Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new rules for the Exclusively Christian forum

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Chandler View Post
    I don't want you to think that I am short-changing you. But what you say here isn't exactly correct.

    Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus "Mighty God" but not "Almighty God".

    I fully accept that Jesus is "Mighty God". He is also the "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:6. However (as a Trinitarian would agree -- although Writer would disagree --) Jesus is not God the Father. Jesus is a different person, Mighty but not Almighty. Jesus said: "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)


    1Corinthians 15:22-24 KJV
    Christ delivers up the Kingdom to “GOD THE FATHER”, Christ does do that. – NOW:
    John 14:3-4 KJV
    Who delivers up the kingdom? (Christ).
    And who is the receiver of the kingdom? (Christ).
    The Word was with God and the Word was God, every time.
    Christ delivers up the Kingdom as the Son, But in “THAT” moment of the twinkling of an eye, as fast as the lighting from the east to the west, at the last trump.
    Old things have passed away, behold all things becomes NEW.
    He shall be called the everlasting Father, the Mighty God, God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Kings. (The all mighty God, there’s none more mighty)?
    Psalms 136:2 KJV
    Daniel 2:47 KJV

    ---Paul---
    ---Gal. 4:16.
    ---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Letsargue View Post
      1Corinthians 15:22-24 KJV
      Christ delivers up the Kingdom to “GOD THE FATHER”, Christ does do that. – NOW:
      John 14:3-4 KJV
      Who delivers up the kingdom? (Christ).
      And who is the receiver of the kingdom? (Christ).

      Christ delivers up the Kingdom as the Son, But in “THAT” moment of the twinkling of an eye, as fast as the lighting from the east to the west, at the last trump.
      Old things have passed away, behold all things becomes NEW.
      Revelation chapter 20 depicts Christ and others ruling over the earth, not for just the twinkling of an eye, but for 1,000 years (verse 4). Only at the end of this 1,000 years do we read that "death" is destroyed in the lake of fire (verse 14).

      1 Corinthians 15:24-26 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

      So: Christ is given rulership over the earth by God the Father (Psalms 2:8; Daniel 2:44). He rules for 1,000 years bringing mankind to perfection. Then Satan is given one final chance to test mankind's integrity (Revelation 20:7, 8). All on earth who become corrupted by Satan are then destroyed (fire from heaven). And Satan himself is also cast into the lake of fire. Then last of all death is destroyed.

      After the dust settles it must be at this point in time that Christ finally "hands over the kingdom to God the Father".
      He shall be called the everlasting Father, the Mighty God, God of Gods, Lord of Lords, King of Kings. (The all mighty God, there’s none more mighty)?
      Psalms 136:2 KJV
      Daniel 2:47 KJV
      Both Jesus and his Father are alled "Mighty God", (El-Gibbor), but only the Father is called "Almighty" (El-Shaddai). I believe that this distinguishes the Son from the Father.
      The Word was with God and the Word was God, every time.
      We could start a whole new thread on John 1:1. The literal Greek reads: "God was the Word". Even Godrulz has said that the anarthrous "theos" in this phrase is qualitative. That is, it describes the Word in some way without necessarily identifying who the Word is. Because of this some translations read similar to Moffatt's: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos (Word) was God".

      It is entirely reasonable to suppose that John is describing some divine godlike quality about the Word. But it is not reasonable to conclude that the Word was the same God that he was with. If he was that God then he could not stand in relation to that God.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Chandler View Post
        Revelation chapter 20 depicts Christ and others ruling over the earth, not for just the twinkling of an eye, but for 1,000 years (verse 4). Only at the end of this 1,000 years do we read that "death" is destroyed in the lake of fire (verse 14).

        1 Corinthians 15:24-26 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

        So: Christ is given rulership over the earth by God the Father (Psalms 2:8; Daniel 2:44). He rules for 1,000 years bringing mankind to perfection. Then Satan is given one final chance to test mankind's integrity (Revelation 20:7, 8). All on earth who become corrupted by Satan are then destroyed (fire from heaven). And Satan himself is also cast into the lake of fire. Then last of all death is destroyed.

        After the dust settles it must be at this point in time that Christ finally "hands over the kingdom to God the Father".

        Both Jesus and his Father are alled "Mighty God", (El-Gibbor), but only the Father is called "Almighty" (El-Shaddai). I believe that this distinguishes the Son from the Father.

        We could start a whole new thread on John 1:1. The literal Greek reads: "God was the Word". Even Godrulz has said that the anarthrous "theos" in this phrase is qualitative. That is, it describes the Word in some way without necessarily identifying who the Word is. Because of this some translations read similar to Moffatt's: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos (Word) was God".

        It is entirely reasonable to suppose that John is describing some divine godlike quality about the Word. But it is not reasonable to conclude that the Word was the same God that he was with. If he was that God then he could not stand in relation to that God.

        What all are you saying?
        Are you not helping along a few scriptures to show what you believe? Why not just have Faith in them as they are?
        Peace.

        ---Paul---
        ---Gal. 4:16.
        ---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Letsargue View Post
          What all are you saying?
          Are you not helping along a few scriptures to show what you believe? Why not just have Faith in them as they are?
          Peace.

          ---Paul---
          Where have I not shown faith in the scriptures as they are?

          Do you have any comments on Revelation ch. 20?

          Comment


          • #95
            The early followers of Jesus heard and saw first-hand the words and deeds of one who was clearly the incarnation of God.

            Jesus was subsequently interpreted as the manifestation of the divine in the world.

            And Jesus taught them that there was a divine kingdom that was accessible and that it was ruled not by Caesar but by the God celebrated by Jesus of Nazareth.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Chandler View Post
              Where have I not shown faith in the scriptures as they are?

              Do you have any comments on Revelation ch. 20?

              What can I tell you, other than it's a vision that was given to John to enterrupt, and John Did not enterrupt it to us, He didn't even write what the seven thunders uttered to us. Unless you or I have the Gift of enterruption, of visions and dreams, I can't tell you anything beyond what it says. And this also.
              Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
              Why do you guys insist on doing that?
              Peace.

              ---Paul---
              ---Gal. 4:16.
              ---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by aikido7 View Post
                The early followers of Jesus heard and saw first-hand the words and deeds of one who was clearly the incarnation of God.

                Jesus was subsequently interpreted as the manifestation of the divine in the world.

                And Jesus taught them that there was a divine kingdom that was accessible and that it was ruled not by Caesar but by the God celebrated by Jesus of Nazareth.
                Matthew 16:15, 16 reports: "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

                Peter didn't say: "You are Almighty God." He declared that Christ was, not God, but the Son of God.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Letsargue View Post
                  What can I tell you, other than it's a vision that was given to John to enterrupt, and John Did not enterrupt it to us, He didn't even write what the seven thunders uttered to us. Unless you or I have the Gift of enterruption, of visions and dreams, I can't tell you anything beyond what it says. And this also.
                  Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
                  Why do you guys insist on doing that?
                  Peace.

                  ---Paul---
                  I was just hoping to know your thoughts on ch. 20. Not the seven thunders. Never mind.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    The deceiver Arian Chandler 97 92 90 88

                    97 "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
                    Peter didn't say: "You are Almighty God." He declared that Christ was, not God, but the Son of God.
                    To the contary of the misrepresenter Chandler: Peter didn't declare Christ or Son of God isn't God

                    92 John is describing some divine godlike quality about the Word.
                    The Word's not only like God, He is God

                    88 97 it is not reasonable to conclude that the Word was the same God that he was with.
                    Why not?
                    Because God is subject and limited to Chandler's understanding?

                    The root of all such heresies (Arianism, Modalism, etc), and what all such heresies have in common, is that they're attempting to explain God rather than love Him.
                    In addition, a soulish man doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they're foolishness to him and he's not able to know them because they're discerned spiritually.
                    In other words, to understand God (Christ, Their Spirit), you have to have Christ

                    97 If he was that God then he could not stand in relation to that God.
                    To the contrary: unlike Arianism, Modalism, Islam, and Judaism without Christ teach: God is 3 in 1

                    90 Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus "Mighty God" but not "Almighty God".
                    Contrary to Chandler's polytheism

                    Hear O Israel, Jehovah's our God; Jehovah's one.
                    Jehovah's God in heaven above and upon the earth below; there's no other

                    I fully accept that Jesus is "Mighty God". He is also the "Everlasting Father" of Isaiah 9:6.
                    Just as God's only one and there's only one God,
                    the Father, Son, and Spirit;
                    there's only one divine Father
                    Eph 4:6 Isa 9:6

                    Jesus is not God the Father.
                    To the contrary of this deceit:
                    "I and the Father are one"
                    John 10:30.

                    Jesus isn't His Father in the sense of replacing Him or of eradicating Their eternal Father-Son relationship and persons.

                    Jesus is His Father in the sense of being His Father's Son
                    (homousion, containing Him, expressing Him, including Him)

                    Jesus is a different person, Mighty but not Almighty.
                    Jesus is a different person within the Trinity. Not a different person outside of, or separate from, the Father. Since Father, Son, and Spirit are inseverable. Being one Organism, one Being, one God: God.

                    What's centrally "different" here is Chandler's polytheism, Jehovah Witnessism's pantheon, versus Father, Son, Spirit and Their revelation of God to Their apostles in Scripture

                    Jesus said: "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
                    Who existing in the form of God didn't consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man

                    88 if the organisers of TOL decree that "Exclusive Christian Theology" is only for those who believe Jesus to be Almighty God then I shall abide by their wishes and never intrude here again.
                    We'll see if they can or will

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chandler View Post
                      Matthew 16:15, 16 reports: "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

                      Peter didn't say: "You are Almighty God." He declared that Christ was, not God, but the Son of God.
                      I would just say--seriously--that not everybody in the gospels had the same literal interpretation. Matthew's Peter was no exception.

                      Son of God, God, Messiah, Savior, divine sacrifice--all of these designations ultimately depended on the specific gospel writer's theology, location and the particular events their communities lived through. For example, Mark's Jesus cries out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross. In John, Jesus is made to show that everything in the scriptures has been fulfilled and the crucifixion is just one aspect of that ("It is finished!").

                      Mark's community was written shortly after or during the Roman-Jewish wars. Many Jews were killed and died in agony. Mark's crucifixion narrative shows that.

                      John's gospel was written much later--probably in the 90s. By then the christology of Jesus was solidifying and John's gospel of Jesus speaking in long, theological discourses confirms that.


                      The later canonical designations (Son of God, Messiah, etc.) were all theological affirmations.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by aikido7 View Post
                        I would just say--seriously--that not everybody in the gospels had the same literal interpretation. Matthew's Peter was no exception.

                        Son of God, God, Messiah, Savior, divine sacrifice--all of these designations ultimately depended on the specific gospel writer's theology, location and the particular events their communities lived through. For example, Mark's Jesus cries out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross. In John, Jesus is made to show that everything in the scriptures has been fulfilled and the crucifixion is just one aspect of that ("It is finished!").

                        Mark's community was written shortly after or during the Roman-Jewish wars. Many Jews were killed and died in agony. Mark's crucifixion narrative shows that.

                        John's gospel was written much later--probably in the 90s. By then the christology of Jesus was solidifying and John's gospel of Jesus speaking in long, theological discourses confirms that.


                        The later canonical designations (Son of God, Messiah, etc.) were all theological affirmations.
                        Interesting observations. I take the view that whatever the time and circumstances of the writing, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

                        I believe that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew, intending this to be a conclusion to the Old Testament Hebrew writings. He also included many quotations showing fulfillment of prophesy in Jesus' lifetime. And of course, the gospels contain many prophetic utterances of Jesus. Hence, both the gospel writers and their readers must have acknowledged the gospel writings as scripture inspired by God and free from human error.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by writer View Post
                          To the contrary of this deceit:
                          "I and the Father are one"
                          John 10:30.

                          Jesus isn't His Father in the sense of replacing Him or of eradicating Their eternal Father-Son relationship and persons.

                          Jesus is His Father in the sense of being His Father's Son
                          (homousion, containing Him, expressing Him, including Him)


                          Jesus is a different person within the Trinity. Not a different person outside of, or separate from, the Father. Since Father, Son, and Spirit are inseverable. Being one Organism, one Being, one God: God.
                          Hello Writer. I wish that we could have a friendly discussion without you accusing me of misrepresentation and deceit.

                          Your view that Jesus is "not a different person from" the Father (do I understand you correctly?) is quite different from the Trinity doctrine: One God but three separate persons. This seems to lead to the idea that God the Father died for our sins (some early theologians believed this).

                          I disagree with you because Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is "the express image of his person" (KJV).

                          This pictures Jesus as having the "image" (Greek: "charakter") of God the Father but not actually being that person (Greek: "hypostasis" = substance).
                          Who existing in the form of God didn't consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man
                          The word for "grasped" in Philippians 2:6 is "harpagmos", a very strong term meaning "to snatch or seize with violence". The KJV correctly translates this as "robbery". Elsewhere in the scriptures forms of this word mean literal plunder and robbery. The name of the mythical harpy, a snatching half bird, half woman, is derived from this word.

                          The sense of Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus never ever gave consideration to violently seizing equality with God for himself (as Satan did). Becoming equal with God was never in his thoughts.
                          We'll see if they can or will
                          Any news on that? I consider myself a Christian but I can't help it if others do not.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chandler View Post
                            Interesting observations. I take the view that whatever the time and circumstances of the writing, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16).

                            I believe that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew, intending this to be a conclusion to the Old Testament Hebrew writings. He also included many quotations showing fulfillment of prophesy in Jesus' lifetime. And of course, the gospels contain many prophetic utterances of Jesus. Hence, both the gospel writers and their readers must have acknowledged the gospel writings as scripture inspired by God and free from human error.
                            I agree with Timothy.

                            And I also believe that the gospel writers were inspired to make sense of Jesus' life by using their own scriptural tradition as a springboard for telling parts of the story in ways that would resonate with that traditon.

                            And I know that this view is a purely historical one. The popular, "theological view" is not persuasive to me. I am a minority on TOL. Whenever I sit at the counter I am denied service. Such is life.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by aikido7 View Post
                              I agree with Timothy.

                              And I also believe that the gospel writers were inspired to make sense of Jesus' life by using their own scriptural tradition as a springboard for telling parts of the story in ways that would resonate with that traditon.
                              I can definitely see traits of individuality in the gospel writings. Tax collector Matthew is always accurate with numbers. And physician Luke sometimes includes details of miraculous healing that the other three omit (Luke 22:51).
                              And I know that this view is a purely historical one. The popular, "theological view" is not persuasive to me. I am a minority on TOL. Whenever I sit at the counter I am denied service. Such is life.
                              As a Jehovah's Witness I am just a minority of one on TOL. And if Writer gets his way I will soon be a minority of zero on the Exclusively Christian forum.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chandler View Post
                                ...As a Jehovah's Witness I am just a minority of one on TOL. And if Writer gets his way I will soon be a minority of zero on the Exclusively Christian forum.
                                I definitely can hear that. But maybe there's an upside: we heretics might get to choose the type of wooden stake we will be lashed to before we are burned.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X