UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> alternate view to Great Deception...2nd Thess.


12/8/10 10:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6433
 So let me ask you, how is Jesus both God and man?

Through the spirit, in His natural spirit form he is a god, but when placed in the flesh by the Father, he is a man.

So when reading about the Jesus whether in type in the OT or in the NT you have to determine if the bible is revealing the divine aspect of Christ

i have to determine what fits into the story as a whole, the one from Davids line, would be foretold of in Davids line, so when i look there, i discover that David was told by Father, that Father planned on having a Son of His own in Davids line...this Son....walked around talking about His Father, and His Fathers ways....

"And to those who overcome......I will proclaim their names before My Father, and My Fathers Angels." rev..3:5
12/8/10 10:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18028
Ridgeback -  All the justification in the world won't make it fit Rooster.  But I have seen you hammer scriptures into odd shapes for too long to believe you will ever be convinced otherwise.  The Arians who argued that Jesus was not divine make far more sense than a modalist who claims he is both divine and human (one ecumenical council accepted) but that his two natures hold conversations with each other (denying the next ecumenical council).  But that's okay.  I guess since many of us are both fathers and sons and brothers it is just the same as us talking to ourselves when no one is looking.  


me: don't need to hammer scriptures. I quote the scriptures. You bring in all kinds of odd theological terms to justify your position (Triune, Trinity, 3 in 1, God the Son, Eternal Son, etc. ad nauseum). I am happy discussing and describing Jesus Christ using only the terms the bible uses. He is God and He is the Son of God. I agree with this. He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Words of the Father, the Right Hand of the Father, resides in the Bosom of the Father, in Him dwells all the Fullness of the Godhead, etc. forever.

I have no need to change my position. It is revelatory and true.

You deride the dual nature of Christ was revealed in activity saying prayers through the medium of flesh or being led by the Spirit as if it is somehow unacceptable (though the bible refers to the "mystery" of God in the flesh) while accepting polytheistic models of divine persons chatting with to each other in some group huddle. (by the way, any conversations in the scriptures of the holy Spirit chatting with the FAther, or the Father chatting with the Holy Spirit, etc...no). You have a man (Christ) praying to the Spirit (God) both in Him and everywhere as a condition of being human...like sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom and other functions and conditions of being flesh.

You cannot escape that your "ontological position" of "love" is Christian polytheism. Great. Embrace it. We both claim Jesus is God and man, son of God, died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead, sits with all power. But I am a Christian monotheist who prefers the language of the scripture (Jesus is the "manifestation" of God; 1 Tim 3:16, not 1 of 3 persons of God) and you are a Christian polytheist who has a group huddle with father, jr and some force/bird.

You also close your eyes to Paul saying "that which I would do, I do not, that which I would not, that I do" clearly referrring to the war between the flesh and the spirit.

We are triparate beings and our own will and flesh are in conflict. We hold mental discussions and verbal ones all the time. Scripture confirms this war between our natures and the "voices" they speak to us for supremacy.

I have urged myself to lift more in training, out loud, "c'mon, let's go, c'mon" which is nothing more then my will urging my flesh or talking to my flesh, or encouraging my flesh to do what it doesn't feel like doing.

you cannot maintain monotheism with your "hammer" and that's your issue. But you are right, my mind will not change because I AM COMPLETE IN *HIM*, AND IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE FULLENESS...ALL...ALL OF THE GODHEAD IS IN HIM.

Praise Jesus, the One and Only God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, with no other higher Name. I am determined to know Him and Him only.

12/8/10 10:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18029
i have to determine what fits into the story as a whole, the one from Davids line, would be foretold of in Davids line, so when i look there, i discover that David was told by Father, that Father planned on having a Son of His own in Davids line...this Son....walked around talking about His Father, and His Fathers ways..../>


me: I believe Jesus was Son...according to His Flesh. But the Spirit you say yourself above was God. I agree. There is One God and He is Father by nature of creation.

So He is both. I am a father and a son. Do you hold one title and role or many? So much more our Father, who holds titles, roles and authorities to innumerable to list.

Isaiah said He was Father and Son. I accept that and understand that dichotomy to be revealed in His dual nature.
12/8/10 11:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6434
 Jesus said two.
12/9/10 11:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HELWIG
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/03
Posts: 55742
" me: while I see that the belief in the trinity is nothing shot of the DEATH of biblical monotheism."

Oh I understand that sentiment completely, which is why I recognized the alluring nature of modalism.

What is your take on Jesus' instructions for baptism? Why have it performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit if they are all really the same and the Holy Spirit is not a specific "person".

Why not have the baptism performed solely in the name of Jesus or simply God Almighty?

Seems odd doesnt it? To have it be 3 names and to have them placed on seemingly equal status like that?
12/9/10 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18030
Robert, "two" what?
12/9/10 5:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18031
HELWIG - " me: while I see that the belief in the trinity is nothing shot of the DEATH of biblical monotheism."

Oh I understand that sentiment completely, which is why I recognized the alluring nature of modalism.

What is your take on Jesus' instructions for baptism? Why have it performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit if they are all really the same and the Holy Spirit is not a specific "person".

Why not have the baptism performed solely in the name of Jesus or simply God Almighty?

Seems odd doesnt it? To have it be 3 names and to have them placed on seemingly equal status like that?<br type="_moz" />


Helwig, I have studied matthew 29:19 in depth and I love that scripture. I think it's a resounding One God instruction. Note what Jesus says. He instructs the apostles to baptise in ONE singular Name. He doesn't say "names".

"of" is possessive, and means "belonging to, pertaining to...".

Father, Son and Spirit are titles not proper names. So, the great question is, what is the NAME of the father, son and Spirit?

Jesus means "YH has become my Salvation". YH was the OT name of the Father.

I would submit to you that the Name which belongs to, pertains to or is possessed by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

As evidence that this command was understood completely by the apostles as a command to fufill not to repeat, you can look to the baptisms throughout Acts.

Peter tells 3,000 Jews (with the Apostles right with him) to "Repent and be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS..." (ACTS 2:38). Was he offeing another forumula, was he wrong, was he chaning it or was he in complete understanding of the command and fufilling it in a manner which is consistent and harmonizes Matthew and acts? I would say he undestood it.

Now in Acts 8 the samaritans are baptized in the name of the Lord (by Phillip), in Acts baptizes Cornelius and his family in the name OF THE LORD, and Paul baptizes the disciples of John in the name of Jesus (Paul was also baptized "calling on the name of the Lord").

So I would submit that "by two or 3 let a witness be established". There is not one single baptism performed in Acts where they invoke the trinitarian fomula. Rather, they all invoke the NAME, the name above all names, the saving name, the name we also bless, pray in, cast out demons, in, and will one day bow and confess. So it only makes sense since baptism is a imitation or re-enacting of the gospel (the burial) and we are "buried with HIM" (not them) that Jesus was telling them who He was (the godhead in flesh) and to baptize in His one name.

So long story short, they did baptize in the name of Jesus only because by calling on Him, they are calling on God almighty, The Father Son and Spirit, and every other authority and power hidden in the godhead and revealed in Him.

12/9/10 7:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 20902
 ^^^ exhibit A of scripture hammering.  

The word "name" clearly means "in the authority of."  It is odd that you are now taking that tact Rooster when before you simply argued that verse was added later by a corrupt church.  No matter how you slice it, your Bible was given to you by Trinitarians.  The settling of the canon happened after the Trinitarian nature of God was settled in council and the deutero-canon books were taken out by Protestants who were Trinitarians.  You will never get around the historical fact you lend credence to their authority to put together the books of the Bible into an authoritative collection while denying their authority to clarify issues of theology.  

Other authorities of the godhead include the Cousin, the Uncle, and the Second Cousin.
12/10/10 1:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HELWIG
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/03
Posts: 55763
 Hmmmmmmmm, thats an interesting take. So the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is "Jesus"?

How about when Jesus tells the disciples not to worry about remembering everything he says and promises to send the Comforter to guide and sustain them, which is the Holy Spirit.

Couldnt he have just said, "I myself will guide and sustain you"? Why invoke that type of imagery? Especially odd considering how violently resistant to polytheism they all were.

It really seems to me like the divine mystery of the trinity is so fundamental that its truths are shown as worth the risks of doctrinal error and even of flirting with polytheism.

If not why would it ever have been revealed to man in the first place? It could be something that is just true but offers no relevant spiritual lesson and is irrelevant for man's salvation.
12/10/10 6:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6436
the rooster - Robert, "two" what?

 He gave credence to himself by claiming there was two witnesses of him..his self and his Father.


12/10/10 9:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18032
Ridgeback -  ^^^ exhibit A of scripture hammering.  

me: nope, an example of haronizing scripture. You have the command to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Spirit. *and the fufillment* by the apostles to this command by at least 4 examples of baptizing INVOKING THE NAME OF JESUS.

you: The word "name" clearly means "in the authority of."  

me: OF COURSE IT DOES. And what gives the invocation authority Ridge?!!?!? THE ACTUAL NAME! A bill signed "in the name of the President" has authority becaue it's actually signed by the current president. It would have no authority if signed by a former president or by the VP or a Governor if it only can be executed by the current president.

You are trying to pretend that you can divorce the name from the authority the name gives. Can't do it. And pretending that saying "be baptized in the name of Jesus isn't an actual invocation and example of the "formula". If that's the case, "In the name of the father, son and Holy spirit" also mean "authority and not an actual formula and we cannot know what was said.

Hogwash.

The singular authority is found in the singualr name.

you: It is odd that you are now taking that tact Rooster when before you simply argued that verse was added later by a corrupt church.  

me: Not taking a different tact. I still believe its historially apparent that Matthew 28:19 is a later interpolation. However, it doesn't matter. It still harmonizes completely with what THE APOSTLES DID. So if God allowed it, I take it as valid and scripure.

you: No matter how you slice it, your Bible was given to you by Trinitarians.  

me: nope my bible was given to me by the prophets and the scribes who faithfully transcribed the OT (not trinitarians) and the apostles and early followers who were not trinitarians. The canon was settled and exchanged well before the multiple "evolutions" of the doctrine of the trinity post the writings of the NT.

you: The settling of the canon happened after the Trinitarian nature of God was settled in council and the deutero-canon books were taken out by Protestants who were Trinitarians.  

me: no it wasn't. But this is a nice little swerve off the road we were discussing. How does one deal with Matthew 28:19. The answer is found in Acts, the actual actions of the apostles preaching and teaching and converting sinners.

you: You will never get around the historical fact you lend credence to their authority to put together the books of the Bible into an authoritative collection while denying their authority to clarify issues of theology.  

me: don't need to get around it. The church that stole property, killed those who disagreed, tortured and burned them at the stake holds no autority with me.

you: Other authorities of the godhead include the Cousin, the Uncle, and the Second Cousin"

me: no but they do include our "friend that sticketh closer then a brother", our "kinsmen redeemer", our "father of lights", and more. I have never seen cousin, uncle and second cousin so this might just be part of your propensity to add to the scriptures. Stick with the scriptures ridge, in them you will find eternal life according to the words of Jesus.
12/10/10 10:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18033
Ridge, let's look at the invocation of the actual name vs authority with no clear implication of a "name".

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the NAME of the Lord Jesus,

Is baptism done both in word and deed?

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven GIVEN AMONG MEN, whereby we must be SAVE.

Ridge, there is no other name, not Father, God, YH, Jehovah, Holy Spirit, Son, etc that is great given among men, the the name of Jesus.

When the apostles healed a man BY INVOKING THE NAME OF JESUS the Jewish council forbid them from SPEAKING THE NAME!

Act 4:17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they SPEAK henceforth TO NO MAN IN THIS NAME.

Act 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them NOT TO SPEAK at all NOR TEACH IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

So go back a chapter to see what Peter and John said to the lame man to bring him deliverance and healing. Invoking the trinity? Nope:

Act 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth rise up and walk.

We see hear exactly what Peter said, and where the power was and what frightened the council and how they responded. It wasn't some ambiguous allusion to authority unconnected from the actual NAME!

When they command and threaten the apostles not to speak or teach THE NAME here is Peter's response:

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, THAT BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth,...[even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Jesus said to preach repentance and remission of sins IN HIS NAME.

I'm sorry that you want to repeat the mistake of the council and forbid people to invoke His Name in baptism to make people whole but let's see what the whole council of God says:

BAPTISMS IN THE NAME OF JESUS*******************

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins,

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.)

Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME OF the Lord.

Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling ON THE NAME OF LORD.

So we have actual examples of Peter, Phillip, Paul and Aninias all baptizing in the name of Jesus.

No let's see how many examples we have of the apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus.

**********************crickets************************

Nothing. Nada. Trust the scriptures, they illustrate what was said and done.
12/10/10 10:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18034
The evidence is overwhelming. The apostles prayed calling on the name of Jesus, laid hands on the sick in the name of Jesus, blessed their food in His name etc.

In fact, the 7 sons of sceva clearly saw this power by invoking His name and imitate it:

Act 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We ADJURE YOU BY JESUS WHOM PAUL PREACHETH.

Act 19:14 And there were seven sons of [one] Sceva, a Jew, [and] chief of the priests, which did so.

Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, JESUS I KNOW, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Ridge, what you also ignore is how important names are in the bible.

From the name of the patriarchs, to the name and changed names of Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Saul/Paul, etc.

God revealed Himself and His character and nature BY HIS NAME.

To ignore, the power, authority and MEANING of the NAME OF JESUS and to try to minimie what God is revealing ABOUT HIMSELF through the NAME is folly.

Scripture has spoken. You rest on councils and historical extra biblical teachings, and I will point to the above as just scratching the surface of God elevating His personal name.
12/10/10 10:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18035
HELWIG -  Hmmmmmmmm, thats an interesting take. So the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is "Jesus"?

me: Yes. "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead". So in the name of Jesus you capture every aspect of God. Father, Son and Spirit are titles that reveal an aspect of God in activity. But the name of Jesus captures it all.

Helwig: How about when Jesus tells the disciples not to worry about remembering everything he says and promises to send the Comforter to guide and sustain them, which is the Holy Spirit.

me: yes but in that same passage He says *I* will not leave you comfortless, identifying Himself with the comforter. And He also identifies the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of God the Father. The word in greek is "orphanos" which means "fatherless". He would not leave the "fatherless".

You: Couldnt he have just said, "I myself will guide and sustain you"? Why invoke that type of imagery? Especially odd considering how violently resistant to polytheism they all were.

me: Yes, and in some places He does. But remember it's not until after His death (acts 1) that He spends time with them showing them from the torah who He is.

They were scattered when He was arrested and Peter denied Him. I'm not sure they completely got it and I think Jesus spoke to them as a common brother, teacher, friend, rabbi, master and then at times would lay out these statements or do something (calm His creation, raise the dead) that would reveal what they might not be able to handle by word.

I think Jesus didn't walk around saying over and over, I'm God, I'm Jehova in flesh, I'm your creator, because the people would try to stone Him, or try to make Him King, or think He was crazy. So He would *show* who He was in glimpses...(walking on water, forgiving sin, raising lazarus, etc.)

Helwig: It really seems to me like the divine mystery of the trinity is so fundamental that its truths are shown as worth the risks of doctrinal error and even of flirting with polytheism.

If not why would it ever have been revealed to man in the first place? It could be something that is just true but offers no relevant spiritual lesson and is irrelevant for man's salvation.

me: helwig, it seems to me that if the trinity was true, like evolution, God would have made it very clear. The bible says Jesus is God over and over, that there is only one God.

Why didn't the scriptures say God is 3 in 1, or 3 persons, or a tri-unity, or tri-une, etc.

Read the history of the trinity. there are some 7 theories after the bible was written, some that disagree with each other. That is not how the Holy Spirit reveals truth, with differing and extra biblical contrasting reveation.

Justin Martyr and Tertullian viewed him as a subordinate angel, others didn't know whether He proceeded from the Father or the Father and the HOly Spirit (filoque controversary), if He was "eternally begotten" (a completer contradiction) or begotten before time.

The scriptures are clear and I think Mattew 28:19 are a clear example of that. One name that pertains, belongs and is possessed by the father, son and spirit. These titles are all contained in Christ, the father of lights, the one who calls us, "little children" the one who said he would be the father of the overcomer, the one prophesied as "everlasting father".

He is all we need :- )
12/10/10 10:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18036
Robert Wynne - 
the rooster - Robert, "two" what?

 He gave credence to himself by claiming there was two witnesses of him..his self and his Father.




me: Yes Robert. He did. Jews and the law required at least two to make a witness. He told them if they didn't believe in Him, consider His works. He said it was the "FATHER THAT *DWELLETH IN ME* He doeth the works".

and He appealed to Himself as a man, that they could see and Him who did the works (the Father, or the Spirit) and to believe based on satisfying the witness in the flesh and the Spirit.

But it was the selfsame Spirit, two witnesses, the man Christ Jesus and our Lord and Savior and God, also Jesus. Not two different beings.
12/10/10 10:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/10/10 10:24 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18037
multiple post...deleted
12/10/10 10:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/10/10 10:24 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18038
multiple post deleted
12/10/10 3:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6437
 He said it was the "FATHER THAT *DWELLETH IN ME* He doeth the works

oh..well the way i see it...if this line is your proof...then i am a god..you are a god..and everyone of us are gods...for the spirit or power from Father dwells in all of us.
12/10/10 5:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18039
Robert Wynne -  He said it was the "FATHER THAT *DWELLETH IN ME* He doeth the works

oh..well the way i see it...if this line is your proof...then i am a god..you are a god..and everyone of us are gods...for the spirit or power from Father dwells in all of us.<br type="_moz" />


me: maybe Robert, if that was the only theological assertion concerning the incarnation. But there was a uniqueness to the Spirit in Christ that the bible reveals. The Spirit was:

-in Him without measure. We cannot say that with any other man. All men have sinned but Jesus never sinned. A result of being truly God and truly man. We are men governed by our fallen nature. A fallen nature Jesus did not share.

-He was the Word, Arm, and Heart of God revealed. Not so of any other man.

-He was actually called "Everlasting Father". No man has ever been rightly called such a title.

-He validated that He was "God manifest in the flesh" by what He did.

-He was titled "immanual" or God with us.

There's a lot more, but none of these are aspects of divinity we share.
12/15/10 8:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6441
 but once again, rooster, i have to point out that does not coincide with the story as a whole.

God does not tell David that He is going to manifest himself in flesh, He tells him that He is gonna have a Son in his lineage.

Jesus never claims to be the Father, but instead walks around bragging about his Father, the same way any good son does..ala..my father can beat your father...many a young child has done that. Jesus shows the same kind of attitude when he brags that no man can take them out of his Fathers hand.

Jesus repeatedly talks about how good his Father is.....even repeatedly getting on his knees and praying to his Father....and since he has been given the judgement by his Father...i believe what he says trumps whatever anyone else says.

"I am the vine, and my Father is the caretaker..." this clearly shows that he is speaking of two different people, just as when he claims testimony of himself by two seperate people.

for Jesus to be Father...would make God a liar.
12/15/10 11:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18044
Robert Wynne -  but once again, rooster, i have to point out that does not coincide with the story as a whole.

God does not tell David that He is going to manifest himself in flesh, He tells him that He is gonna have a Son in his lineage.

me: I don't deny the sonship of Jesus Christ. The mere fact that He was humand born of a woman, means He was a Son. His humanity was not eternal. It was truely begotten. So by virtue of His birth and His kinship with us, He was a son. Any posts you cite showing His sonship, I will agree completely. You will not be arguing with me.

Now He did tell David His throne would be eternal. Only God is eternal. David's throne ended after the kingdom split, and the Jews went into captitivity. By the time Jesus was born, it was an edomite (Herod) who was "King of the Jews".

Jesus was related to David (thus being a "son") but because He rose from the dead (thereby proving His deity) and sits on the throne with *all power* He is also God.

RW: Jesus never claims to be the Father, but instead walks around bragging about his Father, the same way any good son does..ala..my father can beat your father...many a young child has done that. Jesus shows the same kind of attitude when he brags that no man can take them out of his Fathers hand.

me: ah but He does claim to be the Father. And I will post it in the next post by itself to be studied and discussed.

you: Jesus repeatedly talks about how good his Father is.....even repeatedly getting on his knees and praying to his Father....and since he has been given the judgement by his Father...i believe what he says trumps whatever anyone else says.

me: all functions of Him being truly human. But you are only affirming part of His nature. His human nature. It was the humanity that prayed, and interacted with His creation.

you: "I am the vine, and my Father is the caretaker..." this clearly shows that he is speaking of two different people, just as when he claims testimony of himself by two seperate people.

for Jesus to be Father...would make God a liar.


me: Ok, check out my next post.
12/15/10 11:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18045
Robert, you said that Jesus didn't say that He was the Father. Here you go:

Jhn 14:7 ¶ If YE HAD KNOWNME, ye should have known MY FATHER also: and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM, and HAVE *SEEN* HIM.

Jhn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, SHOW US THE FATHER, and it sufficeth us.

Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have *I* been so long time with you, and yet hast thou NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? he that hath SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou [then], Show us the Father?

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and THE FATHER IS *IN ME*? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father THAT DWELLETH IN ME, in me, he doeth the works.

Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

ME: Robert, Jesus is talking about the Father and Phillip asks to see the Father and it will satisfy them (the apostles). Note what Jesus says...HE is like, "Phillip, have you been with me so long and you don't know me?!?!?" Now how is that tied to what Phillip just asked?

Then JESUS SAYS, He that hast seen me, hast seen the Father!!! And then he says, "how then can you say, "show us the father".

Think about it. These Jews wanted to see the invisible Jehovah, the God of Moses, the Holy, All High Creator. And Jesus is indignant. He's like, "c'mon Phillip...seriously...you've been with me this long and you are going to ask me that?!!?"

Why? Because Jesus said, brother, you seen me, you've seen the Father...It was almost like it was a stupid question. Then He explains how.

Phillip, The Father is IN ME. In Him in a different way then us Robert.

That's why Messiah is called the "Branch" of Jesse (son) but also the Root of David (His sustenance, His begginnings). It's why Isaiah calls Him (Messiah) the Everlasting Father and the very visible hand of the invisible God.

It's why John calls Him the visible words representing the very mind and heart of God.

It's why Jesus calls Himself "I AM" (The name of Father). It's why He said it's ok for the people to worship Him (and not violate the rule against idolotry), and why He had control over the very creation He made (calming storms, walking on water) and why He was able to raise the dead.

Yep. He is Son according to the flesh, but Father according to His Spirit. He Himself said it Robert. He said the Father dwelt in Him. So He was Father according to the Spirit in Him or He was lying and it wasn't the spirit of the Father in Him.


12/16/10 3:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6446
 rooster..i'll give your point some serious thought before i respond..best wishes
12/16/10 10:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18046
sounds good, best wishes to you too
12/16/10 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 424
Rooster, what your views seem to suggest is that Jesus was in essence, two separate entities. One fully human, with its own identity and consciousness, and one fully God also with its own identity and consciousness, which is more like God "possessing" a man rather than becoming one.

Take the prayer in the Garden, for example. If I understand you correctly, you say that is just His "human side" talking to his "spritual side", much like we talk to ourselves, correct? That prayer just does not seem consistent with the way people talk to themselves, at least for me.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.