The Trinity

[lifeisgood]

Thank you gt for the neg rep.

You always learn something from neg reps:

Oh, foolish, foolish woman. You can't stand that Christ Jesus does not need you to save you, do you.

You who so vociferously say you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments and then when asked confess (but does not repent) that you do not obey all of them, and then keeps on demanding that all follow your flawed confessed and not repented example.

 

[marhig]

James 1:12-15 KJV
(12) Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
(13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Marhig, we both know that words can circle about all day if we persist. As per the relevant passage in James 1, verse 13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. It then goes on to define what it means by being tempted, and one that is tempted in that manner sins and brings forth death.

Do you mean to say that Jesus was tempted with evil as per the passage in James 1:13-14 above?
a) No, Jesus was not tempted with evil, as he was without spot or sin
b) Yes, Jesus was tempted with evil, he succumbed to his lusts, and brought forth sin and death

I believe that Satan is evil and Jesus was tempted by him.

By the way, I don't believe that Jesus is God, but the son of the living God, as it says in the Bible.

God can't be tempted, Jesus was tempted, Jesus isn't God.

 

[Rosenritter]

Pops, do you understand that the word "tempt" has different meaning dependent upon context?

Middle English: from Old French tempter ‘to test,’ from Latin temptare ‘handle, test, try.’

The whole "God is not God because he was tempted" theme depends on switching the definitions mid argument. If you are going to use the passage in James, then apply the definition James gives consistently.

The definition James gives of "God cannot be tempted with evil" is to "drawn away of his own lust, enticed, bringing forth sin, and finally death." This does not apply to God or Christ, who are sinless, and the authors of life.

James 1:14-15 KJV
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


God and Jesus do not full under this category of being tempted to evil. This passage in James was never intended to contrast God and Christ in that regard, and it worries me to see anyone giving a bad argument the time of day. There are several different meanings for the word "tempt" and the Unitarian ploy keeps switching them around like peas under cups.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
(15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


If you want to mean "tempt" as in "someone tried to provoke or persuade to evil" then yes, God and Jesus were tempted.
If you want to mean "tempt" as in "succumbed to influence to do that which was evil" then no, God and Jesus were not tempted.

Pick a definition and stay with it for the sake of honest argument, please.

 

[Rosenritter]

I believe that Satan is evil and Jesus was tempted by him.

By the way, I don't believe that Jesus is God, but the son of the living God, as it says in the Bible.

As it says in the Bible a couple dozen other ways besides this, Jesus is our God.

John 20:28 KJV(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

God can't be tempted, Jesus was tempted, Jesus isn't God.

Please come clean on the word game angle. If you keep swapping the definition in and out you can make it say anything. God was tempted, Jesus was tempted, neither was tempted in the sense given by James when it says "God cannot be tempted with evil."

Exodus 17:7 KJV
(7) And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

Deuteronomy 6:16 KJV
(16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

 

[marhig]

I never said Satan did not tempt Jesus, and the Bible doesn't say that people don't tempt God. What I am doing is focusing on a misuse of scripture that wrests the self-contained meaning of James words to deny the person of God and Christ.

I am well aware of a Unitarian argument that says "God cannot be tempted, Jesus was tempted, therefore Jesus is not God" - and at its root it's a flimsy piece of sophistry.

1) The Bible does not say God is not tempted. It says God has been tempted.
2) The Bible does say that God is not tempted with evil. And then it defines "tempted" in that context to mean sinning unto death.

I'm challenging you, and Pops, or anyone else here to at least be consistent with your argument. If you want to claim that "Jesus was tempted, therefore cannot be God" then by the same passage you're using for that, your assessment also means Jesus sinned unto death. Because the defined meaning of "tempted" in James 1:13 is successfully tempted into sin.

Pick a stance and be consistent please.

Why would using that passage mean that Jesus sinned unto death, being tempted doesn't mean that he sinned. Jesus was tempted like we are, but he never sinned once that's the difference!

In the Bible it actually says that Jesus was tempted in all points we are, so if that's true he would have experienced what we do, the difference is, Jesus never sinned once, we do!

I believe he had more power in him than you and GT give him credit for. He could spot Satan a mile off, Satan could have tempted him all day long of he wanted to, but it would have been no use, because Jesus could see him everywhere and denied him.

That's the difference between being born of God and not, those born of God receive spiritual discernment, and they should be able to see Satan more and more as they grow stronger in God. That's why I talk about wilful sining. We should be able to see when we're being tempted a lot more now. When we didn't know God, Satan would have been able to use us much more,(or sift us as wheat as Jesus put it to Peter) toss us to and fro at his will. But once we walk in the Spirit, then the Spirit should be guiding us in the truth and showing us what sin is daily and we will see when we are being tempted, not only through others but in our own hearts once our flesh lusts for something we should be able to start to nip it in the bud before it grows, and all done through Christ with the help of the Spirit helping us to overcome daily and Jesus was our perfect example.

But there are times when I do things and I don't realise it, I go in head first without thinking. Or a wrong thought comes into my head and I've sinned and I know that I have to fight it when I realise what I've done and then go to God ask for help, and say sorry, and put it right if I can and I couldn't do this either without God's help. Jesus was totally different to me, he had the full power of the Spirit because he completely lived by the will of God, and the father never left him because he did all that pleased him, and he never let a wrong thought in or did a wrong deed, he was far stronger than Satan. That is why he is our perfect example to follow, because he didn't have a spot or blemish. And this is what James means when he talks of true and undefiled religion is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their infliction and to remain unspotted from the world. he means to turn from this world and to turn from sin.

Also, people think that I mean my own works, but I couldn't obey God if I didn't know him, and I couldn't do any works of God if God isn't working on my heart first. But I know that those born of God, should be carrying out the works that God does within, outwardly and we should be more like Christ if he is in our hearts. And as he shows us sin, we are to turn away from it, deny ourselves and live by the will of God.

 

[marhig]

As it says in the Bible a couple dozen other ways besides this, Jesus is our God.

John 20:28 KJV(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.




Please come clean on the word game angle. If you keep swapping the definition in and out you can make it say anything. God was tempted, Jesus was tempted, neither was tempted in the sense given by James when it says "God cannot be tempted with evil."

Exodus 17:7 KJV
(7) And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

Deuteronomy 6:16 KJV
(16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

Jesus was tempted exactly like you and me are, if he wasn't, then he didn't live at we did. And I don't believe that is true, I believe that he experienced life as we do, yet without sin, as he denied Satan completely. Please see my other post. Thanks.

 

[God's Truth]

No ma'am

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Too bad because it is a nice feature.

 

[God's Truth]

You are an expert in changing the subject on the fly.

So in your scenario a paralyzed that can't move that can't talk and can only think and experience emotions cannot be saved because they CAN ONLY BELIEVE and in your world his/her faith is dead. Got it.

Oh, foolish, foolish woman.

Why do you keep repeating the same untruths?

 

[God's Truth]

I believe that Satan is evil and Jesus was tempted by him.

By the way, I don't believe that Jesus is God, but the son of the living God, as it says in the Bible.

God can't be tempted, Jesus was tempted, Jesus isn't God.

Jesus is God the Father come as a Man in the flesh.

 

[God's Truth]

Marhig, if Jesus is not God, how does he himself live in thousands upon thousands of people?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Lazy thinks that Jesus was a man who became God, instead of God came to earth as a Man.

Man cannot become God, but God can do anything He wants and He came as a Man.

Lazy does not believe that.

Gods word began becoming man in the womb of Mary and was completed to its possible extent at Jesus baptism but fully completed at His resurrection.

Jesus was firstly the man who was prepared by the Holy Spirit of God to be filled with the Spirit of His Father at His baptism, but He went to the cross in His own faith, and did not cheat as the devil and the deceived GT wants it, thus calling God a cheat.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Marhig, if Jesus is not God, how does he himself live in thousands upon thousands of people?

Only through the Holy Spirit of God can Jesus the resurrected man communicate Himself to many men at one time.

That should tell us something of the powers given to the Son by His Father.

LA

 

[God's Truth]

Lazy does not believe that.

Gods word began becoming man in the womb of Mary and was completed to its possible extent at Jesus baptism but fully completed at His resurrection.

Jesus was firstly the man who was prepared by the Holy Spirit of God to be filled with the Spirit of His Father at His baptism, but He went to the cross in His own faith, and did not cheat as the devil and the deceived GT wants it, thus calling God a cheat.

LA

You are not telling the truth.

You said Jesus the man became God. You even gave scriptures you thought proved it.

As for Jesus, he CAME FROM heaven, and even gave the Holy Spirit while in the womb.

 

[God's Truth]

Only through the Holy Spirit of God can Jesus the resurrected man communicate Himself to many men at one time.

That should tell us something of the powers given to the Son by His Father.

LA

No, pay attention. Jesus HIMSELF lives in the saved. Try again.

The scripture says Jesus himself lives in the saved; and, the scriptures even say the Lord IS the Spirit.

You have a denial problem.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops, do you understand that the word "tempt" has different meaning dependent upon context?

Middle English: from Old French tempter ‘to test,’ from Latin temptare ‘handle, test, try.’

The whole "God is not God because he was tempted" theme depends on switching the definitions mid argument. If you are going to use the passage in James, then apply the definition James gives consistently.

The definition James gives of "God cannot be tempted with evil" is to "drawn away of his own lust, enticed, bringing forth sin, and finally death." This does not apply to God or Christ, who are sinless, and the authors of life.

James 1:14-15 KJV
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


God and Jesus do not full under this category of being tempted to evil. This passage in James was never intended to contrast God and Christ in that regard, and it worries me to see anyone giving a bad argument the time of day. There are several different meanings for the word "tempt" and the Unitarian ploy keeps switching them around like peas under cups.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
(15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


If you want to mean "tempt" as in "someone tried to provoke or persuade to evil" then yes, God and Jesus were tempted.
If you want to mean "tempt" as in "succumbed to influence to do that which was evil" then no, God and Jesus were not tempted.

Pick a definition and stay with it for the sake of honest argument, please.

Having trouble still I see.

How do you, with any intellectual honesty, claim that Jesus was not tempted towards the desired of his own flesh, yet did not succumb, never allowing the seed of sin to be planted, but still being tempted?

Now; please explain how GOD has ever been tempted by evil(satan)

I'm hoping you noticed your error with your previous conclusions with Job.

And no one is changing the definition of anything.

I understand that tempt and test are synonymous. I also understand that GOD tests us, but we fold toemptsation due to our own lusts and greed and physical desires.

GOD has no lust, no physical desire, no temptation whatsoever.

I am not the one playing word games.

Please do open your eyes just a little wider and step out from behind that smoke screen.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

As it says in the Bible a couple dozen other ways besides this, Jesus is our God.

John 20:28 KJV(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.




Please come clean on the word game angle. If you keep swapping the definition in and out you can make it say anything. God was tempted, Jesus was tempted, neither was tempted in the sense given by James when it says "God cannot be tempted with evil."

Exodus 17:7 KJV
(7) And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

Deuteronomy 6:16 KJV
(16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

We already know and discussed that GOD can be angered.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[NWL]

Now you are showing your true face. When you're willing to stand still and face me on the facts, then I'll answer your question. Oh ye of little face.

Spoiler

You're hardly using honest argument. "Face to face from the midst of fire" indicates a physical manifestation.... within FIRE. It is an exception to the traditional "face to face" that requires physical faces. I have difficulty taking you seriously when you resort to tactics of like that.

Also... please tell me that you're not trying to pick a fight over asking a question with a vague term that has more than one meaning, and then switching your answer to the other meaning of whatever is answered? Yes, Abraham was looking at God's face. He was manifested as a man and speaking with him, remember? Now, let's see if you do the less-than-honest meaning swap here.

That's not excuse not to answer my question. If you think I'm avoiding anything you're highlighting plainly state so as I have been doing with you.

(John 1:18) "..No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.."

Scripture plainly tells us that no man has seen God at any time, you would deny a scripture such as this by claiming that it means different from how it reads, you do NOT take it for what it says but what you want it to say. John 1:18 states that no man has seen God at any time, thus the appearances of God in the OT must have been someone else other than God, the only logical and scriptual solution is that they were Angels, since this is what scripture states!

(Hebrews 13:2) "..Do not forget hospitality, for through it some unknowingly entertained angels.."

I think you don't understand my point. My point is that "face-to-face" doesn't necessitate that any literal appearance of God was seen.

Here's your issue, you claim Abraham literally saw God, you claim Jacob literally saw God, you claim Moses literally saw God and asked to see Gods form futher, yet John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time". Once again, you cannot have two conflicting statements that are both correct. Either God has not been seen at any time or God has been seen.

The scriptures plainly state elsewhere that God spoke to Moses through an Angel, that Jacob wrestled with an Angel and that Men entertained Angels without knowing, Abraham is the only person who entertained Angels in the Bible, when doing so he offered no worship but treated him/them as normal men.

In regards to Jacob he himself said he wrestled with God and that he saw him face-to-face, he even named the location where it happened "Peniʹel" which litreally means "face of God". How do we know he didn't litreally wrestle with God but rather and Angel? Because he asked him what his name was, why would Jacob, who stated he wrestled with God ask God what his name was if he already knew Gods name is Jehovah? (See Gen 27:20,27) He wouldn't! But he would ask what the angels name was if he knew that angel wasn't litreally Jehovah but his representive, hence Jacobs question.

(Genesis 32:29, 30) "..In turn Jacob inquired: “Tell me, please, your name.” However, he said: “Why is it that you ask my name?” With that he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob named the place Pe·niʹel, for he said, “I have seen God face-to-face, yet my life was preserved..”

It makes zero sense for Bible writers to claim that Angels spoke to these men if those Angels were God himself, if those Angels were God then why say they were angels, why not simply refer to them as God. The fact that they refer to Angel is evidence alone that those angels weren't God. As I have said many times representatives speak as if they are God themselves, or at least this is how Bible writers portray them.

Compare these two citations regarding the same account:

(Matthew 8:5-13) "..When he entered Ca·perʹna·um, an army officer came to him, pleading with him 6 and saying: “Sir, my servant is laid up in the house with paralysis, and he is suffering terribly.” 7 He said to him: “When I get there, I will cure him.” 8 The army officer replied: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

(Luke 7:1-9) "..When he had completed what he had to say to the people, he entered Ca·perʹna·um. 2 Now an army officer’s slave, who was dear to him, was seriously ill and about to pass away. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some elders of the Jews to him to ask him to come and make his slave well. 4 They came up to Jesus and began to plead with him earnestly, saying: “He is worthy of your granting him this, 5 for he loves our nation and he himself built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. But when he was not far from the house, the army officer had already sent friends to say to him: “Sir, do not bother, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

I ask you this, in the above account, who spoke to Jesus, the Army officer himself or the elders of the Jews? Are the "Elders of the Jews" and the "Army officer" the same person?

 

[God's Truth]

From the scriptures we can see that Jesus was led to the desert for the purpose of being tempted by the devil. That was why Jesus was led to the desert, which proves that Jesus was not tempted in such a way every day, as some here believe they are tempted.

Whether or not the whole time in the desert was a constant temptation, I do not believe so, for we have the scriptures speaking of temptation after he was hungry, after he did not eat for 40 days, after he suffered in the body for 40 days.

From the scriptures we see that after that the devil left him.

We can see that it was for a season.

That gives us reason to believe that Jesus would be tempted again, in such the same way.

The next time was probably before being arrested, since this is the time he talked about temptation when the body is weak and the mind is willing. This was the time before being arrested and Jesus didn't sleep and had the thoughts of torture and death before him.


We know that the Bible says that if we resist Satan and submit to God, Satan will flee from us.
How much more does the Word of God know this!

The scriptures also say that Jesus was tempted in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. That does NOT mean every day all day, as some here claim they are. I know for a fact that that is what one not fully obeying Jesus would say.

I do not believe for a second that Jesus, the Word of God, who is obedient to God, would continue in being tempted to sin every day all day.

I do believe that the scriptures show us that there is a temptation to not obey God when one is hungry, sleep deprived, fearful, tortured, and facing death.

Sinning is not doing what God says to do.

The apostles sinned when Jesus told them to stay awake.

We see that Jesus stayed awake and was sleep deprived before he was arrested. This was a stressful time for Jesus because he was facing pain and death.

How anyone gets that Jesus is tempted to sin with his flesh all day every day is just a pathetic existence that I do not see in the scriptures.

 

[NWL]

No, no argument changed, but you seem to have trouble comprehending the argument in its entirety. If you were a blind man trying to argue with the elephant, you'd be saying it changed its form, too.

I find it very hypocritical of you to refuse to answer my questions because you claim I ignore your facts even though I reply to all your points, as far as I'm aware.

You on the other hand refuse to answer questions I pose post after post BUT still reply and say whatever you want to say in regards to my posts in general.

The questions you keep evading:

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 (not necessarily a judge but someone divinely appointed) 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 on me, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?

 

[Right Divider]

Am I allowed to respectfully disagree as to the details? If I was allowed to choose, I'd much prefer respectful disagreement, over the the angry argumentative disagreement.

You can do whatever you want. Even if it means falsely accusing me of anger.