God's Truth
New member
Last edited:
The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
lifeisgood
New member
Foolish, foolish woman. And foolish by choice. What a shame.
lifeisgood
New member
Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work at the Cross of Calvary and He placing me in Him.
lifeisgood
New member
Did you have your coffee yet?
lifeisgood
New member
It's actually scriptural.
John: 9. 31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36. He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37. And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 39. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Hebrews: 10. 17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20. By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21. And having an high priest over the house of God; 22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised24. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
I could literally use any section of the Bible you would like to show the truth that was given to us.
You are wrong if you thing GOD will accept the knowing sinner into HIS abode.
Oh, foolish, foolish man if you are a man. Oh, foolish, foolish woman, as gt, if you are a woman.
Where in what glorydaz said did she say what YOU concluded? You should get off gt's gravy train, is not good for your comprehension.
lifeisgood
New member
What did you have for breakfast. You should check it out the chemicals are getting to your comprehension brain.
Yes, you are goofy.
You teach that what Jesus said is for all. Not me.
So which is it, GT, is all of what Jesus said during His earthly ministry intended for everyone? Or is all of what He said NOT intended for everyone?
I teach that what Jesus said to Israel was meant for Israel, and that what He gave to Paul to preach to the world was meant for the world.
NWL
Active member
Spoiler
You've changed your argument, I made a reply to your statement of "Neither does he [Jesus] state that the Son of God is anything less than God". I stated this was bad reasoning since to say "Jesus never claim the being the Son of God was anything less that God" is to open a whole can of worms regarding the things never denied. NOW you've switched it to "Jesus never denied being God" which is completely different to the statement "Jesus never claim the being the Son of God was anything less that God".
I have no qualms with you stating never denied being God in John chapter 10 according to your KJV version. I do have an issue with your previous statement of "Neither does he [Jesus] state that the Son of God is anything less than God", you're in effect saying Jesus never denied that "Son of God" and "God" are synonymous.
Thus I stick to what I said originally, your previous statement WAS ridiculous.
As we have discussed previously the those things are in relation to Melchizedek, the only attribute that Jesus and Melchizedek share are that they are both high priest for all time. To claim that all those things ascribed to Melchizedek also relate to Jesus is reading your thoughts into the text.
I speak modern English, thus the understanding of words and phrases along with the default bagagge those words and phrases carry is where I derive my detentions. What definitions do you believe I am making up or was that just a sweeping statement?
Yes I am well aware of this. The fact that Jesus is the only begotten son of God supports my understadning not your, Jesus was created by the Father and thus was begotten. The Greek term for "only begotten" is "monogenés" which litreally means "offspring". We can see this by Rev. 22:16 “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel...I am the root and the monogenés/offspring of David". Rev 22:16 uses the Greek word "genos" the derivative of "monogenés". Just for record in Greek the word for "only" is "monon" and again the word for "offspring" is "genos", to say "only offspring" you don't use the two said separate words but rather the term "monogenés" (monon genos - only offspring) which is a combination of both.
By saying Jesus is the "only begotten son" is to say Jesus is the "only offspring Son of the Fater" which is exactly what the Bible teaches, that the Father only created Jesus and then the Father created all other things not himself but through Jesus.
My understanding of the term "son" is based on what "son" means in English, I know of no other definition other than what someone who speaks English would understand the word.
It makes no sense for God to randomly switch from the Father to calling himself the Son, God does not change. Moreover, the Son is not the creator the Father is, as shown to you previously the Father created the world through his son, this is undeniable. See Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6.
What Psalms? I thought we already established Jesus was talking about the 82 Psalm, was he not. You keep saying the same thing, you keep ignoring my question, where does Jesus state he was the God of Psalms 82?? It certainly wasn't by the words "are you not gods" in John 10:34, so where does he claim it?
As already stated Paul doesn't state Jesus is without "beginning or end of days, or end of life, without father or mother" he states those things in relation to Melchizedek. Again the only thing Jesus shared in common with Melchizedek was that he was high priest forever like him. If you keep insisting on claiming those things were said in regards to Jesus I'm going to have to ask for you to show me where its states they're in relation to Jesus. From Hebrews 7 the only thing I can see Paul saying how Melchizedek resembled Jesus was that he "remains a priest forever". Again, your believe system is ridduled in assumptions, you've assumed the epithets of Melchizedek apply to Jesus even though the text does not say it.
I don't get what john 1:1-14 proves? Jesus is called the only-begotten son many times in scriptures what does this change in relation to anything I've said?
Where? Certainly not by John 1:1b? I think I've mentioned before but "the word was God" in John 1:1b is only one possible translations of John 1:1b. When looking at the context however it is clear its not correct, since the Word, if God, cannot be the God whom he is with whilst there reaming only one God.
Again you believe in One God, John 1:1 states the word was with God and then states the Word was with God. The word cannot be with God if the Word is God, its a contradiction. However since the the term God or theos lacks the article "ho" that typically amounts to renderings "God" capital G it is 100% possible that John 1:1b is translated "a god", this is undeniable, you will be hard pressed to find any modern scholars who state its grammatically incorrect to translate John 1:1b this way, many translations have this rendering.
With this all in mind, John does NOT state that God is the only begotten Son.
The bible doesn't further definitions of the terms "Son of God", this is simply how God chose to identify Jesus as, so you are correct. However, and as I've said, I'm understanding the text how they've been translated into English today. Translators use words to convey the best meaning of the original writers words. When they choose to translate "Huios tou Theou" as "Son of God" I'm going to understand that the same way as I would understand Prince Charles (in the UK) being the "Son of Elizabeth". If Charles is the Son of Elizabeth, then Charles can't be Elizabeth or the Queen since he is the Son of Elizabeth. This is me using plain English along with the default meaning and baggage the words demand and applying it to the Bible.
I know of no other way to understand words other than to understand them by their everyday meaning. Would you disagree with this?
If Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus replied "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them claiming to be the same type of god as them be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?
If thief "A" steals $100 from an old lady on the street, thief "B" then steals the $100 from the same old lady and thief A see's this. Thief A then accuses thief B of being a thief and states he will call the police on him because he has committed a crime. Thief B then says to Thief A "Why are you snitching, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
Jacob is talking to God, asking Him to bless Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manassah.
Can an angel bless someone? Or is it God that does that? Can an angel redeem someone? Or is it God that redeems?
Clearly he is not talking about an angel, but THE Angel, the Angel of the LORD.
...
Interestingly enough... These two verses seem to symbolically describe the Trinity quite well.
God who walked with the fathers of Israel, God the Father.
God who kept Jacob fed his whole life, God the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
And the Angel who redeemed Jacob from all evil, the Angel of the LORD Himself, Jesus Christ.
An Angel by the decree of God can bless people and can save people, there is no such scripture that states that only God directly can bless or redeem people. You would firstly have to show me where the Bible applies such limitations on angels prior assuming your view it correct.
You ignored my point, so answer me this, according to Hebrews 1:1,2 when did God start speaking by means of Jesus Christ, was in the OT or in the 1CE when Jesus came to Earth?
(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 And now at the end of these days he has spoken to us ]by means of his Son.."
Right Divider
Body part
Stop LYING about what I'm saying.
I did NOT say that God "can only be a person".
Right Divider
Body part
Are you so ignorant that you don't know that a Father is a person?
Or that a Son is a person?
The Father and the Son have a PERSONAL relationship.
Veritas veritate
New member
The image includes all three parts. Other animals do not have a soul, and therefore are not made in the image of God. It's not the Bonjovi song where "two out of three ain't bad."
As far as Angels are concerned, you are inferring that the Bible implies they are made in the image of God. There is no scripture that says outright that they are. Animals also make choices, so that is a weak argument. It is all that we are that is in the image of God, not just a part. Christ is the express image of God, we are a dim image of God, angels and animals do not have a scriptural connection to the Image of God.
God is a triune being, not three separate beings; because, if the trinity was three separate beings, it would necessitate that two of them would have to be contingent upon the third.
And again, the word image necessitates that there is something tangible to see.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
popsthebuilder
New member
It seems the vast majority think they can be both sinners and saved.
Jesus outright repeatedly said otherwise.
The Holy Spirit and the selfless conscience both affirm otherwise.
All of scripture says otherwise.
But the vast majority have been veiled by greedy people in high places.
Anyone who might think it wise to not follow the masses to destruction might ought to consider reading and comprehending for themselves while actively conscious of one's one bias, self deceit, and motives. I am not accusing any of anything.
So what do you all promote if not continued knowing sin and too salvation?
Please do explain it to me, and while you are at it you can explain how Jesus being the literal utter fullness of GOD while in the flesh isn't equal to saying that he sent himself as a blood sacrifice to himself.
Such a thick haze over the land of the lost that they can't even see the utter blasphemy and nonsense they unintentionally espouse.
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
Seriously? As in disbelief at that question, seriously?
No, it does not. DIAGRAM THE SENTENCE. Where is the verb part of that sentence? It's "bless" as in "bless the lads." Who is doing the blessing?
Or are you going to go off in a wannabe-Trinitarian-way on me and say that Jacob is praying to three DIFFERENT persons? God, God the 2nd, and a random created angel?
Gen 48:15-16
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
(16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
There is one subject, clarified in three different ways. There is only one Verb. This necessitates equivalence.
Besides this, theologically, does a mere created angel have the power to bless? Should Jacob be praying to created angels, or the Father of Spirits?
I said before that you are relying on fracturing normal sentences, but this is getting ridiculous.
lifeisgood
New member
Nobody is promoting to keep on sinning. You just don't understand Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary and He placing us in Him.
No. The Lord Jesus Christ is God. And she is His Church.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Just keep assuming I'm assuming things.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I am dead to sin. It's impossible to "continue in knowing sin" when one has been delivered from the law and has been created IN CHRIST. I realize it's frustrating for the natural man to hear these facts. Rather than get angry at me, though, you should spend time in the word of God and pray for understanding.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:thumb: