Who believes Jesus is God??

Status
Not open for further replies.

shturt678

Senior Veteran
Feb 1, 2013
5,280
103
Hawaii
✟13,428.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Romans 10:13--Whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved.

Trinitarians, do you call on the name of Jehovah?

:) First and foremost, "whoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved" is not that cut and dry, contextually speaking, and even grammatically. :thumbsup:

:amen: Rom.10:13, one is not only calling upon the Trinity, here Paul identifies Christ and Yahweh because they are one in essence and being, Christ being the Son of God, Yahweh's greatest self-revelation. :clap:

:bow: My end point: Name here, Matt.28:19, etc. and etc. always signifies the REVELATION of God, of the Trinity, of Christ. "Different gospel," wrong Name resulting in not only in "another Jesus," a fallacious baptism ... not a pretty sight. :confused:
 
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
:) :bow: My end point: Name here, Matt.28:19, etc. and etc. always signifies the REVELATION of God, of the Trinity, of Christ. "Different gospel," wrong Name resulting in not only in "another Jesus," a fallacious baptism ... not a pretty sight. :confused:
Jesus was born by a sinful woman therefore he took on the same nature as she had and that all men have. Although he personally who knew no sin; he was of the same nature as his mother Mary had.

Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on the seed of Abraham.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
 
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
We are all under the same law of sin and death. Jesus was born under the same law. He was born of woman who was not immortal but who was a sinner, and Jesus was born by a sinful woman therefore he took on the same nature as she had and that all men have. Although he personally who knew no sin; he was of the same nature as his mother Mary had.

Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on the seed of Abraham.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

If Jesus was just a man with a sin nature, how was His sacrifice on the cross acceptable to God? What was the purpose of the incarnation? Why did Jesus say that He was the great I AM? Why did he not reject worship from His followers?
 
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by he-man
We are all under the same law of sin and death. Jesus was born under the same law. He was born of woman who was not immortal but who was a sinner, and Jesus was born by a sinful woman therefore he took on the same nature as she had and that all men have. Although he personally who knew no sin; he was of the same nature as his mother Mary had.

Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on the seed of Abraham.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
If Jesus was just a man with a sin nature, how was His sacrifice on the cross acceptable to God? What was the purpose of the incarnation? Why did Jesus say that He was the great I AM? Why did he not reject worship from His followers?
Chapter and verses please if you have any?
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟17,819.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If Jesus was just a man with a sin nature, how was His sacrifice on the cross acceptable to God? What was the purpose of the incarnation? Why did Jesus say that He was the great I AM? Why did he not reject worship from His followers?


Since you did not acknowledge my contribution to the conversation, (Maybe I offended you in a past life or something ? ? ? ? ? ) I will again intrude and answer your questions.

We do not have a 'sin nature'. Neither did Jesus. We have a fleshly nature, but it is not necessarily a 'sin nature', e.g. (to mention what is probably one of the 'milder' sins of the human race) we follow our fleshly nature when we eat and drink, and that is not a sin. But if we eat and drink too much we are gluttonous and gluttony is a sin.

Because Jesus was 'just a man' is precisely the reason why God accepted his sacrifice on the cross. Jesus, as just a human, kept himself from all sin even though as just a human he was tempted in all ways that we are tempted. This is also what we should have done and indeed could have done (God never asks the impossible of anyone), but did not. It is this sacrifice of an entirely sinless person that stays the wrath of God on us, for he will not let Jesus' death be in vain.

Incarnation is a word invented by man.

It is not recorded that Jesus ever said he was the "great I Am."
 
Upvote 0

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since you did not acknowledge my contribution to the conversation, (Maybe I offended you in a past life or something ? ? ? ? ? ) I will again intrude and answer your questions.

We do not have a 'sin nature'. Neither did Jesus. We have a fleshly nature, but it is not necessarily a 'sin nature', e.g. (to mention what is probably one of the 'milder' sins of the human race) we follow our fleshly nature when we eat and drink, and that is not a sin. But if we eat and drink too much we are gluttonous and gluttony is a sin.

Because Jesus was 'just a man' is precisely the reason why God accepted his sacrifice on the cross. Jesus, as just a human, kept himself from all sin even though as just a human he was tempted in all ways that we are tempted. This is also what we should have done and indeed could have done (God never asks the impossible of anyone), but did not. It is this sacrifice of an entirely sinless person that stays the wrath of God on us, for he will not let Jesus' death be in vain.

Incarnation is a word invented by man.

It is not recorded that Jesus ever said he was the "great I Am."

if that was the case we would not need a Saviour as we could be perfect our selves...
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟17,819.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
if that was the case we would not need a Saviour as we could be perfect our selves...


peebly :)

We most certainly could have been perfect and that is what makes our sins so egregious. When God said, "Thou shalt not", he meant 'thou shalt not'. God does not command us to do things that he knows we are incapable of doing. Would you punish your children for doing something that you told them not to do if you knew they could not help but do it? I don't believe you would, and neither would the God who taught you in your heart that you should not punish your own children for doing something wrong that they could not help but do.

If we had the excuse such as "I just couldn't help it" to approach God with, he would have forgiven us and Jesus would not have had to die for those sins. The truth is that we could help it and didn't; therefore, we are Guilty! Guilty! and we are very much in need of the Savior. But it was not because we COULD NOT, it is because we DID NOT and WOULD NOT.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Since you did not acknowledge my contribution to the conversation, (Maybe I offended you in a past life or something ? ? ? ? ? ) I will again intrude and answer your questions.

We do not have a 'sin nature'. Neither did Jesus. We have a fleshly nature, but it is not necessarily a 'sin nature', e.g. (to mention what is probably one of the 'milder' sins of the human race) we follow our fleshly nature when we eat and drink, and that is not a sin. But if we eat and drink too much we are gluttonous and gluttony is a sin.

Because Jesus was 'just a man' is precisely the reason why God accepted his sacrifice on the cross. Jesus, as just a human, kept himself from all sin even though as just a human he was tempted in all ways that we are tempted. This is also what we should have done and indeed could have done (God never asks the impossible of anyone), but did not. It is this sacrifice of an entirely sinless person that stays the wrath of God on us, for he will not let Jesus' death be in vain.

Incarnation is a word invented by man.

It is not recorded that Jesus ever said he was the "great I Am."

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).

The purpose of the virgin birth was that the adamic sin nature would not be passed down to Jesus. He did not have a sin nature.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

samcarternx

saint
Jul 17, 2010
865
87
✟16,463.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The purpose of the virgin birth was that the adamic sin nature would not be passed down to Jesus. He did not have a sin nature.
==================================================================================
actually it was so He would not be born separated from the Father and unalbe to do His will. This is how He could have flesh like us and yet remain one with the Father.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
peebly :)

We most certainly could have been perfect and that is what makes our sins so egregious. When God said, "Thou shalt not", he meant 'thou shalt not'. God does not command us to do things that he knows we are incapable of doing. Would you punish your children for doing something that you told them not to do if you knew they could not help but do it? I don't believe you would, and neither would the God who taught you in your heart that you should not punish your own children for doing something wrong that they could not help but do.

If we had the excuse such as "I just couldn't help it" to approach God with, he would have forgiven us and Jesus would not have had to die for those sins. The truth is that we could help it and didn't; therefore, we are Guilty! Guilty! and we are very much in need of the Savior. But it was not because we COULD NOT, it is because we DID NOT and WOULD NOT.


If we are capable of keeping the Ten Commandments, then what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins?

The Bible is clear that there is none righteous and that our righteousness is as filthy rags.
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟17,819.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
mathetes123 said:
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

According to the earliest MSS the reading of John 8:58 would be: "Said to them the Jesus, Indeed, Indeed I say to you, before Abraham to have been, I am. This is a long way from Jesus saying that he was the 'great I am'. No where else in the New Testament writings is there even a hint of God's being referred to as "I Am" (eimi - I exist. ), and I for one seriously doubt that Jesus was referring to him as, as you say, "the great I Am". Jesus is simply saying that he existed before Abraham came into being, and there is no argument from me against that premise.

The apostle Paul said: "But by the grace of God I am (eimi) what I am (eimi) . . . . ." (1 Cor. 15:10), and we know that he was not claiming to be God. Yet he used the same language that Jesus used in John 8:58.

Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).

It is not recorded in the NT that Jesus was ever called Immanuel, but to those who recognized him as the promised Messiah certainly it would say to them that God was with them in that he had fulfilled his promise to them of sending them the Messiah.

The purpose of the virgin birth was that the adamic sin nature would not be passed down to Jesus. He did not have a sin nature.

There is no such thing as an "adamic sin nature". That phrase is not to be found in the scriptures. Once more we meet with man made phraseology which invented the "adamic sin nature" theory.

God does not make anything that is impure.
New born babes are as pure as God himself.
No one is born 'impure'.
We pollute our own selves as we continue to live and grow.

mathetes123 said:
If we are capable of keeping the Ten Commandments, then what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins?

Because we did not keep his laws. We could and we should, but we do not, therefore it took one who did keep his laws perfectly to die so that we would not. I have already commented on this. Please re-read the post that you have answered.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
According to the earliest MSS the reading of John 8:58 would be: "Said to them the Jesus, Indeed, Indeed I say to you, before Abraham to have been, I am. This is a long way from Jesus saying that he was the 'great I am'. No where else in the New Testament writings is there even a hint of God's being referred to as "I Am" (eimi - I exist. ), and I for one seriously doubt that Jesus was referring to him as, as you say, "the great I Am". Jesus is simply saying that he existed before Abraham came into being, and there is no argument from me against that premise.

The apostle Paul said: "But by the grace of God I am (eimi) what I am (eimi) . . . . ." (1 Cor. 15:10), and we know that he was not claiming to be God. Yet he used the same language that Jesus used in John 8:58.



It is not recorded in the NT that Jesus was ever called Immanuel, but to those who recognized him as the promised Messiah certainly it would say to them that God was with them in that he had fulfilled his promise to them of sending them the Messiah.



There is no such thing as an "adamic sin nature". That phrase is not to be found in the scriptures. Once more we meet with man made phraseology which invented the "adamic sin nature" theory.

God does not make anything that is impure.
New born babes are as pure as God himself.
No one is born 'impure'.
We pollute our own selves as we continue to live and grow.



Because we did not keep his laws. We could and we should, but we do not, therefore it took one who did keep his laws perfectly to die so that we would not. I have already commented on this. Please re-read the post that you have answered.

And as further evidence of this very concept, let us travel back to the OT for a moment.

There was a TIME when men lived to be HUNDREDS of years old. Then the Bible states that 'men's hearts became evil continually'. That is when God limited man's days to 120 years.

Isn't it OBVIOUS that the REASON that He limited the years was due to men becoming MORE corrupt with age? That the MORE time men were given to LIVE the more evil they would become?

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
The purpose of the virgin birth was that the adamic sin nature would not be passed down to Jesus. He did not have a sin nature.
:doh:Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on the seed of Abraham.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Now, look at the verse you quote to imply that Christ pre-existed: "before Abraham was, I am" and see what Christ was trying to tell you. Even Moses believed in the resurrection as did Abraham who believed God when he said, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" and was faithful in his belief that the Promise was in the future when God would keep His promise to him. "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off"

Luk 20:37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth Jehovah the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

38
For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

Gal 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Joh 8:52
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
 
Upvote 0

shturt678

Senior Veteran
Feb 1, 2013
5,280
103
Hawaii
✟13,428.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
:doh:Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

:) We both understand that an valid interpretation must be in the order of, the Aspect of the writer governs the Context governs the Grammar (wide sense), correct? :thumbsup: the ol' so called out-dated "Historical-Grammatical method."

:amen: Heb.2:14: Jesus took on the "human nature," and not the "sin nature" going from the ancient languages FORWARD to the English. Not BACKWARDS as you continue to do ... your not along in this fallacious approach. :sorry: Anyway, the writer of Hebrews aspect is "How much the suffering of Jesus means, vs.14-18, i.e., death freed from death; but it is the fact. One might think that Jesus' death wrecked him as death wrecks other men, but the extreme opposite is the fact - IT SAVED US FROM DEATH. By Jesus' death objectively smote death ... nothing to do with "sin nature" :thumbsup:

Heb.2:14 continued: "Since, then, the dear children have been in fellowship of blood and flesh, he, too, likewise shared....." The first clause just restates what the previous quotations contain although this is now put in a short and a direct way by taking over ta paidia from the last quotation: these dear children, these brothers, these sanctified ones, these many sons of God, have ever had only human nature, "have been in fellowship of blood and flesh," are physical creatures, i.e., human nature. Interesting the former Context appears to comport with the following Grammatical part also, Context mixed in of course. :clap:

The perfect tense reaches back to Adam and continues on from that point; yet koinwnew, "to fellowship," implies that "blood and flesh" is not, as in the case of brute creatures, the whole of their being; their soul or spirit, their real person exists only in fellowship with the physical body. The genitives of the thing after koinwnew are good classical Greek. No rocket science here, just a little IIThess.2:10. :bow:

:bow: My end point: Thus "also he," the Author of this salvation, makes them his brothers: "he, too, shared the same" (blood and flesh) in order to accomplish their salvation, i.e., not the "sin nature" but the "human nature." :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Note that Hebrews says that He took on the nature of men and NOT the nature of angels. So He is to be distinguished from both men AND angels.

The process of elimination dictates that He was God:


1. He took on the nature of men which means that He was not a man prior to that.


2. He did not take the nature of angels, and He wouldn't need to if He already was an angel. So He was neither man nor angel.


Ergo....
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟17,819.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
mathetes123 said:
The Bible is clear that there is none righteous and that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

The "none righteous" and "our righteousness is as filthy rags " scriptures must be taken in their proper context. There has always been those who were named as being righteous or just.
"Enoch walked with God and was not for God took him." ( Gen. 5:24). Noah was a just man and also walked with God. (Gen. 6:9.) . The Scripture is replete with referrals to those who were righteous.

Luke 1:5. "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The "none righteous" and "our righteousness is as filthy rags " scriptures must be taken in their proper context. There has always been those who were named as being righteous or just.
"Enoch walked with God and was not for God took him." ( Gen. 5:24). Noah was a just man and also walked with God. (Gen. 6:9.) . The Scripture is replete with referrals to those who were righteous.

Luke 1:5. "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
Just another example of how Unitarians are willing to not take the word "one" literally when it does not match their theology.

In the Greek the word "none" is two words, "there is not one righteous." Yet E48 allows for the word "one" in the phrase "not one" to mean "some are righteous." She is guided by context. So also are Trinitarians guided by biblical context regarding the word "one."

The expression "one Lord Jesus Christ" does not exclude the Father to which E48 would agree. So also, the expression "one God the Father" does not exclude Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

shturt678

Senior Veteran
Feb 1, 2013
5,280
103
Hawaii
✟13,428.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Note that Hebrews says that He took on the nature of men and NOT the nature of angels. So He is to be distinguished from both men AND angels.

The process of elimination dictates that He was God:


1. He took on the nature of men which means that He was not a man prior to that.


2. He did not take the nature of angels, and He wouldn't need to if He already was an angel. So He was neither man nor angel.


Ergo....

:) Absolutely perfect! :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
:doh:Heb 2::14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; Heb.2:14: Jesus took on the "human nature," and not the "sin nature" nothing to do with "sin nature" these many sons of God, have ever had only human nature, "have been in fellowship of blood and flesh," are physical creatures, i.e., human nature.
:confused: Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Heb_2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.