• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Gospels and Acts

Black Manta said:
No. I am ignoring YOUR wrong interpretation and discounting an entire gospel. Jesus is part of God and therefore God. This is not rocket science here. Nothing you have shown says any different.

So good day.
Click to expand...

you're ignoring it ... not showing how it IS wrong.

Jesus is not part of God, since Yahweh is Jesus' God .... I don't care if it's rocket science or not, it's NOT what the bible teaches.'

Jesus assended to HIS GOD.

In John 20 Jesus says that yahweh is the God of him.

Hebrews confirms it

Hebrews 1:
8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Ephesians confirms it

Ephesians 1:
17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him

Peter confirms it

1 Peter 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Romans confirms it


Romans 15:
6 so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians confirms it.

2 Corinthians 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation,

2 Corinthians 11:
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie.


I mean the scriptures are saying it CLEARLY ... Yahweh is the GOD OF JESUS ... and my God, I worship the same GOd JEsus does.
 
RGacky3 said:
you're ignoring it ... not showing how it IS wrong.

Jesus is not part of God, since Yahweh is Jesus' God .... I don't care if it's rocket science or not, it's NOT what the bible teaches.'

Jesus assended to HIS GOD.

In John 20 Jesus says that yahweh is the God of him.

Hebrews confirms it

Hebrews 1:
8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Ephesians confirms it

Ephesians 1:
17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him

Peter confirms it

1 Peter 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Romans confirms it


Romans 15:
6 so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians confirms it.

2 Corinthians 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation,

2 Corinthians 11:
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie.


I mean the scriptures are saying it CLEARLY ... Yahweh is the GOD OF JESUS ... and my God, I worship the same GOd JEsus does.
Click to expand...

I said good day!
 
RGacky3 said:
i.c. so you can't deal with the scriptures I posted, every thing you've posted doesn't defend your position ... now all you have left is ad hominem "cult" talk .... you can't argue from scripture, because you know scripture supports me ....

Infact you resort to straight up lies.
Click to expand...

That's what cultists always say.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm no longer going to waste my time with a Jehovah's Witness clone. Your "Christ is not divine" nonsense is straight out of Satan's playbook. And you don't learn.

So go find somebody else to whine and hawk your folly to.
 
Logicman said:
That's what cultists always say.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm no longer going to waste my time with a Jehovah's Witness clone. Your "Christ is not divine" nonsense is straight out of Satan's playbook. And you don't learn.

So go find somebody else to whine and hawk your folly to.
Click to expand...

In Other words ... your doctrine CANNOT stand up to scriptural scrutiny and you cannot defend it from scripture. :)
 
RGacky3 said:
In Other words ... your doctrine CANNOT stand up to scriptural scrutiny and you cannot defend it from scripture. :)
Click to expand...

Nope. The words are I'm not going to waste my time with a spiritually-blinded Jehovah's Witness clone who denies the deity of Christ.
 
cpwill said:
I've always liked C.S. Lewis' analogy of it - that a linear, temporal human attempting to understand the Trinity is like a two-dimensional stick figure trying to understand 3-D. There's a dimension there that you just don't have the ability to grasp.
Click to expand...

I tried to imagine what an infinite being of pure energy with no center or edges would be like, then I read that god told Moses His name was "ehyeh asher ehyeh" or 'I will be what I will be". I thought to myself you can't figure out this deity that can be anything, everything and nothing it's like a cat chasing it's tail trying to define.
 
grip said:
I tried to imagine what an infinite being of pure energy with no center or edges would be like, then I read that god told Moses His name was "ehyeh asher ehyeh" or 'I will be what I will be". I thought to myself you can't figure out this deity that can be anything, everything and nothing it's like a cat chasing it's tail trying to define.
Click to expand...

Hey Grip - Here's some information that will help reveal what God is like. It's from the book, "What's so amazing about (God's) grace."

What’s So Amazing About Grace « The Righter Report

Christianity’s unique contribution to the world: “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.” (C. S. Lewis)
 
Logicman said:
Hey Grip - Here's some information that will help reveal what God is like. It's from the book, "What's so amazing about (God's) grace."

What’s So Amazing About Grace « The Righter Report

Christianity’s unique contribution to the world: “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.” (C. S. Lewis)
Click to expand...

Pretty cool sayings but that sort of makes my point that you can't say enough to describe a God. Someone once ask me 'what is God, I don't see him' and I for some reason said "God is your life". Beyond simple truths it's hard to explain the endless.

I particularly like this saying from that page, "the devil lays his cuckoo eggs in a pious nest".
 
EdwinWillers said:
What are you saying, that your religion, whatever it secretly may be, is a "strawman?"
Click to expand...
RGacky3 said:
Yes, because I may not agree with everything that all Unitarian Universalists or whatever teach.
Click to expand...
Well given you've refused multiple opportunities to correct your statement that you do not believe Jesus is divine, or that the Holy Spirit is divine; and given you've admitted your religion is a strawman - Unitarian or no, might it be possible then for you to begin to understand why no one gives your peculiar interpretation of Scripture one iota of a shred of credibility?
 
EdwinWillers said:
Well given you've refused multiple opportunities to correct your statement that you do not believe Jesus is divine, or that the Holy Spirit is divine; and given you've admitted your religion is a strawman - Unitarian or no, might it be possible then for you to begin to understand why no one gives your peculiar interpretation of Scripture one iota of a shred of credibility?
Click to expand...

No Jesus is NOT Yahweh .... the holy spirit is not a person.

Most people judge what I say about scripture on the scripture itself and the merits of the exegesis ... not my orthodoxy.
 
RGacky3 said:
No Jesus is NOT Yahweh .... the holy spirit is not a person.

Most people judge what I say about scripture on the scripture itself and the merits of the exegesis ... not my orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
No, I suspect most people judge what you say about Scripture based on Scripture, not on your peculiar, unorthodox interpretation of it; and certainly not on your "orthodoxy."
 
EdwinWillers said:
No, I suspect most people judge what you say about Scripture based on Scripture, not on your peculiar, unorthodox interpretation of it; and certainly not on your "orthodoxy."
Click to expand...

Ok, then why not deal with the scirptures I posted, and what I said ... ? Go ahead, so far both you and logicman have only done adhominem attacks, posting scriptures that haven't been read, and links, and ignoring sciptures and arguments, if you think you can defend your position and it can hold up to scruitiny then be my guest.
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok, then why not deal with the scirptures I posted, and what I said ... ? Go ahead, so far both you and logicman have only done adhominem attacks, posting scriptures that haven't been read, and links, and ignoring sciptures and arguments, if you think you can defend your position and it can hold up to scruitiny then be my guest.
Click to expand...
Friend, I've addressed your nonsense lucidly and Scripturally - with Scriptures I've indeed read; and studied. You've openly asserted that Jesus isn't divine, that the Holy Spirit isn't divine - and apart from such obvious blasphemies, after repeated opportunities to retract those statements, you refuse to. There's no ad-hominem in that, just simple, sad fact. And as I stated before, the very notion of someone being able to pass themselves off as some sort of superior Scriptural exegete who denies the divinity of the very One who has authored our faith is at best, a foolish one. Ergo, to argue with someone who's taken this stance would be itself foolish; and I daresay, I've already crossed that line a few times too many, unwisely thinking I could sway you into taking Scripture more seriously than you do. With that, I'll leave you with perhaps the most appropriate Scripture as applies to this discussion:

Proverbs 26:4f
 
EdwinWillers said:
Friend, I've addressed your nonsense lucidly and Scripturally - with Scriptures I've indeed read; and studied. You've openly asserted that Jesus isn't divine, that the Holy Spirit isn't divine - and apart from such obvious blasphemies, after repeated opportunities to retract those statements, you refuse to. There's no ad-hominem in that, just simple, sad fact. And as I stated before, the very notion of someone being able to pass themselves off as some sort of superior Scriptural exegete who denies the divinity of the very One who has authored our faith is at best, a foolish one. Ergo, to argue with someone who's taken this stance would be itself foolish; and I daresay, I've already crossed that line a few times too many, unwisely thinking I could sway you into taking Scripture more seriously than you do. With that, I'll leave you with perhaps the most appropriate Scripture as applies to this discussion:

Proverbs 26:4f
Click to expand...

Ok which post, did you actually deal with the scriptures I posted, and actually dealt with the responses to teh scriptures you posted .... show me, which post.
 
RGacky3 said:
I called them a liar, because they ... lied ... ego eimi is NOT waht Yahweh called himself in Exedus, and he knew it, it is NOT a form of the divine name and he knew it, it's a straight up lie.

Unless you believe that I am what? No yahweh ... READ

24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.”[f] 25 They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Why do I speak to you at all?[g] 26 I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.” 27 They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he,[h] and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.” 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

The son of man who has been sent by the father, and instructed by the father ..... NOT God himself.

Ego Eimi is used ALL OVER THE PLACE in greek, people say "I am this" "I am that" "I am he" "I am not he" and so on, they arn't calling themselve Yahweh, neither is jesus. Ego Eimi is NOT Gods name, he didn't call himself that in the burning Bush, look at a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Saying Ego Eimi=Yahweh is a LIE, and you know it, if Ego Eimi = Yahweh, then guess what, the Blind man whome Jesus cured IS YAHWEH.



Jesus called Yahweh his God .... and the ONLY true God.

John 20:
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

John 17:
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

I mean that's JUST John, other places it's ALL OVER THE PLACE ... I'm sorry, you're doctrine is NOT biblical.
Click to expand...


You appear to be getting the Triune aspect confused. Which is understandable - it's literally beyond human comprehension. But the scriptures are pretty clear that Jesus was both human and God.

Since you bring up John:

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Click to expand...

The Son having a relationship with the Father does not make Jesus any less God; it makes Him part of the Trinity.
 
cpwill said:
You appear to be getting the Triune aspect confused. Which is understandable - it's literally beyond human comprehension. But the scriptures are pretty clear that Jesus was both human and God.

Since you bring up John:

The Son having a relationship with the Father does not make Jesus any less God; it makes Him part of the Trinity.
Click to expand...

What translation are you using? I ask because it's wierd rendering of John 1:18.

John 1:1 Literally says.

In the begining was "lo logos" and "ho Logos" was with "TON THEON" and "THEOS was "ho logos."

This is THE ONLY time that talking about God is done in this way, where God is used with the article and then without, so notice the article is used BOTH TIMES with the "logos" but only the first theos has the article, with the article theos is identifying without it's descriptive. So in the begining the word was with the God (the person identified as God, the being identified as God) and the word was godlike, or divine.

Now if John wanted to identify Jesus as God ontologically, he would have said he was THE God, but he didn't. In a way Yes Jesus is divine, but so are the angels, so we're the judges (as Jesus points out in John 10, when he explains that other's we're called Gods, but he only calls himself Gods son.)

Now John 1:18 LITEREALLY in the greek calls the Son, "the only begotten God" (literally) which the NRSV translates as It is God the only Son,[e]", so you're translation is a bit wierd. HOWEVER the important part there in the greek is "only begotten" ... what does begotten mean ... it means coming into being ....

This is why Jesus talks about HIS GOD, Jesus has a God, its the same God we have, Yahweh, the father.
 
RGacky3 said:
What translation are you using? I ask because it's wierd rendering of John 1:18.
Click to expand...

NIV. Not exactly exotic ;).

John 1:1 Literally says.

In the begining was "lo logos" and "ho Logos" was with "TON THEON" and "THEOS was "ho logos."

This is THE ONLY time that talking about God is done in this way, where God is used with the article and then without, so notice the article is used BOTH TIMES with the "logos" but only the first theos has the article, with the article theos is identifying without it's descriptive. So in the begining the word was with the God (the person identified as God, the being identified as God) and the word was godlike, or divine.
Click to expand...

No, no "like" or "similar to". The Word was God, and the Word was with God. Precisely as we would expect from a Trinitarian Godhead.

Now if John wanted to identify Jesus as God ontologically, he would have said he was THE God, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

Or he would have said (as he did, twice) that Jesus WAS God. Explicitly - "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God"

There is no play there. No room for your wiggle.

Now John 1:18 LITEREALLY in the greek calls the Son, "the only begotten God" (literally) which the NRSV translates as It is God the only Son,[e]", so you're translation is a bit wierd. HOWEVER the important part there in the greek is "only begotten" ... what does begotten mean ... it means coming into being ....
Click to expand...

Yeah, no one argues that Jesus isn't Begotten of the Father. We simply point out that the same text that says that is also fairly clear that He was and is God. You are attempting here to import chronological distinctions into a non-chronological reality.
 
cpwill said:
NIV. Not exactly exotic ;).
Click to expand...

yeah, not exotic ... I myself don't like it, but I understand that it is a respected version, but for scriptures like John 1:18, a LITTLE interpolation, or a little assumption goes a long way.

No, no "like" or "similar to". The Word was God, and the Word was with God. Precisely as we would expect from a Trinitarian Godhead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in the greek the God the word was with was Ton Theon, and the god that he was was theos ... there is a reason for that, had John wanted to identify the word as the God he was with he would have used the article for both .... but this is the ONLY PLACE this is done (one theos having the article one not), and there is a reason for it, it is not the same God. Look at the greek for that verse, and it makes sense, when it later calls him the only begotten God, The son of God, the Son of God who worships the same God we do.

The thing about was with god and was god, that isn't how it was written in greek. IT was written the word was with THE GOD and Theos was the word, the fact that the former has the article and the latter doesn't IS significant and cannot be ignored.

Btw, if you're arguing that John 1:1 is trinitarian (as most trinitarian scholars try to do) you have a huge problem, what does God mean, does it mean the trinity? Does it mean the father? So was Jesus with God (the father), but he was God (the trinity)??? Is it 2 seperate Gods that are being talked about here?

Obviously the second theos is discriptive not identifying, as EVERY SCHOLAR KNOWS, since we have the first god with the article and the second without. "theos was the word" not "the word was the theos"

Or he would have said (as he did, twice) that Jesus WAS God. Explicitly - "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God"

There is no play there. No room for your wiggle.
Click to expand...

Not in the greek, I take the greek text to be the inspired word, not whatever translation, I use the NRSV, but you can use whatever I'm talking about the greek text that John wrote it in. So we seen when Jesus is called divine, or the only begotten God (yahweh is not begotten), we have to find out what that means, jesus clarifies all throughout John, John 10, and later when he calls the father "the only true God" and "the God of me and the God of you."

Yeah, no one argues that Jesus isn't Begotten of the Father. We simply point out that the same text that says that is also fairly clear that He was and is God. You are attempting here to import chronological distinctions into a non-chronological reality.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't say Jesus the human was begotten ... it says "the only begotten god" i.e. the divine Christ is begotten.

So we take this with all the other scriptures. Scriptures where Jesus post ressurection is given authority and then gives it up to God who rules everything, wehre jesus has a God, and its the same as our God, scriptures where he recieves his message from God and so on and so forth.

The entire bible argues against the trinity all the time, and John 1, when read correctly, and in context, and understand the greek grammer, also does.
 
RGacky3 said:
yeah, not exotic ... I myself don't like it, but I understand that it is a respected version, but for scriptures like John 1:18, a LITTLE interpolation, or a little assumption goes a long way.

Yeah, but in the greek the God the word was with was Ton Theon, and the god that he was was theos ... there is a reason for that, had John wanted to identify the word as the God he was with he would have used the article for both .... but this is the ONLY PLACE this is done (one theos having the article one not), and there is a reason for it, it is not the same God. Look at the greek for that verse, and it makes sense, when it later calls him the only begotten God, The son of God, the Son of God who worships the same God we do.
Click to expand...

Of course He maintained a relationship with, prayed to, and worshiped/thanked/etc. God while He walked this earth. Which makes Him not God not in the slightest.

The thing about was with god and was god, that isn't how it was written in greek. IT was written the word was with THE GOD and Theos was the word, the fact that the former has the article and the latter doesn't IS significant and cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that it is. I am simply pointing out to you that it does not carry the significance to which you are assigning it, namely, that it does not identify a difference in the Godly character of God or Jesus, but refers to them both as God.

The literal rendition is:

“and the Word was [ēn] with [pros] the God [ton theon], and God [theos] was the Word.”​

which maintains the exact same meaning as is captured in both the NIV and the NRSV:

NRSV said:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. 15 (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”) 16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
Click to expand...

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Triune Godhead. Trinity. Way beyond our ability to really get our heads around, but His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Btw, if you're arguing that John 1:1 is trinitarian (as most trinitarian scholars try to do) you have a huge problem, what does God mean, does it mean the trinity? Does it mean the father? So was Jesus with God (the father), but he was God (the trinity)??? Is it 2 seperate Gods that are being talked about here?
Click to expand...

No, one Triune God.

Not in the greek, I take the greek text to be the inspired word, not whatever translation, I use the NRSV, but you can use whatever I'm talking about the greek text that John wrote it in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cited above. Meanwhile, the Greek is no more or less inspired than the Aramaic or the Latin.

So we seen when Jesus is called divine, or the only begotten God (yahweh is not begotten), we have to find out what that means, jesus clarifies all throughout John, John 10, and later when he calls the father "the only true God" and "the God of me and the God of you."
Click to expand...

Yup. Fully Human. Fully God.

But it doesn't say Jesus the human was begotten ... it says "the only begotten god" i.e. the divine Christ is begotten.
Click to expand...

That is correct, the Son is Begotten of the Father.

So we take this with all the other scriptures. Scriptures where Jesus post ressurection is given authority and then gives it up to God who rules everything, wehre jesus has a God, and its the same as our God, scriptures where he recieves his message from God and so on and so forth.

The entire bible argues against the trinity all the time, and John 1, when read correctly, and in context, and understand the greek grammer, also does.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - Jesus consistently identified Himself both as a human who worshiped God and as God. The "entire Bible" (since you want to bring it up) argues for a trinitarian position since Genesis when God speaks of Himself in the plural.
 
cpwill said:
Of course He maintained a relationship with, prayed to, and worshiped/thanked/etc. God while He walked this earth. Which makes Him not God not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

If you look at my post's I talk about his relationship to God Post ressurection and ascension, we have scriptures all over the place, in pauls letters, in peter, post ressurection in John where it talks about God as the God of jesus their lord, God of the christ.
And the submission texts are all post ascension, in the letters to the Corinthians and others, in Revelations Jesus recieves his message FROM GOD, and so on.

No one is suggesting that it is. I am simply pointing out to you that it does not carry the significance to which you are assigning it, namely, that it does not identify a difference in the Godly character of God or Jesus, but refers to them both as God.

The literal rendition is:

“and the Word was [ēn] with [pros] the God [ton theon], and God [theos] was the Word.”​

which maintains the exact same meaning as is captured in both the NIV and the NRSV:
Click to expand...

Yes but the problem is in the Greek a distinction is made between the God that the word was with, and the god that it was, or the property of godship, in english that distinction isn't always made. That IS significant, that distinction isn't made anywhere else, and theos is used ALL THE TIME to denotate Godly character, or Divininty, rather than identity, whereas Ho Theos or Ton theon is used all the time to denotate actual Identity.

If you think there is another reason for the use of the article for the first theos and the omiting of in in the second then what is it?

No, one Triune God.
Click to expand...

So both instances refer to the triune God? So Jesus was with the triune God and Jesus was the triune God??? (ignoring the obvious distinction in the use of the article).

Yeah, cited above. Meanwhile, the Greek is no more or less inspired than the Aramaic or the Latin.
Click to expand...

The bible wasn't writen in latin origionally .... The NT was written in Greek origionally.

Yup. Fully Human. Fully God.
Click to expand...

But he clarifies what he means by "gods son" in Acts 10 ... he explains that even judges are called gods, but he is just gods son, so he in no way is calling himself yahweh. Also in other verses he says the father is the only true God, that the father is greater than him, that he does nothing without the authority and power of the father, that the father is his god and our god, and so on.

That is correct, the Son is Begotten of the Father.
Click to expand...

Meaning he came into being ...

That is incorrect - Jesus consistently identified Himself both as a human who worshiped God and as God. The "entire Bible" (since you want to bring it up) argues for a trinitarian position since Genesis when God speaks of Himself in the plural.
Click to expand...

not quite, he isn't worshiped AS GOD, he is "proskenau" worshiped ... (or bowed down to), but so are angels, and so was king david, so was other kings ..... but he is NEVER "latreau" or rendered sacred servace, something that ONLY belongs to God under the law.
 
cpwill said:
Of course He maintained a relationship with, prayed to, and worshiped/thanked/etc. God while He walked this earth. Which makes Him not God not in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Of course He maintained a relationship with, prayed to, and worshiped/thanked/etc. Voldemort while He walked this earth. Which makes Him not God in the slightest.

cpwill said:
The literal rendition is:

“and the Word was [ēn] with [pros] the God [ton theon], and God [theos] was the Word.”​

which maintains the exact same meaning as is captured in both the NIV and the NRSV:
Click to expand...
“One can never have enough socks,” said Dumbledore. “Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn’t get a single pair. People will insist on giving me books.”
— Albus Dumbledore

The literal rendition shows that Voldemort is the Word and with the God and the God was the Word with the Voldemort
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Triune Godhead. Trinity. Way beyond our ability to really get our heads around, but His thoughts are not our thoughts.

cpwill said:
Yup. Fully Human. Fully God.
Click to expand...
Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.
— J. K. Rowling

Harry Potter: Fully Human. Fully God. As you can see, the quote in this holy text says so so it must be true.

That is incorrect - Jesus consistently identified Himself both as a human who worshiped God and as God. The "entire Bible" (since you want to bring it up) argues for a trinitarian position since Genesis when God speaks of Himself in the plural.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom