God swore by "Himself" or (Logos) as early as Gn. 22:16
Nothing new in what you have posted. It's the same God (Logos) that God swears by and don't ya know that Father and Son are ONE?
Nontrinitarian "Christians" are a paradox
- Thread starter jsanford108
- Start date
God swore by "Himself" or (Logos) as early as Gn. 22:16
Nothing new in what you have posted. It's the same God (Logos) that God swears by and don't ya know that Father and Son are ONE?
marhig
Well-known member
Jesus isn't God EE, and we are at one with them when we are born of God.
John 17
That they all may be one; as thou, Father,*art*in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:*I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Right I'm off to make dinner.
Then Jesus is a false god, because the apostles call him Lord, God, Savior.
popsthebuilder
New member
Perhaps you can answer why GOD would manifest itself in human form to be a blood sacrifice for itself so that man can go along in sin.
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
jsanford108
New member
God would not manifest Himself into human form so that man could sin. That is a perversion of my argument. And the easiest response to that is: "He came not into the world to condemn the world; but so that the world through Him might be saved."
In fact... the attack that you just received is addressed in Galatians. I wonder if Paul was ever attacked with that argument?
He most assuredly had a ready answer...
Gal. 2:17
Imagine that? You're getting attacked with the same words that Paul got attacked with. : )
He said the Father was in Him as He was in the Father. His Head is the Father. Ours is supposed to be Jesus, because if we say our Head is the Father... we are saying we have "The Face of God".
Allow me to be blunt... Jesus is God. Jesus is the Highest name that all knees will bow to. Will God bow to Jesus? And salvation is by Jesus (God) alone! You are teaching people to Deny Jesus and thus their salvation. You are damning people with your teachings.
# That's the truth about the TRUTH!
Another outright lie because it was just shown to you in your own thread and you know you are misquoting the scripture. We bow TO the Father IN Messiah or IN Messiah TO the glory of the Father and that is exactly what the passage says that you have intentionally misrepresented and misquoted, old serpent, why do you wish to damn people?
Philippians 2:10-11 W/H
10 ινα εν τω ονοματι ιησου παν γονυ καμψη επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων
11 και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησηται οτι κυριος ιησους χριστος εις δοξαν θεου πατρος
εν = in
εις = to
Philippians 2:10-11 ASV
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Your lie is clearly intentional because this was just shown to you . . .
Liar, liar, panties on fire! :rotfl:
popsthebuilder
New member
That's fair. Let me reword it please; then perhaps you can attempt to answer.
Why would GOD manifest GOD in utter fullness yet in flesh in order to be a blood sacrifice for GOD? How does this occurrence pay for the sin of man?
How is it that the Christ of GOD is the utter fullness of GOD as man when he is said to b the way to GOD and the spotless lamb of GOD?
To be clear; I donot deny that the Christ and GOD are now one and the same omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, Creator GOD.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
jsanford108
New member
Okay. Makes sense now. Thank you for the clarification.
The answer with your questions is simple, He is God. Limitless and unrestricted. I know this seems to be a circular method of reasoning, but allow me to explain further.
Why would God....: Because God, being all knowing, knows that man could never perfect himself. He knows that man, left to his own device, will surely damn himself. One has to look no further than the beginnings of the Old Testament to see evidence of this. Even Lot's wife looked back because she longed more for the world than for God. So why would God manifest Himself in a fully human state? To fulfill what no other could.
How is that Christ....: As stated before, one is left with only three options. Either Christ is a deity, Christ is a human, or Christ is fully God/Man. If Christ is a deity, He could not fulfill the Old Covenant. Thereby, when He says that that is what He is doing, then He is a liar. If Christ is a human, He is a blasphemer, for claiming that He "and the Father are One." As well as all of His "I Am" declarations. If Christ is part deity/man, then He is a demigod and both the above are once again true. The only logical option left is that Christ is fully God/Man.
With this third option, how can this be? First, if Christ is fully God, He would be eternal and have all the attributes of God. Second, by being God, His claims of being One and "I Am" are not not blasphemous, but true. Third, by having all the attributes of God, He would be limitless. Hence, His ability to do all that which He did. Fourth, the transfiguration upon the mount makes perfect sense and clarifies Christ's being. And finally, by being fully human, He can fulfill the Old Covenant, and by being God, have the authority to create a New and eternal Covenant.
My last point is perhaps the most important. From that, much can be extrapolated. By being God, He has authority. The New Covenant is open to all people, yes? If Christ were not God, He would not have this authority. He would be in contradiction with God, who established the Old Covenant. By being fully human, He can fulfill the Old Covenant, enabling the creation of a new one. It is only with Christ being fully God/Man (aka, the hypostatic union) that the crucifixion and resurrection can have any eternal impact. And through Christ can salvation be extended to all people.
Last edited:
Was Jesus always and eternal? Do eternal ones die?
popsthebuilder
New member
That's quite the elaborate explanation friend; and to be honest it doesn't explain much. Remember I asked why, not if GOD could. I donot deny that GOD is without limit and could indeed without effort manifest itself in human form if it so desired.
So again; why would GOD need to sacrifice itself for itself? And an omnipotent omniscient eternal spirit cannot die, or it wouldn't be omnipotent or eternal.
If your answer is so that man can be directed towards what is good and right or that they might find salvation then why must Jesus the savior and anointed of GOD have to be the utter fullness of GOD while man, for either of those things to be true?
Lastly the spirit of GOD is within all creation. The spirit of GOD is too eternal. The Christ's vessel being utterly filled with the Holy Spirit would indeed manifest such truths as he stated.
Anyway....Perhaps we can just answer that first question logically and simply; as the truths of GOD are indeed simple and not of confusion. Then maybe we can move forward.
Thank you for not considering this an attack on your belief, as it is surely counted towards your faith and as such righteousness.
peace sincerely
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Jesus, his humanity and divinity.......
Jesus, his humanity and divinity.......
Hello jsanford,
Thank you,....my original response to your OP still holds here, with our other threads (links) on the Unitarian/Trinitarian debates where many of my own commentaries are
- if you've read enough of my 'Christological' views, I dont see any major problem or dogmatic insistence upon any particular view although I currently hold a more Unitarian view for the sake of practicality and simplicity, as being more in sync with Jewish Monotheism. But I'm very eclectic in my Christology and see all points of view, some views being more tenable or logical within various contexts, while the view that is best IMO, is that which is most consistent as weighed by reason, logic, intelligence, conscience, spiritual discernment and wisdom. There are fine scholars, teachers, theologians of both Unitarian and Trinitarian schools,...and also more liberal ones of different schools, who honor Jesus just as well.
I do see how the 'hypostatic union' can appear to resolve things for trinitarian per their 'theology', as explaining how he fulfills messianic prophecies in the OT as assumed or interpreted in the NT. It still holds that the Jewish Messiah is to be a human descendant of David, and will rule on David's throne, he may even have children, and is not expected to be a demi-god, much less YHWH himself!, - in traditional orthodox Judaism, this concept is foreign to them, just as YHWH being a Trinity, is unthinkable to an orthodox Jew. I'm all for innovations and progressive revelation, of course...but just saying, for Jews to accept their Messiah being 'God in the flesh' (literally/actually)...and that he will be that in the Messianic Age....will be a major shock to their very culture, their whole theology.
I will add that your mention of Jesus needing to be a "human sacrifice" can be debated, as human sacrifice is forbidden in the Tanakh, and its taught in many passages that another person cannot atone for the sins of anyone else, neither can their 'righteousness' be transferred to anyone else. Each are reponsible for their own sins and salvation,....each must REPENT themselves and turn to God...this is the only true WAY. - outward ritual sacrifices may help compliment or illustrate the gesture of surrender or sacrificing the self, in its yielding to God, but without the true repentance within the soul, an inner tranformation....the blood of bulls, goats, rams,...even the blood of a demi-god or angel...will not avail. - we can consider various symbolic meanings about the blood, as it relates to 'life-force', 'substance' and 'vitality' as a physical picture of something 'spiritual' in nature, but such remain 'figurative' metaphors.
Hence I explain elsewhere that my view does not discount or dishonor the blood of Jesus, its just a matter of understanding it symbolically, as a matter of faith anyways. YOU must still exercise faith, repent and turn to God. There is no substitute for this, as long as you can do this.
See the thread, 'Atonement without blood according to Freelight'
The 'I Am' statements can be explained within a Unitarian framework. None of the I Am's necessarily prove or even point to Jesus so called divinity, and we've even contested John 8:58 in older threads. Also,...in context when Jesus said he and his Father were one, he also prayed in his high-priestly prayer that we be 'one' with him and the Father,...in like unity of purpose, will, spirit, agreement. While the oneness that Jesus shared with the Father as the Firstborn or Only Begotten may be special and unique kind of sonship,....the statement "I and my Father' are one, can still be had within a Unitarian understanding.
But certain complications come with such a 'con-fusion' in any case.
Granted its admitted the 'incarnation' is a divine and human mystery, some would not accept the logic of a fully human and fully God 'being'...being a possibility. It appears to defy logic, raionale or possibility to some....to have a person being 100% one thing, while being also 100% another thing, so to speak. However, this subtle 'compound unity' does seem to ALLOW trinitarians to have their cake and eat it too - this way, one can allow Jesus to have the full potentials and privileges of humanity and divinity at once - ah,....it sounds pretty awesome, but is this philosopically sound or tenable? I merely ask the questions.
Oh and do note that Jesus in his humanity was already pure as a lamb so to speak,....so wouldn't really need to be 'divine' in any sense, Christologically speaking....to be the lamb of God. - we still question though the 'blood atonement' assumption that God demanded BLOOD in order to forgive, buy back or pay a debt of some kind,...some challenge this notion.
In the curious confusion of a totally human and divine Jesus, I dont think any attribute is being denied so much to be jumbled together as one, so its a fully loaded conclusion of any and all human and divine possibilities. - in a Christological sense an Arian, Semi-arian or Trinitarian view (and others) are possible and each school would have their logical supports, philosophical reasons and proof-texts. Therefore its a matter of what 'criteria' one is using to judge the validity, probability or soundness of any given particular view, and that may vary per person or cult.
Jesus, his humanity and divinity.......
Hello jsanford,
Thank you,....my original response to your OP still holds here, with our other threads (links) on the Unitarian/Trinitarian debates where many of my own commentaries are
- if you've read enough of my 'Christological' views, I dont see any major problem or dogmatic insistence upon any particular view although I currently hold a more Unitarian view for the sake of practicality and simplicity, as being more in sync with Jewish Monotheism. But I'm very eclectic in my Christology and see all points of view, some views being more tenable or logical within various contexts, while the view that is best IMO, is that which is most consistent as weighed by reason, logic, intelligence, conscience, spiritual discernment and wisdom. There are fine scholars, teachers, theologians of both Unitarian and Trinitarian schools,...and also more liberal ones of different schools, who honor Jesus just as well.I do see how the 'hypostatic union' can appear to resolve things for trinitarian per their 'theology', as explaining how he fulfills messianic prophecies in the OT as assumed or interpreted in the NT. It still holds that the Jewish Messiah is to be a human descendant of David, and will rule on David's throne, he may even have children, and is not expected to be a demi-god, much less YHWH himself!, - in traditional orthodox Judaism, this concept is foreign to them, just as YHWH being a Trinity, is unthinkable to an orthodox Jew. I'm all for innovations and progressive revelation, of course...but just saying, for Jews to accept their Messiah being 'God in the flesh' (literally/actually)...and that he will be that in the Messianic Age....will be a major shock to their very culture, their whole theology.
I will add that your mention of Jesus needing to be a "human sacrifice" can be debated, as human sacrifice is forbidden in the Tanakh, and its taught in many passages that another person cannot atone for the sins of anyone else, neither can their 'righteousness' be transferred to anyone else. Each are reponsible for their own sins and salvation,....each must REPENT themselves and turn to God...this is the only true WAY. - outward ritual sacrifices may help compliment or illustrate the gesture of surrender or sacrificing the self, in its yielding to God, but without the true repentance within the soul, an inner tranformation....the blood of bulls, goats, rams,...even the blood of a demi-god or angel...will not avail. - we can consider various symbolic meanings about the blood, as it relates to 'life-force', 'substance' and 'vitality' as a physical picture of something 'spiritual' in nature, but such remain 'figurative' metaphors.
Hence I explain elsewhere that my view does not discount or dishonor the blood of Jesus, its just a matter of understanding it symbolically, as a matter of faith anyways. YOU must still exercise faith, repent and turn to God. There is no substitute for this, as long as you can do this.
See the thread, 'Atonement without blood according to Freelight'
The 'I Am' statements can be explained within a Unitarian framework. None of the I Am's necessarily prove or even point to Jesus so called divinity, and we've even contested John 8:58 in older threads. Also,...in context when Jesus said he and his Father were one, he also prayed in his high-priestly prayer that we be 'one' with him and the Father,...in like unity of purpose, will, spirit, agreement. While the oneness that Jesus shared with the Father as the Firstborn or Only Begotten may be special and unique kind of sonship,....the statement "I and my Father' are one, can still be had within a Unitarian understanding.
But certain complications come with such a 'con-fusion' in any case.
Granted its admitted the 'incarnation' is a divine and human mystery, some would not accept the logic of a fully human and fully God 'being'...being a possibility. It appears to defy logic, raionale or possibility to some....to have a person being 100% one thing, while being also 100% another thing, so to speak. However, this subtle 'compound unity' does seem to ALLOW trinitarians to have their cake and eat it too
- this way, one can allow Jesus to have the full potentials and privileges of humanity and divinity at once - ah,....it sounds pretty awesome, but is this philosopically sound or tenable? I merely ask the questions.Oh and do note that Jesus in his humanity was already pure as a lamb so to speak,....so wouldn't really need to be 'divine' in any sense, Christologically speaking....to be the lamb of God. - we still question though the 'blood atonement' assumption that God demanded BLOOD in order to forgive, buy back or pay a debt of some kind,...some challenge this notion.
In the curious confusion of a totally human and divine Jesus, I dont think any attribute is being denied so much to be jumbled together as one, so its a fully loaded conclusion of any and all human and divine possibilities. - in a Christological sense an Arian, Semi-arian or Trinitarian view (and others) are possible and each school would have their logical supports, philosophical reasons and proof-texts. Therefore its a matter of what 'criteria' one is using to judge the validity, probability or soundness of any given particular view, and that may vary per person or cult.
popsthebuilder
New member
[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]
That was very well written and unbiased. Conveying sound points all while not disregarding the beliefs or perspectives of others.
I know it wasn't for me, but felt compelled to note that it was overall an outstanding post in my opinion.
Not flattering; it was indeed noteworthy.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
That was very well written and unbiased. Conveying sound points all while not disregarding the beliefs or perspectives of others.
I know it wasn't for me, but felt compelled to note that it was overall an outstanding post in my opinion.
Not flattering; it was indeed noteworthy.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Yeah....whoopsFreeflight?
that is a cute nickname.
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Unbiased? Really?
Urantians believe Christ is the human incarnation of Michael of Nebadon, one of many creator sons.
popsthebuilder
New member
I don't know what a urantian is. I was simply responding to the post I had read that was both concise and unbiased in my opinion.
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
marhig
Well-known member
EE, I'll tell you which teaching damns people, teaching them that they can still wilfully sin and all will be ok with God because Jesus had done it all for them! This is a false teaching from the father of lies, Satan. With his "even if you sin you you shall not surely die but be saved" this is not the truth. Sin brings forth death!
I hear people talking about whether Jesus is God etc. But we rarely hear people teach that we are to live by the will of God, which is one of Jesus' core teachings! He even went as far as to say that those who don't live by the will of God are in danger of being told to depart from him and that they are workers of iniquity.
We can know all the Hebrew, Greek and know every word of the Bible off by heart, but that means nothing if our hearts are wrong before God. God wants a clean heart within us, and this is obtained through Christ by the Spirit, and as the Spirit teaches us and shows us our sins, then we are to turn from them and do Gods will. God wants to see Christ in us, and that's not possible if our hearts are still filled with fleshly lusts!
So don't come telling me that I'm damning people for believing in and saying that Jesus isn't God, as nowhere in the Bible does it say that we must believe that Jesus is God. We are taught to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that's what I believe and speak. I'm speaking what's in the Bible EE. Not some false Trinitarian doctrine made up by a group of men!
If I'm baring false witness, and damning people for saying that Jesus isn't God. Then show me in the Bible where it says that we must believe that Jesus is God? God would not have left out something so important.
If it's not there, then don't tell me I have to believe it as it's a false teaching!