Jesus is God !

[God's Truth]

In addition to what Freelight has said a great portion of Psalm 22 was already quoted to you, from nearly the start of our conversation, and you completely ignored what is written therein. In fact you deny all of it when you say to me that you have not been proven wrong. You thus essentially deny that Yeshua cried out to the Father on the cross and that when Yeshua cried out, as the Psalm states, the Father heard him. You are in your own world where your mind blocks out anything that refutes your paradigm mindset even to the point of not believing that Yeshua prayed to anyone else but himself. It is truly a concocted mystical belief system that has no basis in reality. The things that you believe absolutely no one believed to be the case in first century Judea. There was absolutely no one who thought Yeshua was the Father YHWH, not one, and there was no one who ever even thought that Yeshua ever claimed to be the Father YHWH, not one. But to each his or her own I suppose.

:sheep:

None of you have shown how God and Jesus are separate and different.

 

[freelight]

The Father has primacy.............

The Father has primacy.............

You gave not one scripture.

You don't need 'scripture' when approaching the reality of the matter rationally, logically....relationally-speaking. I don't need 'scripture' to follow a 'narrative' about Jesus speaking to his Father, speaking about his Father, and relating to his Father as another distinct personality.

Hello? - not recognizing this fact is insane.

You have not shown one way in which God and Jesus are separate and different, none.

I've demonstrated from the previous commentary the 'obvious' fact of the matter, in a narrative(context) of 2 personalities RELATING with one another. I don't know of a simpler more plain fact existing in this example of Jesus communicating with 'God', and differentiating himself from that 'God' who is greater than himself, The Father having primacy, as the INFINITE GOD, the Father of all personalities.



pj

 

[freelight]

Funny theology............

Funny theology............

Freelight said Jesus was not God, and for that you think freelight proved something?

They agree with other aspects of my writings, not all of course. Trinitarians will disagree with you obviously, rejecting such 'modalism', as recognizing distinction between the Father and the Son, as per their 'traditional formula' of 3 divine persons being all ONE, yet not being the other! - that could be confusing on another level,...but there ya go.

Freelight lied about Jesus, and lied about my beliefs.

I did no such thing, but disagree with a presupposition of yours As far as your 'beliefs' go,...I've noted what I've so far compiled, and am open to learn more as you expound such views, in the interest of 'creative dialogue' of course. I've noted a kind of 'modalism', but have yet to be corrected on my views, as discussion ensues. That's what 'discussion' is all about



pj

 

[StanJ]

Don't be so dumb, they were separated at the cross. The way you believe, the Father walked around in flesh on earth. How preposterous. You really need to study to come to know the difference between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

1 John 5:7-8New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[a] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

Actually BR, that is not the proper rendering for those verses.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB)

John here is addressing the folly that Jesus only became God when John the Baptist baptized Him. You have to read 5-12 IN context.

 

[God's Truth]

They agree with other aspects of my writings, not all of course. Trinitarians will disagree with you obviously, rejecting such 'modalism', as recognizing distinction between the Father and the Son, as per their 'traditional formula' of 3 divine persons being all ONE, yet not being the other! - that could be confusing on another level,...but there ya go.



I did no such thing, but disagree with a presupposition of yours As far as your 'beliefs' go,...I've noted what I've so far compiled, and am open to learn more as you expound such views, in the interest of 'creative dialogue' of course. I've noted a kind of 'modalism', but have yet to be corrected on my views, as discussion ensues. That's what 'discussion' is all about

pj

If you want to discuss God's word deeply, then use scripture.

The Father and Jesus are not distinct from each other.

Jesus says and does only what the Father says and does.

See John 16:13-14; John 5:19; John 8:28; John 12:49; and, John 12:50.


When we see Jesus, we see the Father.

See John 8:19; 14:7, 9; Hebrews 1:3; and, Colossians 1:15.

John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.


Their works are not different, they are the same works.

John 5:17 In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 4:34
"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.

 

[God's Truth]

I can hardly believe that someone can say Jesus is different than the Father, and say Jesus is separate from the Father!

 

[StanJ]

They agree with other aspects of my writings, not all of course. Trinitarians will disagree with you obviously, rejecting such 'modalism', as recognizing distinction between the Father and the Son, as per their 'traditional formula' of 3 divine persons being all ONE, yet not being the other! - that could be confusing on another level,...but there ya go.
I did no such thing, but disagree with a presupposition of yours As far as your 'beliefs' go,...I've noted what I've so far compiled, and am open to learn more as you expound such views, in the interest of 'creative dialogue' of course. I've noted a kind of 'modalism', but have yet to be corrected on my views, as discussion ensues. That's what 'discussion' is all about

I'm fairly sure that GT is not supporting Sabellianism in her comments, just a very basic/simplified view of our Triune God, which is as it should be.
It does NOT require a very cerebral person to understand the Trinity nor does it require a whole lot of superfluous rhetoric. There is already a thread on TOL that takes the cerebral approach to this issue so if you require that type of interaction I suggest you partake in it. From what I have observed, they don't get very far with this approach, but you may not be allowed to post there.

It started here; http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2671551&postcount=1

 

[freelight]

Practical Christianity............

Practical Christianity............

If you want to discuss God's word deeply, then use scripture.

The Father and Jesus are not distinct from each other.

Jesus says and does only what the Father says and does.

See John 16:13-14; John 5:19; John 8:28; John 12:49; and, John 12:50.


When we see Jesus, we see the Father.

See John 8:19; 14:7, 9; Hebrews 1:3; and, Colossians 1:15.

John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.


Their works are not different, they are the same works.

John 5:17 In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 4:34
"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.

Almost all these scriptures clearly show that Jesus is different/distinct from the Father in the very passages themselves. Its amazing that you cannot see that. Jesus claiming to be the REPRESENTATIVE of the Father, the one SENT by the Father, the one serving as the anointed AGENT of 'God'....shows Jesus to be separate/distinct from God, his Father. Jesus is certainly the 'representative' of 'God'. This is basic English, the meaning of such language being 'relational'. Cramming Jesus into the Father...AS the Father is ridiculous, unless your assuming some kind of ethereal unity between the two, which is still 'vague' outside the clear relational duality of two persons being represented in the DIALOGUE.

Earth calling GT?




pj

 

[freelight]

pick your flavour............

pick your flavour............

I'm fairly sure that GT is not supporting Sabellianism in her comments, just a very basic/simplified view of our Triune God, which is as it should be.
It does NOT require a very cerebral person to understand the Trinity nor does it require a whole lot of superfluous rhetoric. There is already a thread on TOL that takes the cerebral approach to this issue so if you require that type of interaction I suggest you partake in it. From what I have observed, they don't get very far with this approach, but you may not be allowed to post there.

It started here; http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2671551&postcount=1

Thanks Stan,

Leave it to Lon to rouse the heretic-hunters to go a galloping A more liberal theologian as myself has fun on occasion with such types, but the usual noose or stronghold of dogma takes a toll on some, and you cant really have a 'creative dialogue' with them of substantial worth,...discussion has its exhaustion point.

I used to post in the ECT section occasionally,....however I don't anymore (saving myself and other from trouble), having much more LIBERTY in the Religion section to frolick about.

Touting the 'Jesus is God' flag doesn't do much for me (seeing all sides of the jewel),...but conflates so much, and the 'criteria' to prove such a statement varies as do flavors at a yogurt shop. - its a virtual smorgasbord.





pj

 

[freelight]

Relationship includes a community of persons....

Relationship includes a community of persons....

I can hardly believe that someone can say Jesus is different than the Father, and say Jesus is separate from the Father!

The passages where Jesus speaks about his Father showing distinction of persons ought to clarify or dispel your allusion that there is no distinction or separation. The basic fact of dialogue between 2 persons from a human language perspective proves relationship between 2 personalities. Recognizing this in no way discounts or denies the spiritual unity Jesus shares with The Father as His Son. As long as the relational context exists between these 2 persons.....you've got a synergistic 2-way communion.


:surf:





pj

 

[Totton Linnet]

I always accepted the Lordship of Jesus Christ but I remember there was a special day when I became aware of God the Father in a new and distinct way, God's Fatherhood has been exceedingly precious to me since.

The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost, one God, three distinct Persons.

 

[God's Truth]

I always accepted the Lordship of Jesus Christ but I remember there was a special day when I became aware of God the Father in a new and distinct way, God's Fatherhood has been exceedingly precious to me since.

The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost, one God, three distinct Persons.

Distinct means 'different'. There is nothing distinct and different from God the Father and Jesus Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

Almost all these scriptures clearly show that Jesus is different/distinct from the Father in the very passages themselves. Its amazing that you cannot see that. Jesus claiming to be the REPRESENTATIVE of the Father, the one SENT by the Father, the one serving as the anointed AGENT of 'God'....shows Jesus to be separate/distinct from God, his Father.

It shows God came as a MAN. That is all it shows. Show me how they are different besides that. Try as you may, you cannot show your false beliefs.

​

Jesus is certainly the 'representative' of 'God'. This is basic English, the meaning of such language being 'relational'. Cramming Jesus into the Father...AS the Father is ridiculous, unless your assuming some kind of ethereal unity between the two, which is still 'vague' outside the clear relational duality of two persons being represented in the DIALOGUE.

Do you believe you are saved, yes or no?
Do you believe you have been given the Holy Spirit, yes or no?
Answer those questions and then we might be able to discuss more deeply.

Almost
Earth calling GT?

Did you grab hold of some of your mocker's evil spirits? You sound like your tormentors.

 

[daqq]

May I offer up an observation? I find you to be something of
a Knucklehead/Nitwit. I sincerely hope that doesn't offend
your sensibilities, however, I felt it needed to be said.

I would venture a guess and say, I think you're part of some
kind of cult? Now, you don't have to admit to it but, I think
I'm correct in my assumption. You sign into TOL as an, "Other"
that, in and of itself is a red flag.

Awe, how sweet and yet sour, a little baby serpent has broken through his shell. And his vine is of the vine of Sodom from the fields of Gomorrah; his grapes are grapes of gall, his clusters are bitter and sour: his wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. Is not this laid up in store with my heavenly Father and sealed up among His treasures? What is it you and your genos mean using this proverb, saying, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes; the children's teeth are set on edge"? As I Live, says Adonay YHWH, you shall no more have any occasion to use this proverb: Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sins, it shall die, (Ezekiel 18:2-4). For since Messiah Yeshua has come, and has renewed the Covenant, you can no more blame Adam for your disease: for the Father has said, Behold, the days come, says YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisrael, and with the house of Yhudah, (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). In those days they shall say no more, "The fathers have eaten a sour grape; the children's teeth are set on edge." But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every one that eats the sour grape, his own teeth shall be set on edge, (Jeremiah 31:29-30). And the next generation from the root of the of the serpent is a viper-adder; and the fruit of that generation shall be a fiery flying Seraph. Therefore heed the warning and bring forth the fruits of true repentance; for the axe is already laid to the root of the trees, and every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.

:sheep:

 

[freelight]

pancakes............

pancakes............

It shows God came as a MAN. That is all it shows. Show me how they are different besides that. Try as you may, you cannot show your false beliefs.

I clearly shared how Jesus and 'God' are different and distinct as 'personalities' from the fact of relational-language, two personalities communicating with one another, and common sense. - this is not just a 'belief' but an obversation of information in the text as 'evidence'. One can put their own 'spin' on things of course, and that's whats going on. - welcome to the information matrix. - pick a plug.

Do you believe you are saved, yes or no?
Do you believe you have been given the Holy Spirit, yes or no?
Answer those questions and then we might be able to discuss more deeply.

Well first, I don't identify as a 'Christian' currently here, but as "Other". I'm not limited, restricted or necessarily defined by any 'label' or 'denomination'. I also don't find your interrogation here relevant to the subject and points I've brought up, since that would only be more subjective grounds for your criticisms. Being quite familiar with Christian theology and experience qualifies me for 'deeper discussion', and my broader knowledge of religious philosophy and metaphysics expands the floor even more.

Did you grab hold of some of your mocker's evil spirits? You sound like your tormentors.

Do you have a sense of humor? - lighten up dear. "Earth calling GT" was just a cute little phrase,...to get a good giggle. I'd think some would find that funny as well, since I'm usually the one more 'ethereal' or 'cosmic' in some of my dissertations, it seeming I've become a bit more grounded on the earth.

I don't need Jesus to be 'God',....some do, hence all the apologetics and energy spent on this. Perhaps one's energy could be spent in more worthwhile projects. That Jesus represents 'God', is the AGENT of 'God' ir reveals 'God' to us....is enough. All else is spin, metaphysical gymnastics, point of view, preferential conclusion, or just a probably 'view' held currently, until better information or revelation comes along, provided one is actually open to LEARN more. - those 'stuck',...retard the process.




pj

 

[StanJ]

Thanks Stan,

Leave it to Lon to rouse the heretic-hunters to go a galloping A more liberal theologian as myself has fun on occasion with such types, but the usual noose or stronghold of dogma takes a toll on some, and you cant really have a 'creative dialogue' with them of substantial worth,...discussion has its exhaustion point.

I used to post in the ECT section occasionally,....however I don't anymore (saving myself and other from trouble), having much more LIBERTY in the Religion section to frolick about.

Touting the 'Jesus is God' flag doesn't do much for me (seeing all sides of the jewel),...but conflates so much, and the 'criteria' to prove such a statement varies as do flavors at a yogurt shop. - its a virtual smorgasbord.

Glad I could clarify for you, but please understand I am of the Trinitarian POV, but not necessarily of the ancient definition. How I understand and relate to our Triune God may be different than others or may not be.
After 44 years of studying God's Word AND submitting to authority over me, I am very convinced of the truth therein, and am NOT full of myself.

 

[God's Truth]

I clearly shared how Jesus and 'God' are different and distinct as 'personalities' from the fact of relational-language, two personalities communicating with one another, and common sense. - this is not just a 'belief' but an obversation of information in the text as 'evidence'. One can put their own 'spin' on things of course, and that's whats going on. - welcome to the information matrix. - pick a plug.

You have showed nothing about God and Jesus.

The topic is not whether or not Jesus is God and came as a Man. The issue is whether or not there is one God and that He is the Father, and if Jesus came as God the Father.

The answer is yes.

However, trinitarians say no. Trinitarians say Jesus is not God the Father.

The BIBLE SAYS there is only one God and that He is the Father.

Since there is only one God and He is the Father, and since Jesus Christ is God---then Jesus Christ must be that one God and Father.

Well first, I don't identify as a 'Christian' currently here, but as "Other". I'm not limited, restricted or necessarily defined by any 'label' or 'denomination'. I also don't find your interrogation here relevant to the subject and points I've brought up, since that would only be more subjective grounds for your criticisms. Being quite familiar with Christian theology and experience qualifies me for 'deeper discussion', and my broader knowledge of religious philosophy and metaphysics expands the floor even more.

Since you want to try to correct me, then you are the one who must speak to me according to the written Word of God as in the Holy Bible.

So then, tell me, do you believe you are saved? Do you believe you have the Holy Spirit living inside your heart? Just answer yes or no to those questions and then we can proceed to speak deeper.

Do you have a sense of humor? - lighten up dear. "Earth calling GT" was just a cute little phrase,...to get a good giggle. I'd think some would find that funny as well, since I'm usually the one more 'ethereal' or 'cosmic' in some of my dissertations, it seeming I've become a bit more grounded on the earth.

I don't need Jesus to be 'God',....some do, hence all the apologetics and energy spent on this. Perhaps one's energy could be spent in more worthwhile projects. That Jesus represents 'God', is the AGENT of 'God' ir reveals 'God' to us....is enough. All else is spin, metaphysical gymnastics, point of view, preferential conclusion, or just a probably 'view' held currently, until better information or revelation comes along, provided one is actually open to LEARN more. - those 'stuck',...retard the process.

Stop being stuck then and discuss with me.
As for your question on whether or not I have a sense of humor…are you amused by GM and others like him? No? Then stop acting as he does.

 

[aikido7]

Since the church "got hitched" to the Roman Empire Christians are bound to acknowledge Jesus as God. There was a huge conflict about how Jesus was to be regarded, and the Roman Emperor Constantine convened a huge meeting in Turkey and commanded all the Christian bishops in the land to attend and hammer out a solution.

One side saw Jesus as human and the other side saw him as God.

The conference ended up splitting the difference: Jesus was both, even though such a concept was logically and rationally impossible.

 

[StanJ]

Since the church "got hitched" to the Roman Empire Christians are bound to acknowledge Jesus as God. There was a huge conflict about how Jesus was to be regarded, and the Roman Emperor Constantine convened a huge meeting in Turkey and commanded all the Christian bishops in the land to attend and hammer out a solution.
One side saw Jesus as human and the other side saw him as God.
The conference ended up splitting the difference: Jesus was both, even though such a concept was logically and rationally impossible.

You give far too much credence to the RCC influence and not very much to the Biblical influence.
Logic and rational are dependent on men. God is NOT dependent on mans rational or logic.

 

[freelight]

A fair playing field.............

A fair playing field.............

You have showed nothing about God and Jesus.

I previously demonstrated the obvious, and that most of the passages you quoted certainly DO show that Jesus spoke of his Father as a different/distinct 'person', and that by the rules of English language and its descriptive meaning. Jesus was speaking as a man, describing his relationship to the Infinite Invisible God (The Father), maintaining such a 'relationship' (2 personalities in communion).

The topic is not whether or not Jesus is God and came as a Man. The issue is whether or not there is one God and that He is the Father, and if Jesus came as God the Father.

That's where the confusion begins, in first 'assuming' Jesus is 'God', then having to by that prefigured logic 'assume' that then Jesus must be the Father. This is illogical and unnecessary, while we still hold of course that there is only One 'God' and 'Father' of all (including Jesus).

The answer is yes.

However, trinitarians say no. Trinitarians say Jesus is not God the Father.

The BIBLE SAYS there is only one God and that He is the Father.

Since there is only one God and He is the Father, and since Jesus Christ is God---then Jesus Christ must be that one God and Father.

It doesn't necessarily follow however that because The Father is 'God', that Jesus MUST be too,...just because you insist he has to be 'God'. - Why insist on such a proposition? Prove that its 'necessary'. There is much support beyond rational/logic that Jesus is the 'Son' of 'God', a 'person' unique and distinct from God his Father.

Since you want to try to correct me, then you are the one who must speak to me according to the written Word of God as in the Holy Bible.

Theologians, philosophers, laymen have for centuries been debating over what the scriptures say and chosen to guard and assume their own 'interpretations' of such. I'm not trying to correct you, but clarifying a rational/logical position of Jesus relationship with 'God', his Father. All the various Christologies, views of Jesus 'humanity' and 'divinity' (mix, match, splice and dice those elements as you wish) ALL used the 'Bible' for their 'proof-texts'. So,..just saying show me 'passages' doesn't do much, because I could just as well spit out many passages.

So then, tell me, do you believe you are saved?

I don't see the term 'saved' as having much meaning to me at this point, as such a term can be variously defined, while the fact of the matter is that 'salvation' is a continual process in one's life, and not just looking at some point in the past when one suddenly got 'saved', for such is still just an intellectual assumption by 'faith' anyways,...when one's condition and state of being NOW is what is real and pertinent. So I don't buy sporting around any 'saved' card. "those who endure to the end,...are saved".

Do you believe you have the Holy Spirit living inside your heart?

Yes. 'God', the omnipresent One indwells the souls of all mortals as well as fills the entirety of the cosmos all at once. God is Spirit.

Just answer yes or no to those questions and then we can proceed to speak deeper.

Again, you're attempting to qualify the parameters or content of our discussion instead of just taking it head on, considering all points in context.

Stop being stuck then and discuss with me.

I see your reflecting my comment back towards me. Tactic noted
On that note, I meant that one can become 'stuck', and being stuck retards one's spiritual progress or intellectual growth. That was all. I try to remain as conscious as possible, ever open and adaptable to learn, expand, revise or correct my views....if better information or revelation appears. Such demands intellectual honesty. I share what views come to the fore, and am open to test them. I admit some things I don't absolutely know, and some things seem more probable, reasonable and sound than others. In this purview,....all points of view are subject to change.

As for your question on whether or not I have a sense of humor…are you amused by GM and others like him? No? Then stop acting as he does.

I have GM on ignore for good reason,....and my style and approach is quite different than his, which is continual trolling, jest, making fun and ridiculing. If you think I'm acting like him, then you have more going for you than I suspected

From a higher cosmic view, all these discussions mean little (being 'relative'), being but points of view across an endless and infinite sky of unlimited possibility and potential. 'God' is doing just fine without all the little ego's vying for his attention to represent him correctly (making 'images' thereby)....as each peek thru their little kaleidoscopes, to make their forecasts :sherlock:





pj