The Trinity

[God's Truth]

If Jesus was only sent to the natural Jews, then why did he go and preach in Samaria to gentiles?

JESUS WAS SENT ONLY to the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.

That is NOT all Jews.

The lost sheep of Israel were the Jews who were already saved and belonged to God.

Jesus said when he is crucified, then all could come to be saved.

PAUL CALLS IT JEWS FIRST and then Gentiles.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Romans 2:9
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;


Marhig, I hope that you do not think my capitalizing any words are shouting or anger.
I feel that I repeat myself and what I say is missed or not understood unless I accentuate some of the main points.

 

[God's Truth]

See, God had people who already belonged to Him, but now they had to go through Jesus to remain God's.

John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.


Jesus said he would not lose one that He gave him.

John 6:39
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 17:12
While I was with them, I protected them and guarded them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.


God was giving a new covenant, and the new covenant required faith.

The old law was not based on faith.


Galatians 3:12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, "The person who does these things will live by them."


The Jews who had faith in God believed in Jesus.

The Jews who did not have faith in God, they were cut off, but they can be grafted back in if they do not persist in unbelief.


Luke 19:42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.

Romans 11:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[marhig]

It is her choice.

The law has no mercy.
The law does not judge if you are a good person or bad person, whether you are poor or rich, etc.
The law does not see status or morals.
The law only judges if you (no matter why kind of person you are) has broken the law.
And as we know, scripture tells us that anyone living by the law must keep the whole law and never break a single point of the law or else they are guilty of the whole law.

Paul said this

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

And those born of God have the law written on their hearts and in their minds.

And Jesus said that to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, mind and soul and our neighbour as ourselves, are the two greatest commandments and upon these two commandments hangs all the law and the prophets, why? Because if we obey those commandments, then we won't break Gods law, as we won't kill, we won't commit adultery, we won't steal, etc. Because we will love God and Christ before ourselves, and if we are born of God, then the Spirit will by teaching us the law within and guiding us in all truth and helping us to overcome our flesh daily and obey God and do his will, thus we will establish the law through faith.

 

[marhig]

JESUS WAS SENT ONLY to the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.

That is NOT all Jews.

The lost sheep of Israel were the Jews who were already saved and belonged to God.

Jesus said when he is crucified, then all could come to be saved.

PAUL CALLS IT JEWS FIRST and then Gentiles.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Romans 2:9
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;


Marhig, I hope that you do not think my capitalizing any words are shouting or anger.
I feel that I repeat myself and what I say is missed or not understood unless I accentuate some of the main points.

Firstly, Jesus didn't say when I am crucified then all could come to be saved, he said I if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.

My point regarding the Jews is that Jesus also peached to the gentiles, and the gentiles who where grafted in become a part of the spirtual Israel, Jesus didn't just preach to the Jews only, but the gentiles also!

And Simeon said this

Luke 2

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.*And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,*Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Even the verses you have quoted include the gentiles.

Jesus came for all, and not those already saved, why is there a need of a saviour for those already saved?

 

[marhig]

See, God had people who already belonged to Him, but now they had to go through Jesus to remain God's.

John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.


Jesus said he would not lose one that He gave him.

John 6:39
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 17:12
While I was with them, I protected them and guarded them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.


God was giving a new covenant, and the new covenant required faith.

The old law was not based on faith.


Galatians 3:12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, "The person who does these things will live by them."


The Jews who had faith in God believed in Jesus.

The Jews who did not have faith in God, they were cut off, but they can be grafted back in if they do not persist in unbelief.


Luke 19:42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.

Romans 11:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Yes I totally agree, but there were gentiles brought in through Jesus too, like the Samaritans who came to hear him through the woman at the well.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Where did I say that He did?



Let's take a look at this, and don't read ahead.

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon.And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” - Matthew 15:21-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:21-22&version=NKJV

Now, what do you think Jesus, based on your beliefs, should do?

...

If you said He should heal her daughter, you'd be wrong.

It says He answered her not a word.

Based on your beliefs, what do you think His disciples did when they heard that? Did they say, "Jesus, what are you doing? Heal this woman's daughter"?

...

If you said yes, you'd be wrong.

But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” - Matthew 15:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:23&version=NKJV

They told Him to send her away. Based on your beliefs, do you think that Jesus would have rebuked them at this point? Saying that she should go because her daughter has been healed?

...

If you said yes, you'd be wrong.

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:24&version=NKJV

Jesus said He was not sent to the Gentiles, He was sent ONLY TO ISRAEL.

In fact, even though
Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” - Matthew 15:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:25&version=NKJV

He STILL refused her,
But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” - Matthew 15:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:26&version=NKJV

He called her a "little dog," because to Jews, Gentiles were just dogs. He said it's not good to take the children's bread (the "children" being Israel) and throw it to the little dogs (the "dogs" being the Gentiles, and He used the diminuitive form of the word for dog (like cigarette, dogette)).

But what she said next shocked Him:

And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. - Matthew 15:27-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:27-28&version=NKJV

We see this happening a few times throughout the gospels, where a Gentile would come or be brought to Him, and He refused to help them, because He was focused on Israel and not the Gentiles. It was only because her faith in Him was so great that He did anything. But He had to walk a very fine line: Had He healed the woman's daughter too soon, we would have completely missed the point, that He was only sent to Israel, but refuse to heal the daughter and Christians (and people who stand against God) would say that He would have been cruel to her.

Anyways, the point is this: Jesus Himself said that He was sent only to Israel, and not the Gentiles.



Correct. However, the plan was originally that Israel would be saved, and then go out to the world to teach the world about Jesus. God wanted a "spokesnation" to reach the nations of the world, to teach them about Christ's sacrifice for their sins.

However, when Israel utterly rejected their Messiah (Acts 7:51-60), at the very moment when the Jews killed Stephen, God said, "I've had enough of Israel rejecting Me, that's it, I'm going to cut off Israel, and I'm moving to Plan B."

That was the tipping point. However, it wasn't until a bit later that He was able to cut them off and choose someone to be his spokesperson to the world (aka Saul, who then became Paul) (Acts 9).



The Word of God shows that Jesus taught law, not grace. Not once did Jesus mention grace.

In fact, I challenge you to show me where, during His earthly ministry, Christ taught grace.



Tell me, GT, does this sound like grace to you? or law?

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Matthew 6:14-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew6:14-15&version=NKJV

Tell me GT, how does Jesus saying the above compare/contrast with this:

And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. - Ephesians 4:32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians4:32&version=NKJV

Does that sound like law or grace?

Jesus:
Step 1) Forgive others
Step 2) God will forgive you

Paul
Step 1) God has forgiven you
Step 2) Forgive others

Now, I don't know about you, but being a logical person, those two verses seem to contradict one another. I want to hear how you resolve them before I tell you how they in fact do not contradict.



Matthew 5-7 is Christ teaching law, and application of the law during the Millennial Kingdom.



Grace and truth came through Jesus, true. But that doesn't mean that Christ taught grace.



Explain, please. You have not refuted what I said.



You clearly do not understand Romans.

I encourage you to read through Romans a few times, QUICKLY, without trying to apply your beliefs to it.



By "we" do you mean humanity? Or Christians?



You're confusing Romans with Hebrews. Please don't. Romans was written to Gentiles. Hebrews was (SURPISE!) written to the Hebrews.

CHRISTIANS are no longer under the law, but under grace.

NON-CHRISTIANS are under the law, and will be condemned by it.



Again, Hebrews was written to the Hebrews. It was not written to Christians. The law changed many times in the Bible (eg dietary laws).



No, it is the new law for the Hebrews. Christians are not under the law.



You put Christians under the law. You go against what the Bible says in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 5:18. We are dead to it.



But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:25&version=NKJV

Doing something to receive a reward?

Hmmm that seems like law... Context? Oh, right:

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. - James 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:1&version=NKJV

AKA the diaspora, Jews who have been scattered.

GT, it would help your position greatly if you actually knew who the authors of the Bible were writing to, so that you could form your theology based on the Bible, and not try to fit the Bible to your theology.



I think you need to reread that paragraph understanding that James is talking to Jews.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. - James 2:8-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James2:8-13&version=NKJV

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. - James 1:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James1:1&version=NKJV

Again, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.



I will not reply to this until you read through Romans a few times to get an overview of what is said, because you clearly do not understand what is said in the book.



You really need to work on reading context.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians9:19-23&version=NKJV

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law;to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians9:19-23&version=NKJV

The "law of Christ" is to love God and love one another.



Where do you find that in Scripture?

Paul said:

“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” - Galatians 2:17-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:17-21&version=NKJV

We live by faith, not by obedience to any law.

That was a pretty long post.

Did you ever conclude that the is no difference between Jew and gentile completely destroying your false premise?

Did you actively and intentionally avoid all the scripture telling us such? It seemed like a relatively thorough post, is why I ask, and because it is wrong in its conclusion.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Keypurr, did the Son of God become a man? Or did He remain a spirit?

He was a man with a spirit.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[NWL]

:nono:

lord - any man who is called lord

Lord - Father, Son, Spirit, or start of a sentence

LORD - YHWH (O.T. only)

Btw, Read a professor of Aramaic who says he thinks the Peshitta was original. Sadly, for you, he reads Aramaic and insists every occasion of the Lord Jesus Christ saying "I AM" is to be translated clearly from the Aramaic "I am God." :jawdrop:

I read the article, the reasoning is mediocre at best and is the same washed out reasoning that's spewed out by people who support the trinity.

Mr Bauscher also claims that Jesus was the YHWH in the OT, the Jehovah who spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One scripture that completely destroys this claim is Hebrews 1:1,2, which reads "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

Note that God, back then, spoke to the Jews forefathers on many occasions and in many ways long ago, but now (during the 1CE), God spoke to them by means of his son, Jesus. If Jesus was the Jehovah who spoke to the forefathers, then it contradicts that he NOW(1CE) spoke to us by means of his Son, since he Jesus, was already speaking to the forefathers as mentioned in part a of Hebrews 1:1.

Thus, Mr Bauscher argument, including his reasoning regarding ego emi, crumbles.

If you actually read Jesus statements of "ego emi" and actually tried to understand them Jesus saying "I am God" the scriptures wouldn't make sense. Any claim that any reference of "ego emi" was a reference of Jesus claiming to be Jehovah of the old testament is an assumption and should be treated as such.

 

[NWL]

Keypurr, did the Son of God become a man? Or did He remain a spirit?

He was a man with a spirit.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

I think what Keypurr was trying to say was that Jesus was fully man when on earth. Upon his death he entrusted his spirit (greek word "pneuma": breath) or life/life-force to God and was then dead for three days. Upon his ascension Jesus became a spirit person(1 Corinthians 15:45), since, flesh cannot enter into heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50) since there are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:40).

As alluded to earlier, the spirit Jesus entrusted to the Father was not a something within him that nor was it the same spirit that is spoken of in regards to that Angelic beings or God (Hebrews 1:14, John 4:24), which are referring to bodily composition. The spirit Jesus spoke of in Luke 23:46 was that of his breath, namely his life. Jesus was about to die, he knew the Father was was the only means to live again by resurrecting him, thus he needed complete faith in the Father to do so, hence the reason he said to the Father that he entrust his life/spirit/breath into his Fathers hands.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That was a pretty long post.

It's much shorter than doing an entire Bible study.

Did you ever conclude that there is no difference between Jew and gentile completely destroying your false premise?

Pops, was there always no difference between Jew and Gentile? Or is there no difference now, but a difference between the two earlier?

Did you actively and intentionally avoid all the scripture telling us such? It seemed like a relatively thorough post, is why I ask, and because it is wrong in its conclusion.

I did not intentionally avoid it, only assumed that one reading my post would know the Bible well enough to understand that there was a difference between Jew and Gentile. Would you like to delve into that subject?

He was a man with a spirit.

The question I'm asking Keypurr is to determine if He thinks that the "Spirit Son" of God actually became flesh, or just indwelt a flesh body. One answer will earn him the title of heretic and anti-christ, the other will lead into a line of questioning that goes into detail about the answer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think what Keypurr was trying to say was that Jesus was fully man when on earth. Upon his death he entrusted his spirit (greek word "pneuma": breath) or life/life-force to God and was then dead for three days. Upon his ascension Jesus became a spirit person(1 Corinthians 15:45), since, flesh cannot enter into heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50) since there are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:40).

Keypurr's position (correct me if I'm wrong, Keypurr) is that there is a "Spirit Son" and a Flesh Son (both of God), and that the Spirit Son indwelt the Flesh Son.

As alluded to earlier, the spirit Jesus entrusted to the Father was not a something within him that nor was it the same spirit that is spoken of in regards to that Angelic beings or God (Hebrews 1:14, John 4:24), which are referring to bodily composition. The spirit Jesus spoke of in Luke 23:46 was that of his breath, namely his life. Jesus was about to die, he knew the Father was was the only means to live again by resurrecting him, thus he needed complete faith in the Father to do so, hence the reason he said to the Father that he entrust his life/spirit/breath into his Fathers hands.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION] [MENTION=18157]marhig[/MENTION] I will get to your posts as soon as possible.

 

[God's Truth]

Firstly, Jesus didn't say when I am crucified then all could come to be saved, he said I if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.

Jesus says plainly that when he is crucified, all men could come to him to be saved.

It doesn't mean all men will, it means all nationalities and ethnicity can come to him.

My point regarding the Jews is that Jesus also peached to the gentiles, and the gentiles who where grafted in become a part of the spirtual Israel, Jesus didn't just preach to the Jews only, but the gentiles also!

And Simeon said this

Luke 2

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.*And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,*Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Even the verses you have quoted include the gentiles.

Jesus came for all, and not those already saved, why is there a need of a saviour for those already saved?

One cannot take away the truth that Jesus said DO NOT GO TO THE GENTILES.
When Jesus walked the earth, it was to the Jews who were already saved.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Read this next scripture, it tells you exactly:

Acts 3:26
When God raised up His servant, He sent Him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Jesus was sent first to the Jews.

Of course Jesus would go first and only to the Jews.

Listen to what Paul says about the Jews, his OWN FLESH AND BLOOD:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my own flesh and blood, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the Law, the temple worship, and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them proceeds the human descent of Christ, who is God over all, forever worthy of praise! Amen.


Since Jesus was crucified, all people can come to him to be saved.

All Israel were blood related to Abraham.

God loved Abraham and promised that the Savior would be blood related to him.

When Jesus came and died, it does not matter anymore to whom one is related to Abraham, it only matters who come to God through Jesus' blood.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes I totally agree, but there were gentiles brought in through Jesus too, like the Samaritans who came to hear him through the woman at the well.

Jesus gave them a taste of what would soon be available to them, but it was still not yet.

Jesus had an earthly ministry for about 3 and a half years until he was lifted up.

We cannot dismiss any scripture.

When Jesus WALKED THE EARTH, Jesus said he came only for the lost sheep.

Then when he is lifted off the earth, all could come to him to be saved.

 

[God's Truth]

He was a man with a spirit.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

...and his Spirit was the Spirit of God.

 

[God's Truth]

[MENTION=14521]God's Truth[/MENTION] [MENTION=18157]marhig[/MENTION] I will get to your posts as soon as possible.

I tell you, I hope that you read my reply to your long and detailed post carefully.

I carefully and considerately read everything you said, and I understand every premise that you spoke of, and I demand the same care and consideration that I gave to what you said.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It's much shorter than doing an entire Bible study.



Pops, was there always no difference between Jew and Gentile? Or is there no difference now, but a difference between the two earlier?



I did not intentionally avoid it, only assumed that one reading my post would know the Bible well enough to understand that there was a difference between Jew and Gentile. Would you like to delve into that subject?



The question I'm asking Keypurr is to determine if He thinks that the "Spirit Son" of God actually became flesh, or just indwelt a flesh body. One answer will earn him the title of heretic and anti-christ, the other will lead into a line of questioning that goes into detail about the answer.

There was a difference between the Jew and heathen at one point.

Could you explain what you are getting at about antichrist being associated with an answer that claims that the Spirit indwells physical bodies?

peace.... thanks for clearing up my confusion about your point.


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

There was a difference between the Jew and heathen at one point.

I'm glad you know that. It will make a difference later. But for now...

Could you explain what you are getting at about antichrist being associated with an answer that claims that the Spirit indwells physical bodies?

Notice the wording of the following verses:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John4:1-3&version=NKJV

"Jesus Christ come in the flesh."

Think about that for a moment.

If "Jesus" and "the Son of God" are two separate persons, why does that verse indicate that only one person came in the flesh?

Now add this:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:14&version=NKJV

Now, If the Word became flesh, and Jesus Christ came in the flesh, would that not indicate that they are one and the same?

And if the Word is God, and Jesus Christ is the Word, would that not make Jesus Christ God?

Now, what Keypurr is saying is that Jesus was indwelt by the Son of God (aka God the Son). He's trying to split one person into two, by saying that the "Son" (capital "S") in Matthew 1:20-25 is not the "Son" in Luke 3:22.

peace.... thanks for clearing up my confusion about your point.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

My goal is to teach, and to make clear God's Word, so that there is no longer any confusion or misunderstanding of it, because when there is, it makes it seem that scriptures contradict.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm glad you know that. It will make a difference later. But for now...



Notice the wording of the following verses:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John4:1-3&version=NKJV

"Jesus Christ come in the flesh."

Think about that for a moment.

If "Jesus" and "the Son of God" are two separate persons, why does that verse indicate that only one person came in the flesh?

Now add this:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:14&version=NKJV

Now, If the Word became flesh, and Jesus Christ came in the flesh, would that not indicate that they are one and the same?

And if the Word is God, and Jesus Christ is the Word, would that not make Jesus Christ God?

Now, what Keypurr is saying is that Jesus was indwelt by the Son of God (aka God the Son). He's trying to split one person into two, by saying that the "Son" (capital "S") in Matthew 1:20-25 is not the "Son" in Luke 3:22.



My goal is to teach, and to make clear God's Word, so that there is no longer any confusion or misunderstanding of it, because when there is, it makes it seem that scriptures contradict.

Who said Jesus and Christ were two different people or spirits?

Why do you make some division between the indwell and came?

They both mean the Christ of GOD was indeed in the flesh.

Who denies this?

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

@NWL, the logic of your rebuttal doesn't follow here. Hebrews 1 doesn't discount or nullify that the Son of God is God in the flesh. That passage doesn't define the Son of God one way or another, you'd need to use the rest of the canon to establish that.

You might look where Paul speaks of the Son of God in Hebrews, even of Melchizedek. The Son of God has neither beginning nor end of days it says. Or in other words, eternal, not a creation, but always has existed.

I read the article, the reasoning is mediocre at best and is the same washed out reasoning that's spewed out by people who support the trinity.

Mr Bauscher also claims that Jesus was the YHWH in the OT, the Jehovah who spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One scripture that completely destroys this claim is Hebrews 1:1,2, which reads "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

Note that God, back then, spoke to the Jews forefathers on many occasions and in many ways long ago, but now (during the 1CE), God spoke to them by means of his son, Jesus. If Jesus was the Jehovah who spoke to the forefathers, then it contradicts that he NOW(1CE) spoke to us by means of his Son, since he Jesus, was already speaking to the forefathers as mentioned in part a of Hebrews 1:1.

Thus, Mr Bauscher argument, including his reasoning regarding ego emi, crumbles.

If you actually read Jesus statements of "ego emi" and actually tried to understand them Jesus saying "I am God" the scriptures wouldn't make sense. Any claim that any reference of "ego emi" was a reference of Jesus claiming to be Jehovah of the old testament is an assumption and should be treated as such.