few of your questions.

    (1) Yes, I believe in the literal six day creation story.

    (2) Isaiah's remarks about the sacrifices was not directed at the sacrifices themselves, but rather at the people who used the Day of Atonement merely as a ritual(at the least) or used it as a license to atone for sin and then keep on sinning. Isaiah also went further and showed that the sacrifices of animals was insufficient, and that a perfect sacrifice was needed. He outlines that One in Isaiah 53.

    (3) Jesus called those selling in the temple, "thieves" because (1) they sold blemished animals to people which was not what God required and (2) because they were overcharging the poor for these blemished animals. He wasn't condemning the sacrifice of animals. If you know anything about Jewish beliefs and the Old Testament, all Hebrew males were requiried to present themselves at the temple in Jerusalem at least three times a year for the feasts which included Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Jesus, being male, obviously attended these every year and only twice (His last two times there) did He act in that manner (correctly, I might add). But my point is that Jesus offered an animal sacrifice every year He lived up until He became the Passover Lamb Himself.

    (4) Yes, God is loving and full of mercy and grace, but grace did not come cheaply. Christ paid with His blood for that grace.

    (5) Yes, sin is inherited. And, yes, we are all guilty. The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." In Romans it tells us "That by one man's sin, sin came into the world, and sin passed to all men." Again, only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of our sins. You see, our sin and sins are not just forgiven when we accept Christ. They are blotted out. It is as though we never sinned. The debt of sin was paid in full at the cross.

    (6) I was not jumping from God to Christ. In the Old Testament, anytime the term, "the angel of the Lord" appears, it is always a referrence to the Messiah's preincarnate existance. When Samsons parents saw Christ appear to them and tell them about Samson, they declared, "For we have seen God, and have lived." They recognized that Christ was God even in the Old Testament. Jacob wrestled with Christ, Abraham fed Christ on His way to Sodom and Gommorah, Moses met Jesus in the burning bush. It was Jesus who was the "cloud by day" and the "pillar if fire" by night that guided Israel for 40 years in the wilderness.

    (7) You miss the whole point of Messiah. If the Messiah were only a man, he could not be the Messiah. Jesus had no earthly father when it came to His conception. As the angel, Gabriel told Mary, "And you shall conceive after the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Yes, I believe in the Virgin Birth also. Scripture tells us that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

    :)cool: You are correct about Phillip. He asked Jesus to show them the Father. Remember Jesus answer? "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
     
  19. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes I do.

    No, you can't change them.. but you can set right the things oyu have done wrong, in the eyes of God.

    We can rise above eachother, but not above God.

    The hope is that Jesus paid for and atoned for our sins.

    Yes... what good is it? what can it do for you, or though you? Eternal peace can't save you.. so oyu have it.. good for you.. it isn't a bad thing, but it isn't good enough to save you.

    The world I guess. First, since you didn't start with inner peace.. if you never have it, you don't lose it... second, you are mis-quoting a scripture there...

    That's right... humans cannot forgive sin... we can forgive the intent behind it, but once the sin is done, i tis a part of us. We can't forgiv ethat person of their sin. They are still going to be held aco****able for that sin unto God, when He judges you.

    You must not only learn from your mistakes, but you must have a faith in God, and a will not to want to repeat it again. There ar emany who got the first part down, but their will is not right with GOd, also, they do not accept Him as a savior and redeemer. They will face God with this sin still on their heart, and GOd will reject them becasue of it.

    Tresspasses Michael. We can only forgive the act of sin, and only GOd can forgive the sin itself.

    Not saying God can't forgive.. I am sugesting that you do no tunderstand what forgiveness of sin is.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,189
    Christian
    >>Yes, blood is necessary for salvation.

    Why? What specifically about blood is important here?

    >>However, there must be a line drawn somewhere here. I need to know. Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it, as Scripture claim, literally God-breathed, annointed, infallible, etc.? Because if you do not believe it to be such, then we are already going to have a real problem.

    Well, it might get interesting then. :) I thought you and I had already discussed this a while back. I do not believe it was God's will for Israelites to kill children any more than I believe it was really God's will to bomb innocent civilians in New York last week. Joshua and Osama Bin Laden both claim to have been inspired by God when killing innocent men women and children. How would you *objectively*, and conclusively prove one was really inspired and the other was not?

    >>I Corinthians 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross to them that are perishing, foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleaverness of the clever I will set aside.'"

    I hope you don't take this wrong, but the church hierachy seems convinced it's got all the answers, but when you really look at some of the belief systems of Christianity, they simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

    For instance, you might explain why a loving God would mercilessly and ruthlessly punish someone for the whole of eternity with not even a glimmer of hope for salvation? What point is there in perpetual torment if there can be no hope for redemption? Is this the kind of "loving your enemy", and being perfect that Jesus talked about?

    Babies, and young children understand the power of love. Adults tend to get lost in power games and "religious" dogma. Jesus also pointed out that we must become as little children if we are to understand God and find salvation. What do you think he meant by that?

    >>Therefore, there is no common ground on which we have to stand if you have already rejected the Word of God as myth or merely allegories, metephors, etc. For you will argue from the worlds point of view while I will argue from God's point of view.

    I fully accept the teachings of Christ recorded in the bible. Admittedly I would not interpret him the same as you might at times, but there is at least common ground in our faith in Jesus. The rest of the book, I pretty much consider human dogma.

    >>I can show you many Scriptures on the blood, especially that of Christ's precious sacrifice.

    You can show me many human quotes recorded in the bible. Paul probably did try to extracate the notion of animal sacrifice from early Christianity in this way. That has nothing to do with God's will. Paul also said it was a *SHAME* for women to speak in chruch. Would you have me believe that bit of wisdom was "God breathed" as well?

    >>I can show you Scripture after Scripture concerning the Diety of Christ and further that of the Holy Spirit. But if you reject the Word of God,

    The LIVING WORD of God, is the Holy Spirit. I most certainly do *NOT* reject the Holy Spirit. The bible is a religious book, as is the Koran. They were both written by humans. Jesus was clearly enlightened, other authors less so. The bible has a lot of different authors.

    >>if you reject the blood sacrifice of Christ, then you have denied the whole reason Christ came in the first place.

    Quite the contrary. I think I honor his true "SACRIFICE" (the verb). He sacrificed his life to teach us of unconditional love. In some ways we are as blind to that truth today as 2000 years ago.

    >>I will answer a few of your questions.
    (1) Yes, I believe in the literal six day creation story.

    And how would you explain Dinosaur fossils? Did God put them in the ground just to fool us? How about all the geologic and astronomical evidence that the universe began some 15 billion years ago? How old would you say earth is?

    >>(2) Isaiah's remarks about the sacrifices was not directed at the sacrifices themselves, but rather at the people who used the Day of Atonement merely as a ritual(at the least) or used it as a license to atone for sin and then keep on sinning.

    Bingo. I agree. They had made no *INTERNAL* change. Their actions were therefor hollow, and meaningless.

    >>Isaiah also went further and showed that the sacrifices of animals was insufficient, and that a perfect sacrifice was needed. He outlines that One in Isaiah 53.

    A perfect sacrifice of "selfishness", yes.

    >>(3) Jesus called those selling in the temple, "thieves" because (1) they sold blemished animals to people which was not what God required

    Oh, you mean God wanted only the most hardy and best specimens of the species to be slaughtered in cold blood? If they had been in better shape, or cost less, it would have been ok?

    >>and (2) because they were overcharging the poor for these blemished animals.

    So that was it, the price was just too high, and the animals just not "good" enough eh? You don't think he was maybe complaining about the same thing Isaiah railed against?

    >>He wasn't condemning the sacrifice of animals.

    Isaiah 66:3 "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
    I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not."

    How do you explain this then?

    >>If you know anything about Jewish beliefs and the Old Testament, all Hebrew males were requiried to present themselves at the temple in Jerusalem at least three times a year for the feasts which included Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Jesus, being male, obviously attended these every year and only twice (His last two times there) did He act in that manner (correctly, I might add). But my point is that Jesus offered an animal sacrifice every year He lived up until He became the Passover Lamb Himself.

    What do you suppose a young boy of 12 might be argueing with the Temple Priests about? I don't recall seeing that information recorded in the bible by the way. Are you suggesting it's ok to look outside the bible for spiritual truth as well?

    >>(4) Yes, God is loving and full of mercy and grace, but grace did not come cheaply. Christ paid with His blood for that grace.

    Explain to me the motives here of God please. If you believe that Jesus was actually God, then how could physical self abuse be pleasing unto God? What exactly do you mean by this meaning of "blood" here as it relates to forgiveness of sin?

    >>(5) Yes, sin is inherited. And, yes, we are all guilty.

    Condemned at birth? Is that really how a loving parent treats their beloved child? Make them all guilty until proven innocent?

    >>The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

    Sure, we all make mistakes. I've made plenty in my life, I'm sure I'll make plenty more. The question here is how specifically does blood (presumably his own as you see it) please God in a way that causes forgiveness of this sin? I don't follow that logic.

    >>In Romans it tells us "That by one man's sin, sin came into the world, and sin passed to all men."

    Do you also believe that women should not speak in church? Shall we put Paul on a pedestal now too? Why would God hold a grudge against an infant Hindu child unless they abandon the faith and the family he placed their soul into?

    >>Again, only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of our sins.

    How does "blood" *CLEANSE* anything? I fully understand how applying his teachings can cleanse us from sin, but I fail to grasp the concept of blood causing forgiveness of sin.

    >>You see, our sin and sins are not just forgiven when we accept Christ. They are blotted out. It is as though we never sinned. The debt of sin was paid in full at the cross.

    When you talk about a debt being paid, you suggest that God is violent and destructive. Is that what you believe?

    >>(6) I was not jumping from God to Christ. In the Old Testament, anytime the term, "the angel of the Lord" appears, it is always a referrence to the Messiah's preincarnate existance.

    And yet an ANGEL OF THE LORD came to adminster to Jesus in the garden the night before his death. Angels seem to have taken many forms in early Judaism.

    >>(7) You miss the whole point of Messiah. If the Messiah were only a man, he could not be the Messiah.

    But Judaism itself, describes the Messiah, as a "messanger from" God. It does not suggest this messanger is also God. He was the Jewish Messiah after all. Christians seemed to have missed that part.

    >>Jesus had no earthly father when it came to His conception. As the angel, Gabriel told Mary, "And you shall conceive after the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Yes, I believe in the Virgin Birth also. Scripture tells us that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

    I don't recall Jesus suggesting he had no earthly dna in him however. The term "virgin" also means "young maiden" or "unmarried women". I'm not sure I'm quite ready to believe that Jesus the man, had no early father's dna in him. It's kind of a minor point however, unless you believe divinity is defined by dna arrangements.

    >>You are correct about Phillip. He asked Jesus to show them the Father. Remember Jesus answer? "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

    Sure, seen the father in "Spirit", in Holy Spirit. I've mentioned to others that I do not have a problem with the trinity concept, just the exclusivity it applies to the relationships between us, Jesus and God. Jesus said that others would do greater works than himself in John 14, presumably with his help and blessings. In John 17, he goes into great detail about how others too will find this unity in God *AND* in him. At all times during both of these conversations with close apostles and friends, he makes a clear distinction between himself and the only true God. I can't ignore his teachings because the church want's to elevate him to the status of God. Jesus didn't preach exclusivity in John 17. That is what the trinity doctrine implies though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...