User Tag List

Page 35 of 47 FirstFirst ... 253233343536373845 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 700

Thread: Is Jesus God?

  1. #511
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 52 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2154
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Could you explain the term “the only begotten of the Father”. How can someone be begotten by God and also be God at the same time?
    How can God be everywhere? (Omnipresence)

    How can His knowledge and understanding be infinite? (Omniscience)



    With God, anything is possible!


    Matthew 19
    24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

    26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."



    Jesus had described the power of God with that statement.
    It is a sweeping statement. It doesn't pertain only to that event in Matthew 19.

    All things are possible with God - therefore, nothing is impossible with Him!



    Luke 1
    36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

    37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.


    - because with God nothing shall be impossible.
    Again, a sweeping statement that describes the power of God.


    God Himself, had spoken of His power:




    Jeremiah 32:27
    "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"




    Being unable to grasp the concept of OMNIPOTENCE of God, is a common problem by non-believers and non-Trinitarians.

    The term ALMIGHTY, has been used numerous times to describe the power of God.





    When was Jesus begotten and what is the full range of meaning of this term “only begotten” as used in John 1:14 and John 3:16?

    I hope this explanation helps:


    The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

    It's this last phrase ("only begotten" used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; i.e., that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

    So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

    The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.



    The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html



    Thus Jesus (as Son and human), had shown us by example what true obedience is to the Father.....for we are required to be obedient! That requirement is a must!

    Obedience comes hand-in-hand with faith in God.

  2. #512
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again betsy123,
    Quote Originally Posted by betsy123 View Post
    Hebrews 1: 13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:
    “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?
    How can there be two Gods?
    There is only One God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is seated at the right hand of God.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  3. #513
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 52 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2154
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again betsy123, There is only One God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is seated at the right hand of God.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Well of course there can only be one God the Father!

    That's not the point, is it?

    Both the Father and the Son are being called, "GOD!"
    That's the big issue!
    Therefore, they're One and the Same!


    That is a fact, because there can't be two Gods!
    Because if we do have two Gods, that would make YHWH irrational, and the Bible unreliable!

    Just imagine that - YHWH calling Jesus "God!"
    Wouldn't that be irrational if Jesus is not God Himself?

    Who'd benefit from that? Satan!

    That would be to the best interest of Satan - whose goal is to have mankind turn away from the Bible and God!

  4. #514
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again betsy123,
    Quote Originally Posted by betsy123 View Post
    Being unable to grasp the concept of OMNIPOTENCE of God, is a common problem by non-believers and non-Trinitarians.
    I believe in the omnipotence of God, but I do not believe that Jesus is both God in the sense of being from eternity and also begotten by God in the sense of being derived from God. Something that is fully contradictory is impossible.
    I hope this explanation helps:
    “They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten."”
    Yes I agree with this.
    “ The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.”
    I agree with this in part, but in another sense Isaac is the only truly spiritual son of Abraham. I understand the term “only begotten” w.r.t. Jesus only refers to the fact that God the Father was the father of Jesus in the conception / birth process.
    Thus Jesus (as Son and human), had shown us by example what true obedience is to the Father.....for we are required to be obedient! That requirement is a must!
    Obedience comes hand-in-hand with faith in God.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by betsy123 View Post
    Well of course there can only be one God the Father! That's not the point, is it?
    We can play with words, but Trinitarians claim that there is One God, the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, while I believe that there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God in the English sense of the word, but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Bible sense of the word because he represents God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God, by birth, by moral character, by resurrection.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  5. #515
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,865 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again LonThis has confused me. Jesus was flesh and blood. His conception was unique because God the Father was His father, but his conception did not make him God or a God-man. God could have made anything, a robot or any other thing, but he conceived Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit to start the process of the egg of Mary forming in the womb and growing until birth. I imagine that you would like to superimpose your view from John 1:14, that “Son of God” means that He is Deity, upon the following:
    Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
    Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
    Somebody had a hold of you, long before I ever came on the scene. What you HAVE to figure out, is which one of us is correct. The guy with no degree, or the one with two? Better would be just listening to those scriptures. If you are born, you are exactly half your father and half your mother. Scripture, further, states unequivocally that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. An attempted stoning occured specifically because they believed implicitly, He claimed to be God. It is that clear. You make huge mistakes here: Jesus didn't deny it. He didn't say "I never said that!" Every cult must worry that their doctrine cannot stand against scripture.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    The following gives the detail of his qualifications to be High Priest. It does mention that He is the Son of God, but there is no proof here that Jesus is Deity:
    Hebrews 5:1–9 (KJV) 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
    Side note, my comment was not to get us off John 1....
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    I am not sure why you are quoting John 1:14 here.
    I could narrate my understanding of this subject from my youth, my understanding for example of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, my introduction to the Yahweh Name when I was 19 and contact with a Plymouth Brother in my early 20s, when he did raise John 1:1,14.
    The Plymouth Brethren are Trinitarians.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    In other words, this is my environment and my thinking and that of my fellowship to this day. I was disappointed that you would not answer my question concerning “I will be” rather than “I AM” for Exodus 3:14.
    Because it is a distraction. Every cultist I ever talk to, distracts instead of addressing the text. You asked why I'd use John 1:14 -- because we are addressing whether John 1 says the Lord Jesus Christ is God. Yep. It does.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    This teaching more than anything else has supplanted any feasibility of the Trinity in my mind and most of my fellowship.
    It doesn't do anything. John 1:1 says "with" AND 'was.' How? I don't know BUT to ignore one in PREFERENCE of the other is scripturally wrong. It is you being obstinant against the teachings of God. John is quite clear, even if it confuses. It is STILL to be believed, not explained away or ignored. You do that to your own demise and MUST answer to God for it. He said plainly: "was" AND 'was with.' Your denial is your problem, not mine. I believe. You explain it away and don't read scripture context very well (neither do any of the other cultists, they are terrible at English and languages).
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    John 1:1-4 (Tyndale): 1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
    lain: See here and here "He." Tyndale was no great scholar. He was labelled a heretic, not because he wrote an English Bible, but because he did it alone and with no other input. It is more of a paraphrase than a proper translation. While 'it' is available such is the exception than the rule and Tydale (and you) failed to read the very next line of verse 14 where the "Word" was expressly Jesus Christ: "He."

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    The Wise Woman WISDOM was with God in the creation:
    Proverbs 8:27–31 (KJV): 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
    Hebrew is an entirely different subject than Greek and this passage. IOW, you can't use it as a talking point for its mere coincidence. It isn't proper inductive Bible study, but is deductive. If you want all your theology built off your own deductions, you become the author of your own God, regardless of what He says. Me? I want to follow Him, NOT be self-willed in my understanding and follow Him (not attempt to have He follow me). You have to decide who gets to be God and who gets to listen in your theology. This is your only choice, Trevor. You or Him. Choose this day whom you will serve. I know what John 1 says. You have to know or are left to deductive mistakes and guessing. -Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2019)

  7. #516
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again Lon,
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Somebody had a hold of you, long before I ever came on the scene. What you HAVE to figure out, is which one of us is correct. The guy with no degree, or the one with two?
    I suggest that your trust in your two degrees may be an impediment when it comes to considering what the Bible actually says. If Matthew and Luke were written before John’s record, then the early disciples may have understood Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 some years before they compared John 1:1-14. My early education was in the earlier two and only in my mature years did I consider the latter. Most Trinitarians seem to start with John 1 and ignore Matthew and Luke. But as you suggest in the following, let us look at the Scriptures.
    Better would be just listening to those scriptures. If you are born, you are exactly half your father and half your mother. Scripture, further, states unequivocally that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. An attempted stoning occured specifically because they believed implicitly, He claimed to be God. It is that clear. You make huge mistakes here: Jesus didn't deny it. He didn't say "I never said that!" Every cult must worry that their doctrine cannot stand against scripture.
    Side note, my comment was not to get us off John 1....
    I doubt that many Trinitarians would support your conjecture that because God the Father was the father of Jesus that this made him exactly half God. I thought that Trinitarians believed that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was somehow incarnated in this process and Jesus thus possessed two natures. You then state that this is why Jesus is the Son of God and you then move to your next deduction that Son of God=God. I will remain in my cult instead of accepting your logic. Also you have not explained WHEN Jesus was begotten John 1:14,3:16.
    The Plymouth Brethren are Trinitarians.
    Yes, this was my first real encounter with the Trinitarian view of John 1:1,14. I wrote a reply including the reference Psalm 33:6-9 and Isaiah 55:8-11 including the sense of partial personification. We did not progress any further, but we remained friends. He was close to retirement and I was in my early 20s.
    Because it is a distraction. Every cultist I ever talk to, distracts instead of addressing the text. You asked why I'd use John 1:14 -- because we are addressing whether John 1 says the Lord Jesus Christ is God. Yep. It does.
    As you stated before, someone got to me early, while Trinitarians are told to start in John’s Gospel and virtually ignore Matthew and Mark. While looking at Tyndale in response to you comment below, I couldn’t help myself, and I copied Exodus 3:14 and its CONTEXT. Perhaps when we fail to progress on John 1:1 you may like to consider this. My cult youth leader introduced me to some of these concepts at a Youth Study Weekend when I was 19.
    Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. 15 And God spake further vnto Moses: thus shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israell: the Lorde God of youre fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob hath sent me vnto you: this is my name for euer, and this is my memoriall thorow out all generacyons.
    It doesn't do anything. John 1:1 says "with" AND 'was.' How? I don't know BUT to ignore one in PREFERENCE of the other is scripturally wrong. It is you being obstinant against the teachings of God. John is quite clear, even if it confuses. It is STILL to be believed, not explained away or ignored. You do that to your own demise and MUST answer to God for it. He said plainly: "was" AND 'was with.' Your denial is your problem, not mine. I believe. You explain it away and don't read scripture context very well (neither do any of the other cultists, they are terrible at English and languages).
    Perhaps I am slow or dumb, but you seem to be replacing the “WORD” with “Jesus” or the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
    lain: See here and here "He."
    But neither of these two references seem to demand that we use “he” rather than “it” in John 1. Here is my Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
    846 αὐτός [autos /ow·tos/] pron. From the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); GK 899; 5118 occurrences; AV translates as “him” 1947 times, “them” 1148 times, “her” 195 times, “it” 152 times, not translated 36 times, and translated miscellaneously 1676 times. 1 himself, herself, themselves, itself. 2 he, she, it. 3 the same.
    Tyndale was no great scholar. He was labelled a heretic, not because he wrote an English Bible, but because he did it alone and with no other input. It is more of a paraphrase than a proper translation. While 'it' is available such is the exception than the rule and Tyndale (and you) failed to read the very next line of verse 14 where the "Word" was expressly Jesus Christ: "He."
    Tyndale was persecuted for a number of reasons, and one was that he worked outside the established Church. Perhaps for one thing, they did not like his use of the word “Congregation” rather that “Church”.
    Revelation 2:1 (Tyndale) Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte: These thynges sayth he that holdeth the vii. starres in his right honde and walketh in the myddes of the vii. golden candlestyckes.
    Seeing you also contribute to Calvinism, you would be against the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” and the ploughboy and non-conformists. This seems to be what you are saying next:
    Hebrew is an entirely different subject than Greek and this passage. IOW, you can't use it as a talking point for its mere coincidence. It isn't proper inductive Bible study, but is deductive. If you want all your theology built off your own deductions, you become the author of your own God, regardless of what He says. Me? I want to follow Him, NOT be self-willed in my understanding and follow Him (not attempt to have He follow me). You have to decide who gets to be God and who gets to listen in your theology. This is your only choice, Trevor. You or Him. Choose this day whom you will serve. I know what John 1 says. You have to know or are left to deductive mistakes and guessing. -Lon
    Seems a valid deduction to me. The NT is based upon the OT, not Greek philosophy.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  8. #517
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,865 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Lon, I suggest that your trust in your two degrees may be an impediment when it comes to considering what the Bible actually says. If Matthew and Luke were written before John’s record, then the early disciples may have understood Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 some years before they compared John 1:1-14. My early education was in the earlier two and only in my mature years did I consider the latter. Most Trinitarians seem to start with John 1 and ignore Matthew and Luke. But as you suggest in the following, let us look at the Scriptures.
    I doubt that many Trinitarians would support your conjecture that because God the Father was the father of Jesus that this made him exactly half God.
    "Your" deduction. I didn't say that. I find those who draw conclusions of this nature, do so with scriptures as well. What being the offspring of God does, indeed ensure, is that He inherits deity. Is this the part where we trample one-another's education and where-with-all? So be it. God does cover our mistakes, but it is problematic if they are arrogant and willful. We have to own our own. I'll leave you to your's.


    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    I thought that Trinitarians believed that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was somehow incarnated in this process and Jesus thus possessed two natures.
    It isn't that easy. We know He became man to understand man, thus, though God knows His creation, we simply have to read, listen, and watch what He means. Every Trinitarian understands this.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    You then state that this is why Jesus is the Son of God
    "Son of God" means that He God's Son, yes, and that He is close to Him as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Yand you then move to your next deduction that Son of God=God.
    It is inductive as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    YI will remain in my cult instead of accepting your logic.
    Or God's? Seems like, Trevor. Stay in it then. Why come to a Triune (Trinitarian) board and argue about it then? I'm definitely not, as a well-educated scholar, going to see anything one who has no degree in any of this, has to say. Tell me: Why would I even want to listen to a laymen not nearly as vested in this as I am? I mean you don't care as much about this kind of study (not a slam, just a recognition that you didn't care to get this degree), why should one who cares less, be listened to? What is my motivation? What is the point?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Also you have not explained WHEN Jesus was begotten John 1:14,3:16.
    Er, you think 'created' means 'begotten?' I realize a lot of cultists confuse the two, not having an adequate English degree nor Bible degree, but why is this means for an odd cult? Why not listen to your pastors, who are all Trinitarian, instead?


    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Yes, this was my first real encounter with the Trinitarian view of John 1:1,14. I wrote a reply including the reference Psalm 33:6-9 and Isaiah 55:8-11 including the sense of partial personification. We did not progress any further, but we remained friends. He was close to retirement and I was in my early 20s.

    As you stated before, someone got to me early, while Trinitarians are told to start in John’s Gospel and virtually ignore Matthew and Mark.
    Poor deductive reasoning on your part. I've read Matthew and Mark AND before I read John. You are simply grasping at straws here. The reason? Isn't this the place where you take exception, become indignant, and belligerent because you cannot accept you are wrong? Isn't it acting out? Let me state this. CLEARLY: "IF" I ever were convinced of the Unitarian/ Arian position, FROM scripture, I'd change on a dime. The fact of the matter is I'm very well versed in my bible and know exactly what it says. I cannot be but a trinitarian because it is the ONLY mediating position between Modalism and Arian (polytheism) heresies. Modalists believe (rightly) that Jesus is God, but wrongly believe "He and the Father are One (and the same). I've more patience with Modalists because they are more biblical and deny much less of the given scriptures (try to remember you are pitting Matthew and Mark against John). Modalists don't do that. I don't do that. Arians and Unitarians do that! There are several on here that don't accept Paul as an Apostle

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    While looking at Tyndale in response to you comment below, I couldn’t help myself, and I copied Exodus 3:14 and its CONTEXT. Perhaps when we fail to progress on John 1:1 you may like to consider this. My cult youth leader introduced me to some of these concepts at a Youth Study Weekend when I was 19.
    A youth leader does not a studied theologian make. You are preferring 'ad hoc' to 'tried, studied, and proven.'

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. 15 And God spake further vnto Moses: thus shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israell: the Lorde God of youre fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob hath sent me vnto you: this is my name for euer, and this is my memoriall thorow out all generacyons.
    Perhaps I am slow or dumb, but you seem to be replacing the “WORD” with “Jesus” or the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
    But neither of these two references seem to demand that we use “he” rather than “it” in John 1. Here is my Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
    846 αὐτός [autos /ow·tos/] pron. From the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); GK 899; 5118 occurrences; AV translates as “him” 1947 times, “them” 1148 times, “her” 195 times, “it” 152 times, not translated 36 times, and translated miscellaneously 1676 times. 1 himself, herself, themselves, itself. 2 he, she, it. 3 the same.
    Tyndale was persecuted for a number of reasons, and one was that he worked outside the established Church. Perhaps for one thing, they did not like his use of the word “Congregation” rather that “Church”.
    Revelation 2:1 (Tyndale) Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte: These thynges sayth he that holdeth the vii. starres in his right honde and walketh in the myddes of the vii. golden candlestyckes.
    ▲notice above that 'it' is rarely used? Look again "him" almost 2000 times. "Them" over 1000. "it" less than 200. I ALREADY told you why AND how one would be able to use 'it' (impersonal pronoun). Autos is a 'personal' pronoun, buddy.

    Look: If 'it' were acceptable, you'd have to follow 'it' as the translation down to John 1:12 "It gave to all who believed in 'its' name...

    "It" doesn't make sense because 'it' doesn't have a name to believe in, nor can 'it' give a 'right to become children of God.'

    John 1:14 gets worse: we have seen 'its' glory, the "Glory of the of the Only Son of the Father."

    TRY TREVOR! TRY~!

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Seeing you also contribute to Calvinism, you would be against the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” and the ploughboy and non-conformists. This seems to be what you are saying next:
    Seems a valid deduction to me. The NT is based upon the OT, not Greek philosophy.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    No. Not kind at all, Trevor. Your unstudied angst is showing. I'm a bit confrontational, but only in the sense that you are literally trying to post your imagined prowess as if it were a pearl of great price you've spent literally nothing on obtaining. No degree. Proverbs 4:7 Why do you disdain GOOD teaching? I'm not teaching you anything bad!

    Is this the part where we leave John 1 behind so you can prognosticate and try to use your backyard studying for no other purpose than to be arrogant and disdainful? There are a lot of scholars that ignore this kind of thing and try the gentle approach, but I'm one of those who believes it a problem, if not a sin, to be this arrogant, disdainful, and forgive, ignorantly willful. My 'Calvinism' is smoke and mirrors. It is of no consequence in this discussion (whether I am one or not). It is just again, your use of unfair play, ignorance, and disdain without any regard for the Lord and His scriptures, Trevor. No, it isn't kind of you at all in regards. I'm sorry to be this confrontational, but you need to take a solid look inward for awhile. You've no intention of EVER changing, even should the Lord Jesus Christ come and rebuke you Himself. You are posturing. I wish it were 'for' the Lord Jesus Christ rather than against Him here. In sorrow -Lon
    Last edited by Lon; July 14th, 2019 at 12:46 AM.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 14th, 2019)

  10. #518
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 52 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2154
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again betsy123,I believe in the omnipotence of God, but I do not believe that Jesus is both God in the sense of being from eternity and also begotten by God in the sense of being derived from God. Something that is fully contradictory is impossible.
    It's your statement that's contradictory!
    You say you believe in the omnipotence of God and yet you couldn't believe that Jesus is God Himself (as human) because as you say, Jesus, "being from eternity and also begotten by God in the sense of being derived from God," is impossible!

    So, on one hand you say you believe in the omnipotence of God, and yet on the other you're saying God cannot do the impossible!

    If you get the concept of omnipotence, you'd know that nothing is impossible with God!
    We've got 3 verses - 2 from Jesus, and I from God (describing the power of God) - supporting that! Your belief disagrees with Them!

    God even challenged by asking, "Is there anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen 18:14)


    Make that a question of God to you.

    You're saying yes!
    You're saying, He can't be Jesus too - because that'll be too hard for Him!
    It's impossible!!
    And yet you say you believe He's omnipotent?


    Lol. You're now full of contradictions!

    Do you believe He's omnipotent, or not?
    You can't have it both ways!




    Evidences were given to show you that it's what you believe that's fully contradictory to the Scriptures, too.

    Notice how you simply just dig in your heels and keep insisting that it's "contradictory" without giving any rebuttals to the evidences given?

    Ask yourself:
    why can't you give any sound rebuttals to the evidences given?

    If your belief rests on solid ground - you'd be able to defend it easily!
    But as we all see, as I've noted above - you're full of contradictions!

    How can your belief be The Truth?




    You don't believe - despite the evidences from the Scriptures that show Jesus/God
    are One and the Same.
    It brings to mind this:


    John 12
    Belief and Unbelief Among the Jews

    37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

    “Lord, who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[h]

    39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

    40
    “He has blinded their eyes
    and hardened their hearts,
    so they can neither see with their eyes,
    nor understand with their hearts,

    nor turn—and I would heal them.”




    What you believe wouldn't matter - it would've been just petty differences - IF IT DOESN'T GO AGAINST GOD'S STIPULATION.
    But it does goes against the very First Commandment: idolatry!
    That's what makes your belief dangerous, and self-destructive.
    Last edited by betsy123; July 14th, 2019 at 04:48 AM.

  11. #519
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 52 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2154
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    I agree with this in part, but in another sense Isaac is the only truly spiritual son of Abraham.

    truly SPIRITUAL son - what on earth do you even mean by that?



    I understand the term “only begotten” w.r.t. Jesus only refers to the fact that God the Father was the father of Jesus in the conception / birth process.
    Explain what you mean by this so-called, "conception process!"
    UNLESS you're saying God had sex with Mary and actually fathered Jesus -
    wouldn't this so-called, "SPIRITUAL SON," fit Jesus more than Isaac?
    After all, Isaac was actually fathered by Abraham with Sara! Theirs involved physical union!

    Lol. If Abraham was able to physically father Ishmael - we know that he was still physically capable of it, don't we?



    Contradictions again, Trevor.

  12. #520
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    207
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 52 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2154
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    We can play with words, but Trinitarians claim that there is One God, the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit,
    Kind regards
    Trevor
    There's no playing with words, here Trevor. You said there is only one God the Father! I was simply agreeing with you. The other two distinctions of God, is that of The Son and The Holy Spirit.




    ....while I believe that there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God in the English sense of the word, but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Bible sense of the word because he represents God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God, by birth, by moral character, by resurrection.

    It's not about what we prefer to believe, Trevor.
    It's all about what's in the Scriptures.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to betsy123 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 14th, 2019)

  14. #521
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again Lon,
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "Your" deduction. I didn't say that. I find those who draw conclusions of this nature, do so with scriptures as well. What being the offspring of God does, indeed ensure, is that He inherits deity. Is this the part where we trample one-another's education and where-with-all? So be it. God does cover our mistakes, but it is problematic if they are arrogant and willful. We have to own our own. I'll leave you to your's.
    I would like to apologise for my comments on education. I missed my opportunity many times. My understanding of Luke 1:34-35 is that God the Father was the father of Jesus, as God by means of His Power and the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of father to produce a human, not a deity. That is how I understand the term “the only begotten of the Father”. The child Jesus was indeed exceptional, but grew as a child, and learnt wisdom Luke 2:40,52.
    You've no intention of EVER changing, even should the Lord Jesus Christ come and rebuke you Himself …In sorrow -Lon
    I am convinced that I will never accept the Trinity.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  15. #522
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again betsy123,
    Quote Originally Posted by betsy123 View Post
    truly SPIRITUAL son - what on earth do you even mean by that?
    I suggest that you read Genesis chapters 12:1 to 24:67 and Romans 4:16-25 to determine if there is an essential difference between Ishmael and Isaac.
    Explain what you mean by this so-called, "conception process!"
    UNLESS you're saying God had sex with Mary and actually fathered Jesus -
    wouldn't this so-called, "SPIRITUAL SON," fit Jesus more than Isaac?
    After all, Isaac was actually fathered by Abraham with Sara! Theirs involved physical union!
    Lol. If Abraham was able to physically father Ishmael - we know that he was still physically capable of it, don't we?
    Contradictions again, Trevor.
    Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21 and my last reply to Lon. I will not be responding to your other two Posts, partly time constraints 11:00PM already and some repetition.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  16. #523
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,865 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Lon,I would like to apologise for my comments on education. I missed my opportunity many times. My understanding of Luke 1:34-35 is that God the Father was the father of Jesus, as God by means of His Power and the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of father to produce a human, not a deity. That is how I understand the term “the only begotten of the Father”. The child Jesus was indeed exceptional, but grew as a child, and learnt wisdom Luke 2:40,52.
    I am convinced that I will never accept the Trinity.
    So what is the point again? Why come to a triune board at all on this subject? Why don't you care about the Theology of your Church pastors? What 1) gives you a right to go against them and 2) a reason? It couldn't have been scriptures. I've shown you, clearly, why the triune (trinitarian) position is the mediating position between heresies. Think for a second: Modalists aren't stupid. There is a reason they believe Jesus is God. Unit/Arians literally destroy the continuity and teachings of scripture. Why? When does God get to teach and people get to stop and listen instead of leaning on their own understanding? Proverbs 3:5,6 When does He get to say something and you get to sit there and listen?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Yes, kinder this time. I'd like to see 'studied' regards, or 'listening regards' a couple of times in thread. Praying for wisdom (Proverbs 3:5,6) -Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  17. #524
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 177 Times in 142 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11706
    Greetings again Lon,
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    So what is the point again? Why come to a triune board at all on this subject?
    I came to this board to discuss various aspects of the Scriptures. I have discussed many different topics. This board, at the moment anyway, seems to allow this thread “Is Jesus God” and it appears that not all members on this forum will answer “Yes” to this question.
    Why don't you care about the Theology of your Church pastors? What 1) gives you a right to go against them and 2) a reason?
    I belong to a Lay fellowship, and our various speakers do not believe the Trinity. I mentioned one of these who taught me the Yahweh Name when I was 19. Our statement of faith has “That the only true God …(is)… the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in light unapproachable.” And “That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit”. And under Doctrines to be rejected: “That God is three persons”.
    It couldn't have been scriptures. I've shown you, clearly, why the triune (trinitarian) position is the mediating position between heresies. Think for a second: Modalists aren't stupid. There is a reason they believe Jesus is God. Unit/Arians literally destroy the continuity and teachings of scripture. Why? When does God get to teach and people get to stop and listen instead of leaning on their own understanding? Proverbs 3:5,6 When does He get to say something and you get to sit there and listen?
    I am interested in your assessment and claims, but our environment is very much based on the Scriptures.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  18. #525
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,198
    Thanks
    569
    Thanked 927 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    122582
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Lon, I came to this board to discuss various aspects of the Scriptures. I have discussed many different topics. This board, at the moment anyway, seems to allow this thread “Is Jesus God” and it appears that not all members on this forum will answer “Yes” to this question.
    I belong to a Lay fellowship, and our various speakers do not believe the Trinity. I mentioned one of these who taught me the Yahweh Name when I was 19. Our statement of faith has “That the only true God …(is)… the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in light unapproachable.” And “That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit”. And under Doctrines to be rejected: “That God is three persons”.
    I am interested in your assessment and claims, but our environment is very much based on the Scriptures.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Lon and no trinitarian can explain why the Holy spirit fathered Jesus in Mary, and not the Father the only true God.

    Unless they be closet modalists.

    The three persons of the trinintarian doctrine are three masks according to trin reasonings.

    The fact is that Jesus is Gods son and is still a man, and not a prexistent God.

    LA
    My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us