The Trinity

[God's Truth]

Impossible.

It is you who attempt such though it isn't possible

I have given you many requests to give the scripture to show us, but you have not, and you don't admit that that makes it going beyond what is written.

 

[God's Truth]

I don't, I just don't see it as you do! Jesus shed his blood,

You go against Jesus shedding his blood! You also claim God did not make that part of the plan! You are an emotional woman who has been led astray by her emotions.

denied sin, bore he cross, and poured out his life every day of his life.

The blood that cleanses, is the life of Christ in our hearts,

The blood that cleanses is the blood shed on the cross.

You do not even speak what the Bible does.

cleansing and helping us to cast out our devils and helping us to overcome Satan and the world by the power of the Spirit every day.

His natural blood doesn't save anyone,

What an untruthful statement to make about the Truth.

it's his spiritual flesh and blood that we eat and drink that saves.

What?! No such thing as spiritual blood.

John 6

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you

Jesus isn't putting down the blood he shed on the cross, he is telling you how to drink it.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.


He's not talking about his natural flesh and blood, it's his spiritual blood (his life) and taking it into our hearts that saves.

We eat his flesh by obeying his commands. That is how we eat his flesh

You however have said God did not plan for His Son to die on the cross.

See this last verse

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

The father sent Jesus, and he lived by his commandments and his word, and if we take Christ in to our hearts, then we will live by him, we will live by his teaching and by his word, his words are Spirit and they are life, and as we take his words and his life in, then his life, by the power of the Spirit, will be in us and those truly born of God will live it out and live by the will of God through Christ.

Stop trying to get out of what you said. You said God did not intend for His Son to die on the cross. You are mixed up. Sense that is common rebukes you.

 

[God's Truth]

Look at what has happened in this thread this morning:

Popsthebuilder ignored many scriptures.

Popsthebuilder calls God the Father an 'It', but he still has not given one scripture calling God an 'It'. I have given many scriptures that say God is the Father and a 'He' and not an 'It'

Michael came on and attacks me for correcting him when he says the Father and Jesus are different; and for telling him no one is to fear his doom prophecy because he has done it before. Anyone can say something bad is going to happen, but Michael makes it like whatever he says is from God. Michael thinks he can prove his beliefs by just claiming they are true and insulting me is his defense. I give scriptures that prove my beliefs.

Marhig puts down Jesus' blood shed on the cross. She claims God did not plan for that. I have proven with scripture that the blood of animals were to atone for the people's souls and it was a teaching tool and shadow of Christ, and that Jesus is called a Lamb and it is not as an after thought.

 

[marhig]

You go against Jesus shedding his blood! You also claim God did not make that part of the plan! You are an emotional woman who has been led astray by her emotions.



The blood that cleanses is the blood shed on the cross.

You do not even speak what the Bible does.


What an untruthful statement to make about the Truth.


What?! No such thing as spiritual blood.

Jesus isn't putting down the blood he shed on the cross, he is telling you how to drink it.


We eat his flesh by obeying his commands. That is how we eat his flesh

You however have said God did not plan for His Son to die on the cross.



Stop trying to get out of what you said. You said God did not intend for His Son to die on the cross. You are mixed up. Sense that is common rebukes you.

No spiritual blood? GT tell me how you drink Christ Jesus' natural blood from 2000 years ago?

 

[God's Truth]

No spiritual blood? GT tell me how you drink Christ Jesus' natural blood from 2000 years ago?

By believing in it.
By believing that his blood that WAS SHED on the cross cleans me of the sins I repent of doing.

 

[marhig]

By believing in it.
By believing that his blood that WAS SHED on the cross cleans me of the sins I repent of doing.

There's a deeper meaning GT I hope that one day God shows you.

Death doesn't save, life saves.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You deny those scriptures I gave.

You also keep slandering my Father by calling Him an 'It'.

I am not going to debate with you much longer unless you have a post which shows respect for Him. You prove you don't have truth because you did not address the scriptures I gave, you merely told untruths about God and me.

Now your just making things up.

I don't care if you don't answer my questions; it only shows your ignorance and/ or conjecture.

 

[Rosenritter]

As for God foreseeing crucifixion.

Look at your child, how much do you love him? Imagine having millions like him, and you loved them all, but they were being deceived and they had fallen away and were lost, and you sent people to speak to them, but many didn't listen. Then your son whom is always with you and you love deeply is willing to go and says "yes father I'll go to help bring them back" and you know that by him going and showing them what you're truly like and speaking to them what you've told him to say that he would save many of them. But you also know that he will be cruelly treated by those who are wicked, and killed. But the death they put him through, doesn't really kill him. And when they do kill him, he comes back to you. And he has saved many of them who believed in him and his word, and they are reconciled to you.

Would you, knowing before hand what would happen, let him go?

Not if there was another way to accomplish the same goal. If you think about it I think you would also agree. What is the goal? To bring salvation to the entire world, right? If we assume that God is of like mind, that "if it be possible, let this cup be taken from me" but decided that it was necessary to be done, then I don't see how we can escape the conclusion that Christ's torment, death, and suffering on that cross was somehow necessary towards that goal. That at the very least this was calculated for maximum effect.

Would you be able to answer the previous question more directly please? "Do you understand the future as a fixed thing that God cannot change, or rather something that happens as influenced by its actors (including God?)" Thank you.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, not necessarily. It could mean that the physical body is one that does not get old, decay and die.

I am afraid that I cannot answer your question on your terms while we differ on the meaning of the word "spiritual body."

Who said God HAD to? God is Spirit, and as spirits are He is invisible. He made Himself a body while also Himself living in unapproachable light. There are three. It is good to keep that in mind while we discuss this. God the Father invisible, God the Father with a body, and the Holy Spirit that goes forth without limit.

I acknowledge that God is capable of creating a physical body and then slinging around balls of mud and stone and water and comets and light at the same time in Genesis 1 but I don't see where this is explicitly stated nor implicitly required. It hardly seems like the natural reading. Thus my comment that your statement seemed "out of left field" and that I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Rosenritter]

Usually people want to tell others that they are not saved when one does not believe their false doctrines. Jesus says that in the same way they judge others they will be judged.

"And again, a good man might err in many things, and not be damned; so that his error were not directly against the promises that are in Christ's blood, neither that he held them maliciously ... and though all be false, yet should I not be damned, so long as I had no obstinacy therein: for the faith that I have in Christ's blood should swallow up that error, till I were better taught."

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm saying we know the angels were not created in the image of God.
Prove it with Scripture if that is your claim. opcorn:

You know this? Scripture please. Please show me where it tells us what image the angels are created in, or show me where it denies that the angels are created in the image of God. Either one would suffice.

As to the proof that you asked for, you need to answer my question of you first. What do you consider to be the image of God? You cannot possibly expect me to "prove that angels are created in the image of God" if you will not define what you understand the "image of God" to be.

Arguing on undefined terms is a shell game... let's not waste energy on that, eh?

 

[glorydaz]

Does Genesis 1 say that God was speaking to his Son? Here, let's refresh the passage:

I see where God speaks, and I see where he is directing his speech to others, but I don't see where the others are specifically named. I do know that God was present and angels were present, but that we are told that God is one but the angels are many.

God is Triune.....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....the Godhead consist of three persons.

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:​

 

[glorydaz]

You know this? Scripture please. Please show me where it tells us what image the angels are created in, or show me where it denies that the angels are created in the image of God. Either one would suffice.

As to the proof that you asked for, you need to answer my question of you first. What do you consider to be the image of God? You cannot possibly expect me to "proof that angels are created in the image of God" if you will not define what you understand the "image of God" to be.

Arguing on undefined terms is a shell game... let's not waste energy on that, eh?

I already did....you haven't.

 

[Rosenritter]

Can angels do any of this?

Genesis 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​

Why did God make man in his own image? Where did He get the pattern for man do you think? Why was man created with a body, soul, and spirit? Start thinking about that stuff instead of just claiming angels were created in the image of God as if there was anything to back up that statement.

Do angels have relationships with one another? Where?

Do angels LOVE?

Are angels creative like men are? Artistic? Scholarly? :think:

You haven't actually ventured to answer the question. But here's some short answers to help along:

1. Do angels have relationships with one another? If you want that question answered, please be specific whether you mean the normal meaning of the word "relationship" or the sexual-revolution shade of the word, meaning "dating, sexual cohabitation, and marriage." Thank you.
2. Do angels love? Yes, they do. They also have the capacity for hatred, vanity, and envy.
3. Are angels creative like men are? Yes, they are. If they weren't then God wouldn't ask them for ideas.
4. Are angels artistic or scholarly? If you can tell me on what level we could judge the presence or absence of angelic art or scholarship I might be able to venture reply.

I am answering your questions. Would you please answer the original question? What do you think Genesis means by the image of God?

 

[Rosenritter]

That's certainly one of the theories. I don't buy it, and it doesn't say they were angels.

The "giants" were powerful men in the area. The sons of God were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were descendants of Cain.

1. Is there a biblical support for the term "sons of God" meaning the "sons of Seth?" For example, is there another passage that uses the same reference?
2. Is there any theory on why descendants of Seth and Cain would yield giant mighty men on a significantly larger scale than the originally created Adam and Eve?

 

[Rosenritter]

And for Hebrews 2:14

He's not talking about natural death, but Jesus being dead to his flesh and alive in God, and because he was dead to his flesh, he was able to destroy Satan and show us how to overcome him by a new and living way. I will go over this more later with you if you want to do so.

Also I don't see the verses about Eve and the serpent like that. But I'm just off to the midwife with my daughter. She's due to have her baby anytime (God spares) so I'll be a bit busy. And get back to you when I can

Hebrews 2:14 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

If "death" means "being death to the flesh" (as in being a good thing) then why does it say that the devil has the power of death? That doesn't add up. Besides this, the passage makes perfect sense when read in the literal sense already, so why seek another sense?

 

[Rosenritter]

Why does it have to be in Genesis?

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

That scripture says Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, and then we learn that everything was made through him.

... have you ever looked into the source of that term, "the firstborn of all creation?" I found it referenced in a bible commentary a while back.

 

[Rosenritter]

Lot of misdirection without answering my question.

Your question was flawed: it attempted to introduce an unsupported assumption as if it were fact. Thus the demonstration where your premise was questioned. Would you like to reconstruct your question?

 

[Rosenritter]

God is Triune.....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....the Godhead consist of three persons.

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:​

That Triunity thing is a nice theory, but seeing as that's what you're seeking to prove in the first place, you can't use that as support for this passage without wallowing in circular logic.

 

[Rosenritter]

I already did....you haven't.

No, you haven't defined your term. Please do so.

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
You know this? Scripture please. Please show me where it tells us what image the angels are created in, or show me where it denies that the angels are created in the image of God. Either one would suffice.

As to the proof that you asked for, you need to answer my question of you first. What do you consider to be the image of God? You cannot possibly expect me to "prove that angels are created in the image of God" if you will not define what you understand the "image of God" to be.

Arguing on undefined terms is a shell game... let's not waste energy on that, eh?

1. Where does it tell us what image the angels are created in?
2. Where does it tell us what image the angels are not created in?
3. What do you consider the image of God to consist of?

So far, you've asked a bunch of rhetorical questions. Or at least they seemed rhetorical because the answers contradicted what it seemed you were trying to prove. So please, be specific? Thank you.