The Trinity

[God's Truth]

GT even to call me a worker of Satan is to condemn me! Anyway as I said, call me what you will. Thankfully it's God that judges me and not you!

I called you a worker of Satan because you keep speaking untruths about me, like you have proven again.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, the father gave him power over all flesh, and he said he could pray to the father to send him many Angels.

But now, he is set above all in heaven and in earth, because God had put him in authority over everything, but still, the head of Christ is God.

As you say Jesus could have abandoned the cross, but in doing so he would have been disobedient, and yes, you are right. But disobedient to whom? Yes to God, so if Jesus is the father and he is God, why the obedience? Surely he doesn't have to be obedient to himself? No, he is obedient to his God and father, the one who's will be does always, and the one who has set him at his right hand and given him authority over the heavens and the earth. So Jesus is not the father, nor is he the Almighty God. He is the Christ, the son of the living God and God has given him power over all.

Ephesians 1

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Marhig, when your reply with a "No, but rather..." style response, but your "but rather" creates no contradiction, it makes me think that you don't understand the scenario to which you're replying. This leads to the inevitable scenario of repetition. A response that doesn't answer the question at hand is non-persuasive at best.

Yes, Jesus could have abandoned the cross. You agree with this. Disobedient to whom? Disobedient to his own will. Or in other words, God could have changed his mind. If you (Marhig) set a rule for yourself that you wouldn't eat chocolate chip cookies after 9 PM, but come 9 PM you considered breaking your own rule, does it make you any less yourself if you exercise obedience? On the other hand,does it make you any less yourself if you are disobedient and break your own rule?

Now here's the point that I think you missed. The very action of "disobedience" in this case would have required invoking the very powers of God over legions of angels.

1. The act of disobedience would have proved that he was indeed God. A disobedient created human wouldn't have that unconditional support.
2. Although Jesus did not exercise this option, he said that he could have exercised it, and would have had the angels of God to enforce it.
3. If we believe that Jesus was correct and inerrant and not mistaken in what he said, that statement by itself provides proof that he is God.

 

[God's Truth]

marhig is the one who judges and condems all who do not believe as she does:

Then you deny the scriptures that say that God is the God and father of Jesus. And those that clearly show us that Jesus isn't the father.

I'm not going over and over this again with you. That's what I believe to be the truth, and God will judge me and not you and your constantly condemning, judgemental comments!

Thankfully, God looks at the heart first and foremost! And we are judged an what we do when we hear the truth, and whether we truly believe and live by the will of God, obeying God and the teachings of Christ Jesus, or not.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, being in subjection, means that the father is over the son.

So if you obey your alarm clock in the morning and thus are in subjection to whomever set that alarm clock, that means you are not the same person as the Marhig who set the clock at night?

 

[marhig]

marhig is the one who judges and condems all who do not believe as she does:

I said that because you said that I was denying the scriptures first! Blimey you don't half change things around sometimes!

Anyway this is foolishness. I'm not going on with this is childish!

 

[God's Truth]

I said that because you said that I was denying the scriptures first! Blimey you don't half change things around sometimes!

Anyway this is foolishness. I'm not going on with this is childish!

I didn't say you were denying the scriptures, you said I was doing that.

I said your mere denial is not a defense for the truth. That means you merely saying, "No, Jesus is not the Father"---That is merely denying and no defense.

Regardless of your understanding or not, you did falsely accuse me of condemning people.

 

[God's Truth]

All should notice how she turned everything over into a rant about me.

She shows how she gets frustrated when debating deeply, and that is when she strikes.

 

[Rosenritter]

Uhm.... With regard to Noah; you speak of the sin of the angels and the daughters of men and the resulting atrocities.

Read upon Abraham the Father of our faith and of the seed of the of the faithful. You will find that he pleased GOD so much so that he was called the friend of GOD.

Job was perfect. You openly refute the written word of GOD by claiming otherwise.

What of the others I listed?

What of the other post I directed towards you? Is LORD GOD?

Pops, question mark?

1. Yes, "perfect in his generations" is an allusion to his line being pure from the aforementioned atrocity that made God willing to destroy creation.
2. "Friend of God" does not mean that one is "perfect" as in "without sin."
3.
4. Surely you are not arguing that there is only one sense and one meaning of the word "perfect." If you want to take a hard line inflexible interpretation and make all instances of the word "perfect" mean the same and to mean perfect without sin, then make the charge of "refuting the written word of God" then take that up with Paul, because that's who refutes you.

Romans 3:23 KJV
(23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I'm fairly certain that Paul was aware of the book of Job, of where it spoke of Asa having a perfect heart all of his days, and the like. Yet Paul had no problem making these statements. If we assume that these writings are inspired and correct, then the instances of the word "perfect" that you cited earlier cannot mean "perfect and without sin" in that sense.

 

[marhig]

Marhig, when your reply with a "No, but rather..." style response, but your "but rather" creates no contradiction, it makes me think that you don't understand the scenario to which you're replying. This leads to the inevitable scenario of repetition. A response that doesn't answer the question at hand is non-persuasive at best.

Yes, Jesus could have abandoned the cross. You agree with this. Disobedient to whom? Disobedient to his own will. Or in other words, God could have changed his mind. If you (Marhig) set a rule for yourself that you wouldn't eat chocolate chip cookies after 9 PM, but come 9 PM you considered breaking your own rule, does it make you any less yourself if you exercise obedience? On the other hand,does it make you any less yourself if you are disobedient and break your own rule?

Now here's the point that I think you missed. The very action of "disobedience" in this case would have required invoking the very powers of God over legions of angels.

1. The act of disobedience would have proved that he was indeed God. A disobedient created human wouldn't have that unconditional support.
2. Although Jesus did not exercise this option, he said that he could have exercised it, and would have had the angels of God to enforce it.
3. If we believe that Jesus was correct and inerrant and not mistaken in what he said, that statement by itself provides proof that he is God.

Obedient to himself?

Does this sound like Jesus was obedient to himself?

Matthew 26

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou*wilt

How is that being obedient to himself?

John 6

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 4

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 8

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Looking at those verses, how can Jesus be the father?

Also what about this?

Luke 22

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:*

Prayed to whom? And then there is John 17. Why pray like that to himself?

 

[Rosenritter]

The Bible has made the distinction concerning the three persons of the GodHead, not me.

We could do the same thing with who raised Jesus from the dead. The Father did, the Holy Spirit did, and Jesus raised Himself. All true, AND all supported by scripture.

What we cannot do is claim the Father is the Son, for example, because there is not one verse that says that. The Godhead is not open to man's imaginings...lest we end up with Keypurr, and God's UNtruth making statements that are to be found NOWHERE in Scripture We are not to go beyond what is written.

Except for the occasional passage that does say that:

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


We do have a passage that says the Son is the Father. What we actually lack is a passage that says that the Son is NOT ultimately the Father.

1. Can there be any argument that "a child" and "a son" in this passage is any other than Jesus, also called the Son of God?
2. Is there any argument that "his name shall be called" is meant in any other sense than identification?
3. Is there any argument that "God" in this passage means anything less than "God" in its highest sense?
4. This is the first instance in the bible where "Father" is used as a title for God (not merely a descriptive) and it's used to name the son.

Glory, even if you don't like making that connection, or you think it might be confusing, it's not a fair statement to say that it is "nowhere in the bible" or "outside of scripture."

 

[marhig]

So if you obey your alarm clock in the morning and thus are in subjection to whomever set that alarm clock, that means you are not the same person as the Marhig who set the clock at night?

Obey my alarm clock?

I don't obey me alarm clock, that just reminds me to be in time.

But, anyway, I'm not obeying or under subjection to the alarm clock, it doesn't matter if I ignore it, it won't do anything. I'm more likely to be under subjection to the one that I have set the alarm clock to be in time for! Like my boss for instance!

And spiritually my alarm clock is the Holy Spirit, waking me up in God as the day is dawning.

 

[Rosenritter]

(and again; while there is obvious division to be made between the temple of GOD and GOD in fullness, this doesn't correlate a division of spirit to me, and indeed shows the common denominator is indeed the Singular Spirit, while the dividing line is indeed the vessel with limited capacity.

peace dear friend and sister.

We are not against one another, but learning and terrifying one another.

Please continue in your perseverance and patience towards us; each and everyone.

I know you will.

Terrifying one another? Was that meant to be another word?

 

[marhig]

All should notice how she turned everything over into a rant about me.

She shows how she gets frustrated when debating deeply, and that is when she strikes.

You need to look in the mirror!

 

[Rosenritter]

No.

There are two words translated one.

You should study them .

Jesus already said "I AND my Father" which does not mean they are the same.

LA

Are me, myself, and I three different people?

 

[Rosenritter]

Pops, you have a bad habit you need to put off. When you don't understand what someone is saying to you, you assume they are doing something wrong or the lack is with them.....instead of yourself.

When you look at one side of a box, you see that one side. The other guy may be looking at the other side...or even the inside. Open the box and look inside before assuming you've see the whole of it. :idea:

Pops is usually pretty good about not doing that. Yet it does "pop" up sometime. I think it's a tendency that we all fall prey to from time to time. Part of becoming perfect would be learning how to put that aside.

 

[God's Truth]

Except for the occasional passage that does say that:

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


We do have a passage that says the Son is the Father. What we actually lack is a passage that says that the Son is NOT ultimately the Father.

1. Can there be any argument that "a child" and "a son" in this passage is any other than Jesus, also called the Son of God?
2. Is there any argument that "his name shall be called" is meant in any other sense than identification?
3. Is there any argument that "God" in this passage means anything less than "God" in its highest sense?
4. This is the first instance in the bible where "Father" is used as a title for God (not merely a descriptive) and it's used to name the son.

Glory, even if you don't like making that connection, or you think it might be confusing, it's not a fair statement to say that it is "nowhere in the bible" or "outside of scripture."

Why do you keep copying and pasting the same thing when you have been proven wrong. God is called Father in the Old Testament. I gave many scriptures to prove it.

 

[God's Truth]

You need to look in the mirror!

No, you need to.

 

[God's Truth]

Obey my alarm clock?

I don't obey me alarm clock, that just reminds me to be in time.

But, anyway, I'm not obeying or under subjection to the alarm clock, it doesn't matter if I ignore it, it won't do anything. I'm more likely to be under subjection to the one that I have set the alarm clock to be in time for! Like my boss for instance!

And spiritually my alarm clock is the Holy Spirit, waking me up in God as the day is dawning.

You have to wake up by obeying God. God doesn't just wake you up.

Revelation 3:3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

 

[God's Truth]

No.

I believe it is a misrepresentation of the will of GOD, as the Jew was wrong in the literal interpretation they added to the Word of GOD.

I can hardly believe that you said that.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.


Hebrews 8:8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.


So if the Jews just added animal sacrifices, why didn't it get rebuked in the New Testament? Why is it called a teaching tool and a shadow of Christ? Why is Jesus called the Sacrificial Lamb of God?
Why does his blood shed do the cleaning like the sacrifice of animals did but outwardly?
Why did Abel give an animal sacrifice to God and it be good, and why did Noah give animal sacrifices?
Why did God tell Abraham to sacrifice his son?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops, question mark?

1. Yes, "perfect in his generations" is an allusion to his line being pure from the aforementioned atrocity that made God willing to destroy creation.
2. "Friend of God" does not mean that one is "perfect" as in "without sin."
3.
4. Surely you are not arguing that there is only one sense and one meaning of the word "perfect." If you want to take a hard line inflexible interpretation and make all instances of the word "perfect" mean the same and to mean perfect without sin, then make the charge of "refuting the written word of God" then take that up with Paul, because that's who refutes you.

Romans 3:23 KJV
(23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I'm fairly certain that Paul was aware of the book of Job, of where it spoke of Asa having a perfect heart all of his days, and the like. Yet Paul had no problem making these statements. If we assume that these writings are inspired and correct, then the instances of the word "perfect" that you cited earlier cannot mean "perfect and without sin" in that sense.

Perfect in the sight of GOD is perfect regardless of what any man has uttered or written.

Perfection in faith is towards us in reflection and light of the work of the Christ.

When we are called to judgement sinuous think that the sins that the Christ did pay for will be weighed against you even still?

Many a Jew took issue with the Christ too saying he was not perfect and didn't keep the ordinance of GOD. Would you believe them over GOD?

Perfect is perfect, regardless of if man ascribes sin to it or not.

My whole point was that some other than Jesus are recorded to have been perfect.