Is Jesus God?

[NWL]

I don't believe you have claimed that Jesus is God the Father, nor have I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father, so, as usual, you're lying to me, and about me.

You're a waste of my patience. You litreally said to me in post 557, "Since, by the word "God", you mean "God the Father", here is what you are saying: "Nothing about the name implies Jesus was God the Father."

Now you're saying "I don't believe you have claimed that Jesus is God the Father, nor have I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father"

So on one hand you say to me"by God you mean the Father" and then when I pull you up on it you say "I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father"??? How are you making any logical sense buddy, you litreally told me that when I mentioned God in my statement I meant the Father, even though I didn't.

Here, you are admitting that the name, 'Emmanuel', means 'God with us', and not 'God the Father with us'. Thank you.

As I've already shown to you and as I've never denied, Emmanuel means 'God with us', the difference in our beliefs is how God was with his people. Again, you believe God was with his people in the body of Jesus, I believe God was with his people in the way of symbolic presence, it was a figure of speech. The same way one might say 'God is with us' when is a church it doesn't imply that God is literally there in body, rather he is there in way of presence or attention.

I've said this to you in the past, whatever is going on in that head of yours you may think you sound smart by the things you say but you don't, you sound bonkers. Get it together.

 

[followHim]

What do you think? Present Scripture for your answer whether negative or positive

Jesus was born of a virgin.
Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
Jesus had the power to heal, raise the dead, walk on water.
Jesus said he was the Messiah, I am in the flesh.
Jesus said to see Him was to see the Father
Jesus was killed but rose again as promised as the sign of Jonah
Jesus called God His Father, yet he accepted worship Himself.
The Father acknowledged Jesus as His son.
Jesus spoke eternal words, forgave sins and promised eternal life to those who
believed in Him.
Jesus said He was with the Father in heaven before He was born.
No man has ever been like this or will again be.
He was God in human form, separate from the Father yet of His essence.

 

[7djengo7]

By the word, "God", you don't mean God the Father when you say "Nothing about the name implies Jesus was God"?? [highlight]Then whom do you mean by the word, "God", there??[/highlight]

It gets boring explaining the same thing to you over and over.

Just answer the above highlighted question that I asked you. So far, you've not answered it. Say whom you mean by the word, "God", there. Until you say whom you mean by the word, "God", there, you will not have answered it. It must get boring for you to continually stonewall against answering my question.

Here is more of your mumbo jumbo:

Again, the person to whom I was speaking was a trinitarian, thus when I speak I used/use langauge that fits their understanding for the sake of the arguement.

You wrote:

So when I said "Nothing about the name [Emmanuel] implies Jesus was God" I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity.

Notice that that nonsense you wrote has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the question I asked you, highlighted above. I did not ask you,

"In what sense are you using the word, "God"....?"
​

I asked you,

"Whom do you mean by the word, "God"....?"
Or, in other words,
"To whom are you referring by the word, "God"....?"​

Stop stonewalling against the question I asked you.

Again, I've already shown from the bible how God visiting or being with his people doesn't litreally mean a physical presence, rather, the visiting/being with is in regards to Gods attention and favor.

You've shown nothing from the Bible, other than that it condemns you as a Christ-hater.

Take Matthews words when he states when speaking to God "naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me"(Matthew 25:36). God never visited Matthew in prison, he did visited him in the sense of his attention and presece however, when he sent an Angel to free him for jail.

You are so dismally messed up.

Matthew 25:34, 36 KJV:

34 Then shall [highlight]the King[/highlight] say unto them on [highlight]his[/highlight] right hand, Come, ye blessed of [highlight]my[/highlight] Father....
36 ...[highlight]I[/highlight] was sick, and ye visited [highlight]me[/highlight]: [highlight]I[/highlight] was in prison, and ye came unto [highlight]me[/highlight]

The King, in verse 34, is the antecedent of the pronouns, 'I' and 'me', in verse 36. Matthew is not the antecedent of those pronouns. There is no way you are stupid enough to believe that, in verse 36, we are being told that Matthew was sick, in prison, etc. Just like your continual, deliberate, systematic butchery of the English language throughout every, last one of your foul posts on TOL is a ploy with a wicked design of obfuscation behind it, your pretending to be so stupid, here, as to think that the 'I' and 'me' of Matthew 25:36 have Matthew, himself, as the referent, is also a deliberate ploy on your part. And, when you stop to think for even one second about it, it's a really, really stupid ploy, seeing as you've so easily been found out: since the 'I' and 'me' of Matthew 25:36 is NOT Matthew, as you so lyingly say it is, you've just relinquished that passage in terms of a prop for your foolishness. Matthew 25:36, as you've just reconfirmed for us, doesn't help your Christ-hating stupidity one iota; the passage has zero relevance to the garbage you're handing us, here.

What an easy lie to detect is your saying that the referent of the pronouns 'I' and 'me' in Matthew 25:36 KJV is Matthew!

 

[7djengo7]

You're a waste of my patience. You litreally said to me in post 557, "Since, by the word "God", you mean "God the Father", here is what you are saying: "Nothing about the name implies Jesus was God the Father."

Now you're saying "I don't believe you have claimed that Jesus is God the Father, nor have I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father"

So on one hand you say to me"by God you mean the Father" and then when I pull you up on it you say "I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father"???

Once again, you're simply lying, and trying to hedge yourself by playing stupid, and by writing incoherently.

Quote my words wherein you imagine I accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father. Have fun.

I never accused you of that. Not even once. That's why you will not have any fun.

How are you making any logical sense buddy, you litreally told me that when I mentioned God in my statement I meant the Father, even though I didn't.

I told you that when you say "Jesus is NOT God", you mean God the Father by the word, 'God'; and I requested that, if you disagree with my telling you that, then you should, straightaway, tell us all exactly whom you DO mean by the word, 'God', when you say "Jesus is NOT God". If it is NOT God the Father Whom you are saying Jesus is NOT, then WHOM are you saying Jesus is NOT, when you say "Jesus is NOT God"??????????

So far, you've stonewalled against that request, and your playing dumb amounts to pure, hardcore, bald-faced lying. Stop lying, stop stonewalling: Tell us to whom you are referring by the word 'God' when you say "Jesus is NOT God"!

As I've already shown to you and as I've never denied, Emmanuel means 'God with us'

That's true: 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us'. And thus, 'Emmanuel' does NOT mean 'God the Father with us'. Right?

Does 'Emmanuel' mean 'God the Father with us'? YES or NO???????

 

[Lon]

Lon my faith has not changed at all. I love to ask questions and study them. But you never understood my words for you do not see the depth of my understanding.

Depth of understanding, wisdom, etc. is special pleading. We have one Mediator only so appeal to 'my insight' is naught but special-pleading. What I mean? That we come to discussion with no difference or anything extra special. It is just as well as we have studied and as well as we have followed Him and His teaching.

As far a change? I disagree. Prior, you'd not said "He is the exact image of the Father." This was after those scriptures were presented to you, and you, as far as I discerned, came to realize that in fact, He is the image of God. I asked you "what is one's image?" We both agreed at that time: Himself. Your image is you. There is no distinction. THAT alone makes you a bit more triune than you've realized. I'm convinced, with that confession, you must necessarily be more triune (trinitarian) than you currently understand that you are. Its a good thing, whether you see it or not AND it is a bit of a change because when you realize it, you'll do much better in these discussion. Your 'ah ha!' eureka moment is there to be had.

I have been preaching a spirit son, the express image , for about six years now and you never studied it to my knowledge. Jesus is not the WORD of John 1;,the SPIRIT Son that dwelled in him is the word that BECAME flesh. I will always only have one God, the Father. I see Jesus as the Christ of God, in him dwells a form of god, the express image, the Miltha.

See, you just need an 'Oh!' moment when you grasp what you just said. An express image IS the image. My image, IS me. Look at it from Christ's perspective: "I and the Father are One." You just CANNOT have that kind of statement without it BEING true (seriously, your ah ha moment is just around the corner, grab it). You don't have to 'be a Trinitarian like me' You just have to be a 'Trinitarian like you.' Look, you are making trinitarian kinds of statements. So did the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't care what you call yourself after that. You are ALREADY doing it (just contradicting yourself from time to time when conveying it - you are not, any longer, a unitarian as far as I surmise. That ship sailed, you aren't one as far as I can tell).

Because I see this folks think I am out of line with established churches and to be truthfull I am, for I do not see God as being comfortable in church. God is in US, we are the Church, not the building or the establishment. We are to reflect the LOVE God has given us. that is what I try to do Lon. For me to live is Christ but Christ is not my God, he is my Lord.

True enough. It has always been: The Only true Israel was always Spiritual too! Romans 9:6-8

 

[Lon]

The question was what is the HS name, you didn't list any persoanl names.

"Yeshua" (Jesus) isn't a personal name by that definition. It means 'savior.' Look at what the disciples called Him: Master, teacher (rabbi) etc. You've got to understand that titles and names are interchangeable. When you do, this problem/question will go away: The Holy Spirit's name is what He does: "Comforter, Helper, Healer, Guide" etc. Just like the Lord's name is "Lord, Master, Teacher, and Savior."

Teacher isn't a personal name, comforter isn't a personal name, counselor isn't a proper name. Listing attributes, titles or qualities are hardly personal names. Jesus is a personal name, Yahweh is a personal name.

How about "Dad?" My kids don't ever call me Lon. Is "Dad" a 'personal' name? Or is it just a title? Both right? Help me out, meet me halfway and smell the coffee and flowers with me. They are all over the place.

We all know what a proper name is and what is not a proper name, again, Keypurr was asking what the HS personal name was, does he have one or doesn't he?

Again, is 'Dad' a proper name? Many of us guys share it, but I know to look up whenever my kids say it. How do I know they are talking to me, if it isn't a 'proper' name? In the case of "Dad" it is BOTH (a name AND a title of something I am to my kids). :e4e:

 

[keypurr]

Depth of understanding, wisdom, etc. is special pleading. We have one Mediator only so appeal to 'my insight' is naught but special-pleading. What I mean? That we come to discussion with no difference or anything extra special. It is just as well as we have studied and as well as we have followed Him and His teaching.

As far a change? I disagree. Prior, you'd not said "He is the exact image of the Father." This was after those scriptures were presented to you, and you, as far as I discerned, came to realize that in fact, He is the image of God. I asked you "what is one's image?" We both agreed at that time: Himself. Your image is you. There is no distinction. THAT alone makes you a bit more triune than you've realized. I'm convinced, with that confession, you must necessarily be more triune (trinitarian) than you currently understand that you are. Its a good thing, whether you see it or not AND it is a bit of a change because when you realize it, you'll do much better in these discussion. Your 'ah ha!' eureka moment is there to be had.


See, you just need an 'Oh!' moment when you grasp what you just said. An express image IS the image. My image, IS me. Look at it from Christ's perspective: "I and the Father are One." You just CANNOT have that kind of statement without it BEING true (seriously, your ah ha moment is just around the corner, grab it). You don't have to 'be a Trinitarian like me' You just have to be a 'Trinitarian like you.' Look, you are making trinitarian kinds of statements. So did the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't care what you call yourself after that. You are ALREADY doing it (just contradicting yourself from time to time when conveying it - you are not, any longer, a unitarian as far as I surmise. That ship sailed, you aren't one as far as I can tell).

True enough. It has always been: The Only true Israel was always Spiritual too! Romans 9:6-8

We disagree on what an image is Lon. An image is a copy, and every copy is a creation. Remember five years ago we were speaking of God cloning himself? And giving that clone his fullness?

I would love to get into a dep study with you but I was asked to leave the site, I will abide by their wishes as it is their home. I will miss the folks who have posted with me for the last fifteen years as I enjoyed their thoughts. I did not agree with most but I know where there coming from as I was there also years ago.

So God bless you all, friend and foe alike, and know I did not mean to offend any one with my zeal for my God. Keypurr (Bob)

 

[betsy123]

You, by implication according to your remarks at the end of your post 542. You quoted Matt 1:23 Jesus being Emmanuel and "God with us" and stated, "Jesus, is God Himself (as a human)". Do you not believe the meaning of Emmanuel "God with us" indicates that Jesus is the "God" in the definition "God with us"? If your answer is a yes then it's you who claims God was physically there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

First of all, read post#542 again.

23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”



Jesus, is God Himself (as a human).

See?
Matthew 1 supports John 1 solidly!

Yes, "Immanuel" means just that, God (as Jesus) was with man PHYSICALLY!


But, I wasn't referring to Immanuel! I'm referring to, "The Lord is with you."

You're conflating that with my response to you about Gabriel's greetings, "The Lord is with you."
It was my response to your post #572!

Originally Posted by NWL View Post


Precisely! Despite the statement of "the Lord is with you", YHWH was in fact not there,

Thus I asked, who sez He was there physically?? I surely did not imply that!

Lol, you're so confused. Review them again!

 

[betsy123]

Precisely! Despite the statement of "the Lord is with you", YHWH was in fact not there, he was simply there through Gabriel.

Likewise, Jesus is called Emmanuel which means "God with us" or "God [is] with us". This statement does imply that Jesus is God any more than it proves Gabriel was God since the meaning of the name Emmanuel relates to God symbolic presence rather than his literal being being there.

Again, my point is basic, the meaning of the name Emmanuel doesn't mean "God is literally with us", it is trinitarians assumption that the name means that since as pointed out, the name has a verity of interpretations.



Wrong in what sense? Had God visited his people at the birth of John?

You're not reading my posts, or you refuse to acknowledge them. I've already given the explanation about that.....therefore, I won't be going around in circles with you. Review my past posts to you.

Look NWL, this isn't a discussion at all if you're not going to address the specific rebuttals and explanations given to you that proves you wrong.....all you're doing is preach your Jehovah's Witnesses belief in this forum.


I have to ask you - and you should ask yourself, too -

WHY CAN'T YOU DEAL AND ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS BEING GIVEN TO YOU?

WHY DO YOU IGNORE THEM?


If all you can do is ignore and pretend those rebuttals don't exists - then you've got to question your JW belief about JESUS/GOD.

If your belief cannot stand up to scrutiny, nor can you defend it squarely - then, it can't be from God.


I'm telling you, all the arguments/rebuttals I've given are merely quoted from the Bible.
All I do is show you the connecting dots. The verses support, and reinforce each other!



Anyway, these are crucial questions. I'm curious:

Why have you become religious?
What's your end goal?

 

[Caino]

Yes, Jesus, aka Christ Michael, is God, like his Father is God. He is our creator along with his Father.

 

[NWL]

It gets boring explaining the same thing to you over and over. Again, the person to whom I was speaking was a trinitarian, thus when I speak I used/use language that fits their understanding for the sake of the argument. So when I said "Nothing about the name [Emmanuel] implies Jesus was God" I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity.

Just answer the above highlighted question that I asked you. So far, you've not answered it. Say whom you mean by the word, "God", there. Until you say whom you mean by the word, "God", there, you will not have answered it. It must get boring for you to continually stonewall against answering my question.

I've answered your question buddy, it was in the very post you quoted. I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity

I asked you,

"Whom do you mean by the word, "God"....?"
Or, in other words,
"To whom are you referring by the word, "God"....?"​

Stop stonewalling against the question I asked you.

Again, the trinity. Trinitarians believe in one God, or am I mistaken. Thus when I said "Nothing about the name [Emmanuel] implies Jesus was God" I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity.

What an easy lie to detect is your saying that the referent of the pronouns 'I' and 'me' in Matthew 25:36 KJV is Matthew!

Ignore what I said about the passage, I misread it.

Once again, you're simply lying, and trying to hedge yourself by playing stupid, and by writing incoherently.

Quote my words wherein you imagine I accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father. Have fun.

I never accused you of that. Not even once. That's why you will not have any fun.

I told you that when you say "Jesus is NOT God", you mean God the Father by the word, 'God'

You're telling me that I'm lying, what exactly am I lying about? What specific point in my post 581 have I lied about???


I'm not claiming you've accused me of believing Jesus is God the Father, let me remind you of what you've previously said to me. In post 557 you said "Since, by the word "God", you [NWL] mean "God the Father", here is what you are saying: Nothing about the name implies Jesus was God the Father" and then asked me "What Trinitarian has ever claimed that the name, Emmanuel, implies that Jesus is God the Father? None.".

You tell me what I mean by my own usage of God and then ask me a question based on your own made up interpretation of my own usage of the term God. You claimed I meant the Father when stating 'God' and then asked what trinitarian has ever claimed Emmanuel implies Jesus is the Father. You assumed and claimed I meant something I did not say and then went on to question me on the thing you claimed I meant.

In post 564 I pulled you up on it and questioned you telling you "I never claimed Jesus is God the Father" by the name Emmanuel and "Where did I claim Jesus is God the father", I did so because you clearly claimed that when I said 'God' I meant 'God the Father'. Your reply to this in post 578 was "I don't believe you have claimed that Jesus is God the Father, nor have I ever accused you of claiming that Jesus is God the Father, so, as usual, you're lying to me, and about me", you accuse me of lying to you even though I clearly didn't, moreover this is were you start to go off the rail since you again said "I don't believe you have claimed that Jesus is God the Father" when you did and still do, this is clear by both your past and present words of "by the word "God", you [NWL] mean "God the Father"" and "I [djengo] told you that when you [NWL] say "Jesus is NOT God", you mean God the Father by the word, 'God'

I truly believe you do not even know why you are arguing but are simply doing it for the sake of it.

; and I requested that, if you disagree with my telling you that, then you should, straightaway, tell us all exactly whom you DO mean by the word, 'God', when you say "Jesus is NOT God". If it is NOT God the Father Whom you are saying Jesus is NOT, then WHOM are you saying Jesus is NOT, when you say "Jesus is NOT God"??????????

So far, you've stonewalled against that request, and your playing dumb amounts to pure, hardcore, bald-faced lying. Stop lying, stop stonewalling: Tell us to whom you are referring by the word 'God' when you say "Jesus is NOT God"!

Answered this when you originally asked me buddy, again "I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity".

That's true: 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us'. And thus, 'Emmanuel' does NOT mean 'God the Father with us'. Right?

Does 'Emmanuel' mean 'God the Father with us'? YES or NO???????

No. As you said Emmanuel means "God with us", this proves nothing other. Again one can say God was with Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Ruth, Cyrus and many others without it meaning God was literally there, rather his attention and presence was with them. Jesus can have the name Emmanuel meaning "God with us" without it meaning that Jesus was God over the meaning that God was with his people Israel through Jesus.

 

[7djengo7]

I've answered your question buddy, it was in the very post you quoted.

You're speaking falsehood, again, NWL. You have never answered my question:

If it is NOT God the Father Whom you are saying Jesus is NOT, then WHOM are you saying Jesus is NOT, when you say "Jesus is NOT God"??????????

 

[Lon]

We disagree on what an image is Lon. An image is a copy, and every copy is a creation. Remember five years ago we were speaking of God cloning himself? And giving that clone his fullness?

Don't overthink yourself. It isn't the photo in my wallet, it is the Lord Jesus Christ, a being. You've got some serious thinking ahead of you if you are trying to dismiss Him as a photograph of God. "I and the Father are one" doesn't leave you that kind of room. You cannot biblically entertain it any longer. That portion of your pondering is over. You've said already, in a previous post, He is the EXACT representation of the Father. Its a done deal and you are more triune for it. Not a trinitarian like me. A trinitarian like yourself.

I would love to get into a dep study with you but I was asked to leave the site, I will abide by their wishes as it is their home. I will miss the folks who have posted with me for the last fifteen years as I enjoyed their thoughts. I did not agree with most but I know where there coming from as I was there also years ago.

There are a few others I'd ban from here, but I haven't seen that in you. Sorry to see it. To me, this is something Knight asked TOL to be careful about. If you are breaking rules that's a different matter, but I'm not privy to much of the goings on lately.

So God bless you all, friend and foe alike, and know I did not mean to offend any one with my zeal for my God. Keypurr (Bob)

I'm not second-guessing mods or their decisions, just saying I don't like to see you go. I do think you've heard and been impacted by scriptures on TOL. -Lon

 

[keypurr]

Don't overthink yourself. It isn't the photo in my wallet, it is the Lord Jesus Christ, a being. You've got some serious thinking ahead of you if you are trying to dismiss Him as a photograph of God. "I and the Father are one" doesn't leave you that kind of room. You cannot biblically entertain it any longer. That portion of your pondering is over. You've said already, in a previous post, He is the EXACT representation of the Father. Its a done deal and you are more triune for it. Not a trinitarian like me. A trinitarian like yourself.

You misunderstand me again Lon, The Miltha, spirit son, is an exact copy of his creator. He is the first of all creation, creatures for God created all through him. This Miltha is a form of god for he/it was given the fullness of his God. He is not just a photo copy, he is like YHWH in all ways, except that he is a creation. Heb 1, Col 1:15. That is where I differ from you friend. This Miltha came down from above to dwell in Jesus, the body God prepared for him/it. Heb 10:5.

There are a few others I'd ban from here, but I haven't seen that in you. Sorry to see it. To me, this is something Knight asked TOL to be careful about. If you are breaking rules that's a different matter, but I'm not privy to much of the goings on lately.

I have expressed my faith to strongly but I never attempted to offend folks as I came from the same upbringing. But there are two mods on this site that do not wish to understand my thoughts and call me disruptive. I respect their right to ask me to leave the site, but they are just not educated in theology to see my point.

I'm not second-guessing mods or their decisions, just saying I don't like to see you go. I do think you've heard and been impacted by scriptures on TOL. -Lon

Yes I have, and I have had many friends, but many who oppose me also. You and I were at odds when you first came on TOL, but we learned to accept our differences. Many days I wished that I had your way with words so I could fully tell folks what God and his son mean to me. But I come from a poor family and education above high school was not in my future. But my folks were rich in love and taught me to find truth about the love of God, and I did.

I will sign off again, may God be with you folks and bring you light.
Sincerely, Keypurr

 

[Bright Raven]

We disagree on what an image is Lon. An image is a copy, and every copy is a creation. Remember five years ago we were speaking of God cloning himself? And giving that clone his fullness?

I would love to get into a dep study with you but I was asked to leave the site, I will abide by their wishes as it is their home. I will miss the folks who have posted with me for the last fifteen years as I enjoyed their thoughts. I did not agree with most but I know where there coming from as I was there also years ago.

So God bless you all, friend and foe alike, and know I did not mean to offend any one with my zeal for my God. Keypurr (Bob)

Are you leaving Keypurr? I for one will be sorry to see that.

 

[betsy123]

I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity


Again, the trinity. Trinitarians believe in one God, or am I mistaken. Thus when I said "Nothing about the name [Emmanuel] implies Jesus was God" I was using the term "God" in the sense of Jesus being God of the trinity.

EH? What convoluted statement is that?

Which God do you think we refer to as being GOD OF THE TRINITY?
It's whom we call YAHWEH!

Immanuel more than just "imply!"
It declares!

It is supported by both Luke 1 and John 1 (all referring to Jesus' conception and birth)!

John 1 formally introduced THE WORD as God, and Jesus as God Himself, who came as a human.


John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The Word Becomes Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.



Luke 1 declares the role of God (as Jesus).

It does not say the baby whom Mary will conceive, is the Son of God.

It says, the baby WILL BE CALLED the Son of God. TWICE!



Luke 1
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?”

35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.


The same is said in Matthew 1. His name, is a declaration that Jesus is God Himself.


Matthew 1
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”


All three verses support, and REINFORCE the fact that Jesus and God are One and the Same!

 

[keypurr]

Are you leaving Keypurr? I for one will be sorry to see that.

I am sorry to leave my friend, but the mods asked me to leave this site, keep your love for God in your heart and never give up seeking truth. Thank you for the years we have shared on this site.

 

[annabenedetti]

I am sorry to leave my friend, but the mods asked me to leave this site, keep your love for God in your heart and never give up seeking truth. Thank you for the years we have shared on this site.

Don’t go, keypurr.

I don’t spend much time in the religion forum but I’ve read your posts over the years and you’re a kind and gentle soul who has given of yourself to the community and why would they do that to you.

Please don’t go.

 

[Stripe]

I am sorry to leave my friend, but the mods asked me to leave this site, keep your love for God in your heart and never give up seeking truth. Thank you for the years we have shared on this site.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. :up:

 

[Lon]

You misunderstand me again Lon, The Miltha, spirit son, is an exact copy of his creator. He is the first of all creation, creatures for God created all through him. This Miltha is a form of god for he/it was given the fullness of his God. He is not just a photo copy, he is like YHWH in all ways, except that he is a creation. Heb 1, Col 1:15. That is where I differ from you friend. This Miltha came down from above to dwell in Jesus, the body God prepared for him/it. Heb 10:5.

Prepared a body is different than 'created.' Find me one (1) scripture that says the Lord Jesus Christ is a 'created' being (not counting 'First born' that's not 'created). Go to it. Find it otherwise abandon it for 'conjecture' that no scripture says. Right?

I have expressed my faith to strongly but I never attempted to offend folks as I came from the same upbringing. But there are two mods on this site that do not wish to understand my thoughts and call me disruptive. I respect their right to ask me to leave the site, but they are just not educated in theology to see my point.

:Z This might be one of those 'statements' that get you into trouble. 'Not educated [enough] in theology' seems condescending.

Yes I have, and I have had many friends, but many who oppose me also. You and I were at odds when you first came on TOL, but we learned to accept our differences. Many days I wished that I had your way with words so I could fully tell folks what God and his son mean to me. But I come from a poor family and education above high school was not in my future. But my folks were rich in love and taught me to find truth about the love of God, and I did.

I will sign off again, may God be with you folks and bring you light.
Sincerely, Keypurr

Have a good evening, Bob and contemplate the scriptures with me. -Lon