Was Jesus God or the Son of God?

[edpobre]

Originally posted by GraftMeIn
Maybe this bit of scripture will help

Matthew 1: 21-25
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The name "Immannuel" or "God with us" is the end-result  of Jesus' mission of salvation. Those who will be saved will DWELL wirh God in the New Jerusalem and "God  will be with His people (Rev. 21:3).

Ed 

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Blackhawk

Where does the Bible say that Jesus is not God?

Apostle Paul writes that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God (Col. 1:15).

As everyone knows, an IMAGE is NOT the real "thing. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus is NOT the real God" for us to understand that Jesus is NOT the real God. He is ONLY the IMAGE of the real God.

Also, as everyone knows, INVISIBLE means CANNOT be seen and Jesus CAN be seen and was indeed seen. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus CAN be seen" for us to accept that Jesus is NOT the INVISIBLE God.

The Bible does NOT say that Jesus is God but the Bible says that the Father (alone) is the ONLY true God. Thus, it goes without saying that Jesus is NOT God in much the same way that if I say Blackhawk is a MAN, it would be redundant to say he is NOT a WOMAN.

Ed

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by edpobre
Apostle Paul writes that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God (Col. 1:15).

As everyone knows, an IMAGE is NOT the real "thing. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus is NOT the real God" for us to understand that Jesus is NOT the real God. He is ONLY the IMAGE of the real God.

Huh? First you are taking the verse way out of context but how can anyone be "The image" of God except God?  We were made in His image but we are not the image itself.  WE are different. 

Also, as everyone knows, INVISIBLE means CANNOT be seen and Jesus CAN be seen and was indeed seen. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus CAN be seen" for us to accept that Jesus is NOT the INVISIBLE God. [/B]

 

Paul was not trying ot say that God is always invisible.  If that were true then we have a lousy God and it clearly goes against other portions of scripture.   I could say more but you are looking for verses to twist and shape into your image so you can disprove the Trinity. 

The Bible does NOT say that Jesus is God but the Bible says that the Father (alone) is the ONLY true God. Thus, it goes without saying that Jesus is NOT God in much the same way that if I say Blackhawk is a MAN, it would be redundant to say he is NOT a WOMAN.[/B]

 

You always forget what the Trinity is. It is 3 persons yes but only 1 substance. 

Ed

  [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Phoenix]

The Bible does NOT say that Jesus is God

And neither does the Bible say Ed that Felix Manalo ( sp ? ) is God's messenger in the last days, but you seem to have taken quite a leap of faith in believing that.

 

[JesusServant]

Okay, maybe a modern parable will help...

You are convicted of a crime (murder, theft, whatever) and are sentenced by the judge to death.  He tells you that you can pay a $50,000,000 fine and save your life or die for the crime you have commited.  You don't have much money and certainly don't have 50 million dollars so you say, "Judge, I know you as good, and being good you should just let me go."

The judge replies, "You are right about one thing, I am good.  But because I am good and just I must punish you for your crime or I wouldn't be just and therefor not good." (this is how a lot of non-christians view God - if He is in fact good He'll just let them go because He loves them - but as we know from scripture this is a made up God, not the Father of Jesus)

Then, in walks a man and goes up before the judge and pays the fine that you could not pay and turns to you and says, "I have sold everything I have and paid your fine for you, now you will not die for your crime."

In conclusion, if Jesus was God, then God had to become man to save us from His own judgment?

Rather, God came up with a plan so that His just Son could, of His own free will, forgive us for Him.  God could not forgive us of sin without us making a sacrifice or we had not paid for our sin in any way (it would be unjust), but if we had a perfect sacrifice that could forgive us out of love, mercy and grace then it would be just.  God couldn't just let it go or it would go against His goodness and justness, there had to be another way.  (GOD ROCKS!) I bet satan was very jealous about this plan.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by billhabing
Hey, This is bill I agree with you about the Son. In my honest search and prayer I came up with the same conclusion, if i am understanding you correctly. That truth certianly grates against everyone I know that is Christian except you and a few others. I have a hard time seeing it any other way. What's up with the pic of George W.?

Hey bill, So you like the dubya pic ey?  Glad ya like it!  He da man!  Bout time we have a man who we can trust everytime he speaks!  Not like the felon inChief for the recent 8 years!   I'm glad there are some of us that are likeminded on this false teaching.  I just get the feeling no matter how much scripture you put before these 3InOnegodism folks, they'll just keep denying what it plainly says!  So sad!  I really think they would even correct Jesus, Peter and Paul if they came on the scene!  Can you just see it?  Now, Jesus, we know that your really God Almighty, after all we have those guys called the church fathers who wrote something called creeds that are much more authoritative than the simple scriptures!  I think you'd agree Jesus, they might not be totally accurate but at least they meant well.  Especially that guy who pumped himself up to be such a religious tyrant, I think his name was Contantine who had lots of people put to death for not believing in this thing called the trinity.  After all Jesus, don't you want to be considered as God Almighty?  I can just imagine how the Messiah would respond? I'll let you fill in the blank..........   

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Phoenix
And neither does the Bible say Ed that Felix Manalo ( sp ? ) is God's messenger in the last days, but you seem to have taken quite a leap of faith in believing that.

Phoenix,

The Bible says Jesus is a MAN. The Bible also says the Father is the ONLY true God. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the SON - not the Father. The Bible does NOT say that Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is NOT God.

Bible prophecy does NOT specifically mention Bro. Felix Manalo as God's last messenger just as Bible prophecy does not specifically mention Jesus and apostles John and Paul as God's messengers. But we are CERTAIN that they are messengers SENT by God by the prophecies they themselves REVEALED pertaining to them and their mission.

Ed

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Blackhawk

Apostle Paul writes that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God (Col. 1:15).

As everyone knows, an IMAGE is NOT the real "thing. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus is NOT the real God" for us to understand that Jesus is NOT the real God. He is ONLY the IMAGE of the real God.

Huh? First you are taking the verse way out of context but how can anyone be "The image" of God except God?  We were made in His image but we are not the image itself.  WE are different. 

If apostle Paul knew that Jesus was the VISIBLE God who was the  IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God, tell me Blackhawk, why did Paul write that "for Christians, there is ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6). And why did Paul write that "there is only one MEDIATOR between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5)? Isn't the MAN Jesus the only MEDIATOR today between God and men?

Also, as everyone knows, INVISIBLE means CANNOT be seen and Jesus CAN be seen and was indeed seen. Apostle Paul did not have to say "Jesus CAN be seen" for us to accept that Jesus is NOT the INVISIBLE God.

Paul was not trying ot say that God is always invisible.  If that were true then we have a lousy God and it clearly goes against other portions of scripture.   I could say more but you are looking for verses to twist and shape into your image so you can disprove the Trinity. 

How did you get the idea that apostle Paul was not trying to say that God is always INVISIBLE?  Apostle Paul was CERTAIN that "NO MAN has SEEN and can see God" (1 Tim. 6:16). And if you think that it was only Paul who believed this, look at John 1:18. Apostle John wrote it too!

The Bible does NOT say that Jesus is NOT God but the Bible says that the Father (alone) is the ONLY true God. Thus, it goes without saying that Jesus is NOT God in much the same way that if I say Blackhawk is a MAN, it would be redundant to say he is NOT a WOMAN.

You always forget what the Trinity is. It is 3 persons yes but only 1 substance.

How can one think of the "Trinity or 3 persons but only 1 substance" when according to the so-called "second person of the Trinity," the ONLY true God (meaning ONLY 1 God) is the FATHER alone? And everyone knows that the so-called "second person of the Trinity" is the SON - not the Father?

Ed

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by franklin
I just get the feeling no matter how much scripture you put before these 3InOnegodism folks, they'll just keep denying what it plainly says!  So sad! 

I believe the same is true for you.

These verses you "show" us are interpreted in a way that fits your belief only.

I really think they would even correct Jesus, Peter and Paul if they came on the scene!  Can you just see it?  Now, Jesus, we know that your really God Almighty, after all we have those guys called the church fathers who wrote something called creeds that are much more authoritative than the simple scriptures!  ;

Once again you show disdain for anyone who disagrees with your false teachings.

I think you'd agree Jesus, they might not be totally accurate but at least they meant well.  Especially that guy who pumped himself up to be such a religious tyrant, I think his name was Contantine who had lots of people put to death for not believing in this thing called the trinity.  After all Jesus, don't you want to be considered as God Almighty?  I can just imagine how the Messiah would respond? I'll let you fill in the blank..........   

This really shows your lack of history. Constantine lived from 306-337 AD which was LONG after the earliest church fathers such as Clement and Polycarp who believed in the deity of Christ as did most of the earliest believers.

Although this probably won't mean anything to you since you think the earliest church fathers didn't believe Jesus was God, it is proof that they indeed did:

One apostolic father, Clement, was the Bishop of Rome. He wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD. The following is a brief quote from this letter:


Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.
It is important to note that Clement of Rome referred to Jesus as "the Lord." This is an obvious reference to Christ's deity, for he uses the Greek word "Kurios" with the definite article (Christ was the Lord, not a Lord). Clement also spoke of Christ's blood as being shed for us, indicating a belief in Christ's saving work. He declared that the apostles received the Gospel directly from Jesus. Clement also spoke of God raising Jesus from the dead. If any of these statements were opposed to the doctrines of the apostles, the Apostle John, who was still alive at the time, would have openly confronted this first century bishop. However, he did not. Therefore, the writings of Clement of Rome provide strong confirmation of the original message of the Apostles. Contrary to the wishful thinking of skeptics, the teachings of the first century church are exactly what one finds in the New Testament.

The apostolic father, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote his letters between 110 and 115AD. During that time, he was traveling from Antioch to Rome to be martyred. Ignatius openly wrote about the deity of Christ. He referred to Jesus as "Jesus Christ our God," "God in man," and "Jesus Christ the God." Ignatius stated that "there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son."

How about this:

Another apostolic father Polycarp (70-156AD) was the Bishop of Smyrna. He was a personal pupil of the Apostle John. Had any of the other apostolic fathers perverted the teachings of the apostles, Polycarp would have set the record straight. However, Polycarp's teachings are essentially the same as that of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Of all the apostolic fathers, Polycarp knew better than any the content of the original apostles' message. Liberal scholars display tremendous arrogance when they assume that they have more insight into the original apostolic message than Polycarp. Polycarp studied under the Apostle John (85-95AD?); contemporary scholars live nearly 2,000 years later. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote:


. . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.
For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.
. . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Apologist

This really shows your lack of history. Constantine lived from 306-337 AD which was LONG after the earliest church fathers such as Clement and Polycarp who believed in the deity of Christ as did most of the earliest believers.

Anyway, Constantine is credited for convening the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to legalize the doctrine that Jesus is God and put to an end the long-standing dispute among the "early church fathers" concerning Jesus' state of being.

Although this probably won't mean anything to you since you think the earliest church fathers didn't believe Jesus was God, it is proof that they indeed did:

One apostolic father, Clement, was the Bishop of Rome. He wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD. The following is a brief quote from this letter:

Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.
It is important to note that Clement of Rome referred to Jesus as "the Lord." This is an obvious reference to Christ's deity, for he uses the Greek word "Kurios" with the definite article (Christ was the Lord, not a Lord). Clement also spoke of Christ's blood as being shed for us, indicating a belief in Christ's saving work. He declared that the apostles received the Gospel directly from Jesus. Clement also spoke of God raising Jesus from the dead. If any of these statements were opposed to the doctrines of the apostles, the Apostle John, who was still alive at the time, would have openly confronted this first century bishop. However, he did not. Therefore, the writings of Clement of Rome provide strong confirmation of the original message of the Apostles. Contrary to the wishful thinking of skeptics, the teachings of the first century church are exactly what one finds in the New Testament.

This letter does NOT prove that Clement regarded Jesus as God. In fact, this letter is proof that the writings of the apostles are TRUE. The word "Lord" does not mean God in any language or dialect. In 1 Cor. 8:6, apostle Paul wrote that to them (Christians, Clement included), there is ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ.

Lord means MASTER and Jesus was MADE Lord by God (Acts 2:36) when he put all things under Jesus' feet and GAVE him to be HEAD over all things to the CHURCH, his body (Eph. 1:22-23; cf. 1 Cor. 15:27-28).

The apostolic father, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote his letters between 110 and 115AD. During that time, he was traveling from Antioch to Rome to be martyred. Ignatius openly wrote about the deity of Christ. He referred to Jesus as "Jesus Christ our God," "God in man," and "Jesus Christ the God." Ignatius stated that "there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son."

How about this:

Another apostolic father Polycarp (70-156AD) was the Bishop of Smyrna. He was a personal pupil of the Apostle John. Had any of the other apostolic fathers perverted the teachings of the apostles, Polycarp would have set the record straight. However, Polycarp's teachings are essentially the same as that of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Of all the apostolic fathers, Polycarp knew better than any the content of the original apostles' message. Liberal scholars display tremendous arrogance when they assume that they have more insight into the original apostolic message than Polycarp. Polycarp studied under the Apostle John (85-95AD?); contemporary scholars live nearly 2,000 years later. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote:


. . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.
For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.
. . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

Ignatius and Polycarp were among those whom apostle Paul warned the Christians against, "who rose among them, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

Even when apostle Paul was still alive, he was already warning against these people who were preaching ANOTHER Jesus, ANOTHER spirit and ANOTHER gospel and were trying to deceive the Christians through their craftiness (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-8).

Ignatius and Polycarp were among those foretold by apostle Paul who would, "in latter times depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teaching of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their  own conscience seared with with a hot iron, forbidding to marry AND commanding to abstain from flesh meat..." (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

While it is true that the doctrine that Jesus is God was already being preached by some who were later called "early church fathers" this ANOTHER Jesus is NOT the SAME Jesus that the apostles (particularly Peter and Paul) have preached (Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5).

Ed

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by edpobre
Originally posted by Apologist
Ignatius and Polycarp were among those whom apostle Paul warned the Christians against, "who rose among them, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

Even when apostle Paul was still alive, he was already warning against these people who were preaching ANOTHER Jesus, ANOTHER spirit and ANOTHER gospel and were trying to deceive the Christians through their craftiness (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-8).

Ignatius and Polycarp were among those foretold by apostle Paul who would, "in latter times depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teaching of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their  own conscience seared with with a hot iron, forbidding to marry AND commanding to abstain from flesh meat..." (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

While it is true that the doctrine that Jesus is God was already being preached by some who were later called "early church fathers" this ANOTHER Jesus is NOT the SAME Jesus that the apostles (particularly Peter and Paul) have preached (Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5).

Ed

And we are to believe this because of what? Do you have proof that what Paul was talking about was the same as what these men taught?
You are imposing those texts on these men without warrant.

To call Polycarp a false teacher shows that you either know very little about the man or that you really don't care about historical truth.

Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna which was one of only two churches in Revelation that Christ had no words of rebuke against.

I also find it interesting that tradition tells us that Polycarp was burned at the stake for Christ and the flames would not consume him, so someone took a spear and ran it through him to kill him. What is interesting is that the flames had no effect on someone teaching "another Jesus" as you say.
Of course this is only tradition so you will discount it I'm sure.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by Apologist
I believe the same is true for you. These verses you "show" us are interpreted in a way that fits your belief only.

Scripture does not contradict itself.  The only way you can come up with the trinity is for someone to tell you that is what the bible teaches but in reality when commonsence and logic are applied to interpreting scripture, it is nowhere to be found in scripture.  So, the only way you can prove the trinity is by using the usual explanation that it is a total mystery.  I believed that lie for almost 20 years!  The problem you and the majority of believers have is that when someone shows you from scripture how false it is, deep down you have this fear of change!  How do I know that?  I used to be a strong defender of the trinity and I used the same old worn out arguments you guys use!  And the scriptures included!  When the word of God shatters your cherished beliefs, are you willing to be shattered no matter how painful it is?  God's truth should be more important to us than personal beliefs.  And that is exactly what the trinity is, a cherished and personal belief that is not biblical. 

  
Once again you show disdain for anyone who disagrees with your false teachings.

Oh comeone now AP!  Disdain?!  Now your overreacting and exaggerating! I'm just mearly sharing what the scriptural truth of God's word has revealed to me in the past year about the trinity.  And "my" false teaching?  Excuse me but the only false teaching in this thread is the trinity.  Scripture proves it everytime.

   
Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.
For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.
. . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

So here you go again trying to use some verses that because God is before Jesus, that proves that Jesus is God right?  Now who's using scripture out of context to there own means? hmmm.... If you want to really get desperate why don't you just quote 1 John 5:7? hmmm?  That one verse alone without a doubt proves the trinity hands down right AP? 

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by franklin
Scripture does not contradict itself.  The only way you can come up with the trinity is for someone to tell you that is what the bible teaches but in reality when commonsence and logic are applied to interpreting scripture, it is nowhere to be found in scripture

I suggest you do a little research into Aramaic and you will find a different story about Jesus' deity. Since this is the original language it would be the most correct source.

This is a piece I received from my friend Steve who has a web site about Aramaic:

Paul's proclamation that "Whoever confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord" in the Aramaic reads CONSISTENTLY "Whoever confesses with their mouth that Yeshu' is MORYO"

LITERALLY: "That Jesus IS LORD YHWH"

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Apologist
And we are to believe this because of what? Do you have proof that what Paul was talking about was the same as what these men taught?
You are imposing those texts on these men without warrant.

To call Polycarp a false teacher shows that you either know very little about the man or that you really don't care about historical truth.

Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna which was one of only two churches in Revelation that Christ had no words of rebuke against.

I also find it interesting that tradition tells us that Polycarp was burned at the stake for Christ and the flames would not consume him, so someone took a spear and ran it through him to kill him. What is interesting is that the flames had no effect on someone teaching "another Jesus" as you say.
Of course this is only tradition so you will discount it I'm sure.

[dd]Polycarp and Ignatius were both disciples of John the beloved, who wrote the gospel, Revelation,and the three epistles. And I believe John was one of the original twelve disciples.

[dd]Franklin, do you think maybe John taught his followers wrong but 2000 year later Charlie Russell's disciples got it right?

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Apologist

Ignatius and Polycarp were among those whom apostle Paul warned the Christians against, "who rose among them, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

Even when apostle Paul was still alive, he was already warning against these people who were preaching ANOTHER Jesus, ANOTHER spirit and ANOTHER gospel and were trying to deceive the Christians through their craftiness (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-8).

Ignatius and Polycarp were among those foretold by apostle Paul who would, "in latter times depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teaching of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their  own conscience seared with with a hot iron, forbidding to marry AND commanding to abstain from flesh meat..." (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

While it is true that the doctrine that Jesus is God was already being preached by some who were later called "early church fathers" this ANOTHER Jesus is NOT the SAME Jesus that the apostles (particularly Peter and Paul) have preached (Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5).

Ed

And we are to believe this because of what? Do you have proof that what Paul was talking about was the same as what these men taught?

You are imposing those texts on these men without warrant.

Apostle Paul PREACHED that Jesus is a MAN (Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5). Apostle Paul also PREACHED that their ONLY ONE God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6).

You say that Ignatius and Polycarp wrote letters to the Christians telling them that Jesus is God which is ANOTHER Jesus than whaat apostle Paul preached. Who else would apostle Paul have ben referring when he wrote 2 Cor. 11:3-4?

To call Polycarp a false teacher shows that you either know very little about the man or that you really don't care about historical truth.

All I need to know about Ignatius and Polycarp to call them false teachers is what they wrote about Jesus. They wrote that Jesus is God CONTRARY to what Jesus and the apostles TAUGHT. That is enough proof that they were false teachers.

I also find it interesting that tradition tells us that Polycarp was burned at the stake for Christ and the flames would not consume him, so someone took a spear and ran it through him to kill him. What is interesting is that the flames had no effect on someone teaching "another Jesus" as you say.

Of course this is only tradition so you will discount it I'm sure. [/B]

If this were true, this could only have been the work of the DEVIL. Satan can work miracles too, you know. Apostle John wrote that anyone who does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ does NOT have God (2 John 9). The doctrine that Jesus is God OPPOSSES Jesus' doctrine that he is a MAN. Therefore, Polycarp does NOT have God and God could NOT have been responsible for saving Polycarp from the flames.

Ed

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by edpobre



Apostle Paul PREACHED that Jesus is a MAN (Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5). Apostle Paul also PREACHED that their ONLY ONE God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6).

If this were true, this could only have been the work of the DEVIL. Satan can work miracles too, you know. Apostle John wrote that anyone who does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ does NOT have God (2 John 9). The doctrine that Jesus is God OPPOSSES Jesus' doctrine that he is a MAN. Therefore, Polycarp does NOT have God and God could NOT have been responsible for saving Polycarp from the flames.

Ed [/B]

Did you read the Aramaic I posted above?
Paul called Jesus "Lord" which in the Aramaic means "Lord YHWH" which is the title of God himself.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by Apologist
I suggest you do a little research into Aramaic and you will find a different story about Jesus' deity. Since this is the original language it would be the most correct source.

This is a piece I received from my friend Steve who has a web site about Aramaic:

Paul's proclamation that "Whoever confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord" in the Aramaic reads CONSISTENTLY "Whoever confesses with their mouth that Yeshu' is MORYO"

LITERALLY: "That Jesus IS LORD YHWH"

The letter to the Romans was writen in Greek so the word "MORYO" does not exist in the text.  Paul simply meant what he wrote, "Lord"

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by edpobre

And we are to believe this because of what? Do you have proof that what Paul was talking about was the same as what these men taught?

You are imposing those texts on these men without warrant.

Originally posted by edpobre

Apostle Paul PREACHED that Jesus is a MAN (Acts 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5). Apostle Paul also PREACHED that their ONLY ONE God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6).

You say that Ignatius and Polycarp wrote letters to the Christians telling them that Jesus is God which is ANOTHER Jesus than whaat apostle Paul preached. Who else would apostle Paul have ben referring when he wrote 2 Cor. 11:3-4?



All I need to know about Ignatius and Polycarp to call them false teachers is what they wrote about Jesus. They wrote that Jesus is God CONTRARY to what Jesus and the apostles TAUGHT. That is enough proof that they were false teachers.



If this were true, this could only have been the work of the DEVIL. Satan can work miracles too, you know. Apostle John wrote that anyone who does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ does NOT have God (2 John 9). The doctrine that Jesus is God OPPOSSES Jesus' doctrine that he is a MAN. Therefore, Polycarp does NOT have God and God could NOT have been responsible for saving Polycarp from the flames.

Ed [/B]

Polycarp of Smyrna was born in the last third of the first century and died in the middle of the second. It is said that he had contact with the apostle John, and he is said to have written the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. 

There was nothing in Polycarp's writing that would indicate a Trinity? There is no mention of it. Indeed, what he says is consistent with what Jesus and his disciples and apostles taught. For instance, in his Epistle, Polycarp stated:

"May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, . . . build you up in faith and truth." 

Note that, Polycarp does not speak of a Trinitarian "Father" and "Son" relationship of equals in a godhead. Instead, he speaks of "the God and Father" of Jesus, not just 'the Father of Jesus.' So he separates God from Jesus, just as the Bible writers repeatedly do. Paul says at 2 Corinthians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." He does not just say, 'Blessed be the Father of Jesus' but, "Blessed be the God and Father" of Jesus.

Also, Polycarp says: "Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour."  Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God, not one person of an equal triune Godhead.

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by LightBearer
Polycarp of Smyrna was born in the last third of the first century and died in the middle of the second. It is said that he had contact with the apostle John, and he is said to have written the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. 

There was nothing in Polycarp's writing that would indicate a Trinity? There is no mention of it. Indeed, what he says is consistent with what Jesus and his disciples and apostles taught. For instance, in his Epistle, Polycarp stated:

"May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, . . . build you up in faith and truth." 

Note that, Polycarp does not speak of a Trinitarian "Father" and "Son" relationship of equals in a godhead. Instead, he speaks of "the God and Father" of Jesus, not just 'the Father of Jesus.' So he separates God from Jesus, just as the Bible writers repeatedly do. Paul says at 2 Corinthians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." He does not just say, 'Blessed be the Father of Jesus' but, "Blessed be the God and Father" of Jesus.

Also, Polycarp says: "Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour."  Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God, not one person of an equal triune Godhead.

Thanks for pointing that out,  but this was Apologist's post that I was replying to (emphasis mine):

How about this:

Another apostolic father Polycarp (70-156AD) was the Bishop of Smyrna. He was a personal pupil of the Apostle John. Had any of the other apostolic fathers perverted the teachings of the apostles, Polycarp would have set the record straight. However, Polycarp's teachings are essentially the same as that of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Of all the apostolic fathers, Polycarp knew better than any the content of the original apostles' message. Liberal scholars display tremendous arrogance when they assume that they have more insight into the original apostolic message than Polycarp. Polycarp studied under the Apostle John (85-95AD?); contemporary scholars live nearly 2,000 years later. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote:

. . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.
For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.
<B>. . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ</B> and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

Ed

 

[Blackhawk]

If apostle Paul knew that Jesus was the VISIBLE God who was the&nbsp;&nbsp;IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God, tell me Blackhawk, why did Paul write that "for Christians, there is ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6). And why did Paul write that "there is only one MEDIATOR between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5)? Isn't the MAN Jesus the only MEDIATOR today between God and men? [/B]

First lert me quote this verse.


Eph 4:4-6
4&nbsp;{There is} one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5&nbsp;one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6&nbsp;one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
(NAU)

now you will say like you say above that there is but one Lord and there is one God but the God is God the Father and the Lord is Jesus Christ.&nbsp; Ahh but that is where I got you.&nbsp; If you say that then you have a major problem because God is the only Lord.&nbsp; Look at the many verses below.


Dan 9:3
3&nbsp;So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek {Him by} prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.
(NAU)

Luke 1:32
32&nbsp;"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
(NAU)

Luke 1:68
68&nbsp;"Blessed {be} the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
(NAU)

Rev 1:8
8&nbsp;"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
(NAU)

Rev 11:17
17&nbsp;saying, "We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.
(NAU)

Rev 15:3
3&nbsp;And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations!
(NAU)

Rev 18:8
8&nbsp;"For this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong.
(NAU)

Rev 22:5
5&nbsp;And there will no longer be {any} night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.
(NAU)

So now Ed if God the Father is God and Jesus is Lord.&nbsp;And there is just one God and one Lord.&nbsp; And God is Lord then Jesus is God also right?&nbsp; Or is the Bible really confused and wrong about this?&nbsp;&nbsp;

How can one think of the "Trinity or 3 persons but only 1 substance" when according to the so-called "second person of the Trinity," the ONLY true God (meaning ONLY 1 God) is the FATHER alone? And everyone knows that the so-called "second person of the Trinity" is the SON - not the Father?

Ed [/B]

Actualyl the Father is the 1st person in the Trinity and the Son is the 2nd and the HS is the 3rd.&nbsp; But anyways where does it say that the Father alone is the only person in the God head?&nbsp; Or does it say that God the Father is the only true God?&nbsp; There is a difference in those staments if you state that God is a being that has one substance.&nbsp;