Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Let's try The Living Bible. Even though it is a paraphrase, like a rolling commentary, it has helped me over the years, and I have never found it to contradict translations.

5 Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ, 6 who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God, 7 but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. 8 And he humbled himself even further, going so far as actually to die a criminal’s death on a cross.

The point is Jesus IS God.

no, the point is you want to ignore the context of scripture in favor of your belief, I will not agree with that. You believe Jesus to be God I believe him to be the Only-Begotten Son of God.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

No, we are not God, but since this scripture is telling us who are imperfect human beings to have the same mind or thought as Jesus and since as I understand it and if I'm wrong please correct me you and others are saying that Jesus thought himself equal to God, so you and others are saying we as imperfect people should have the same mind or same thinking that we should think ourselves to be equal to God. This scripture is not saying this it's not the context of this scripture. The context of this scripture is that it is showing us how humble Jesus is in that although he(Jesus) was in Gods form he(Jesus) never snatched at any idea that he(Jesus) was equal to God and we who are imperfect humans should follow his(Jesus) example of humbleness.

I see by the translation of the Bible you prefer, you are JW. Is that correct? Now I understand what colored glasses you are wearing when reading the scriptures. Your Bible does not have 1 John 5:7 in its entirety that could show you that the Word is God. Not (a) god as your version of John 1:1 says. Personally, I want to know what the Author means, and EVERY word He authored.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

no, the point is you want to ignore the context of scripture in favor of your belief, I will not agree with that. You believe Jesus to be God I believe him to be the Only-Begotten Son of God.

I know. Because that is what JW's have told you. You, like many others, are a denominationalist. I am not. While you are bound to your denomination, I am bound to God.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I know. Because that is what JW's have told you. You, like many others, are a denominationalist. I am not. While you are bound to your denomination, I am bound to God.

If you wish to go around and tell people even me that I can't read and reason things out myself but can only believe what someone told me(JW's) then be my guess. I'm not going to agree with taking things out of context when it comes to the scriptures. You can speak out against me all you want this is not going to change.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

If you wish to go around and tell people even me that I can't read and reason things out myself but can only believe what someone told me(JW's) then be my guess. I'm not going to agree with taking things out of context when it comes to the scriptures. You can speak out against me all you want this is not going to change.

We disagree on what that passage actually says. I go by the clear Word, and the context of all of Scripture. Your interpretation is totally slanted to be in line with JW doctrine which denies the deity of Jesus. That's the difference.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

We disagree on what that passage actually says. I go by the clear Word. Your interpretation is totally slanted to be in line with JW doctrine. That's the difference.

That's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, but again that still means nothing to me when I know I can read and reason things out for myself. Just because someone tells me something concerning the scriptures doesn't mean I don't look and study to see if those scriptures are saying what those people are saying is true. Just because you disagree with them and me, which like I said is your right, doesn't mean anything to me when like I said I have read and studied to see if what was said is true. like I said and will continue to say I believe you and others who agree with you are ignoring the context of these scriptures.

Palm-Sunday Dispute in France

“CHRIST is God and not an image!” The amplified voice echoed around the Gothic arches of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, covering momentarily the reading of the “Epistle.” Some two thousand Catholics present had barely recovered from their surprise when they heard the Apostles’ Creed being sung in Latin. This protest singing was quickly drowned out by the mighty organ. At that the demonstrators left and the Mass continued.

Similar demonstrations occurred in other churches in Paris at Masses celebrated during that weekend of Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971. The demonstrators were not Protestants or atheists but traditionalist Catholics! But why the protest?

It involved the reading of the “Epistle” in the vernacular, in French. As any practicing Catholic knows, the “Epistle” read during Mass on Palm Sunday is Philippians 2:5-11. In the 1959 French lectionary Philippians 2:6 read: “Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to the rank that made him equal to God.” But in 1969, the French-speaking bishops authorized the publishing of a new lectionary that was approved by the Holy See in Rome on September 16, 1969. In this Philippians 2:6was rendered: “Christ Jesus is God’s image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God.”

One noted French Catholic scholar, André Feuillet, wrote: “This version . . . stirred up sharp criticism on all sides. Was it not liable to make the faithful believe that Christ is not God in the strictest sense of the word?” (Esprit et Vie, December 17, 1970) Ah, there was the problem!

Pressure was brought to bear on the French hierarchy, who consented to revise this second translation of Philippians 2:6. However, when it became known that this third translation of Philippians 2:6 was no more trinitarian than the second rendering and that it would be read out in all the churches on Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971, traditionalist Catholics reacted violently.

The Catholic monthly magazine Itinéraires brought out a special supplement dated January 1971. Referring to the second translation of Philippians 2:6, Itinéraires stated: “If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it.” And, commenting on the third rendering, this magazine said that if Christ “did not choose to claim to be the same as God,” this implies that he was not “the same as God.” With this the New American Bible, a Catholic edition of 1970, agrees, saying: “He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at.” In Itinéraires’ view, “the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy.” It encouraged its readers to demonstrate their disapproval during Masses celebrated on Palm Sunday, inviting them to await the “Epistle” reading and then to cry out “Blasphemy!”, “Jesus Christ very God and very man,” or to sing the Apostles’ Creed.

In spite of these threats, the French episcopate stood by their third translation of Philippians 2:6. Le Monde (March 21-22, 1971) commented: “This translation . . . was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand.” However, to avoid disturbances during the Palm-Sunday Mass, several bishops allowed priests in their dioceses to use the 1959 translation. Notwithstanding this concession, demonstrations occurred in cathedrals in Paris and also in Lyons.

THE DILEMMA OF THE FRENCH BISHOPS

Oddly enough, these traditionalist demonstrators were trying to be better Catholics than the French-speaking bishops and cardinals! As good Catholics they believe in the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal within the Godhead. They were profoundly shocked by a hierarchy-approved translation of Philippians 2:6 that shows Christ never claimed to be “the same as God.” They were right in saying that this translation denies that Christ is God. But the point they overlook is that Christ himself denied it, speaking of his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, Douay) He did not teach a Trinity doctrine.

The intriguing question is: Why did the French-speaking upper clergy feel obliged to authorize a translation that so obviously denies one of the basic doctrines of Catholicism? But that is not all. Is it not passing strange that these prelates considered it necessary to have a fresh translation made of this passage? What about all the Catholic Bibles duly carrying the nihil obstat and the imprimatur? What about the Jerusalem Bible, the Crampon Bible, the Liénart Bible, the Maredsous Bible, the Glaire Bible, the Osty New Testament, the Saci Bible and still others, all officially recognized French Catholic translations? Why make a new translation when all of these Bibles make this passage read as if Christ were equal to God, as do the English Catholic translations, the Douay Bible and the more recent Jerusalem Bible?

This mystery is cleared up by the following remark printed in Le Monde (April 6, 1971): “The scholars responsible for this change —a change ratified by the majority of the French bishops— consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former one was [italics ours].”

So now the French-speaking Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Either they recant, withdrawing their new translation of Philippians 2:6, in which case they will show themselves to be more attached to the Trinity doctrine than to accuracy of Bible translation, or they maintain their new official translation of this important passage, at the cost of admitting that French Catholic Bibles (not to speak of those in other languages) have mistranslated this scripture by giving it a trinitarian twist.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

That's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, but again that still means nothing to me when I know I can read and reason things out for myself. Just because someone tells me something concerning the scriptures doesn't mean I don't look and study to see if those scriptures are saying what those people are saying is true. Just because you disagree with them and me, which like I said is your right, doesn't mean anything to me when like I said I have read and studied to see if what was said is true. like I said and will continue to say I believe you and others who agree with you are ignoring the context of these scriptures.

Palm-Sunday Dispute in France

“CHRIST is God and not an image!” The amplified voice echoed around the Gothic arches of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, covering momentarily the reading of the “Epistle.” Some two thousand Catholics present had barely recovered from their surprise when they heard the Apostles’ Creed being sung in Latin. This protest singing was quickly drowned out by the mighty organ. At that the demonstrators left and the Mass continued.

Similar demonstrations occurred in other churches in Paris at Masses celebrated during that weekend of Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971. The demonstrators were not Protestants or atheists but traditionalist Catholics! But why the protest?

It involved the reading of the “Epistle” in the vernacular, in French. As any practicing Catholic knows, the “Epistle” read during Mass on Palm Sunday is Philippians 2:5-11. In the 1959 French lectionary Philippians 2:6 read: “Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to the rank that made him equal to God.” But in 1969, the French-speaking bishops authorized the publishing of a new lectionary that was approved by the Holy See in Rome on September 16, 1969. In this Philippians 2:6was rendered: “Christ Jesus is God’s image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God.”

One noted French Catholic scholar, André Feuillet, wrote: “This version . . . stirred up sharp criticism on all sides. Was it not liable to make the faithful believe that Christ is not God in the strictest sense of the word?” (Esprit et Vie, December 17, 1970) Ah, there was the problem!

Pressure was brought to bear on the French hierarchy, who consented to revise this second translation of Philippians 2:6. However, when it became known that this third translation of Philippians 2:6 was no more trinitarian than the second rendering and that it would be read out in all the churches on Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971, traditionalist Catholics reacted violently.

The Catholic monthly magazine Itinéraires brought out a special supplement dated January 1971. Referring to the second translation of Philippians 2:6, Itinéraires stated: “If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it.” And, commenting on the third rendering, this magazine said that if Christ “did not choose to claim to be the same as God,” this implies that he was not “the same as God.” With this the New American Bible, a Catholic edition of 1970, agrees, saying: “He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at.” In Itinéraires’ view, “the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy.” It encouraged its readers to demonstrate their disapproval during Masses celebrated on Palm Sunday, inviting them to await the “Epistle” reading and then to cry out “Blasphemy!”, “Jesus Christ very God and very man,” or to sing the Apostles’ Creed.

In spite of these threats, the French episcopate stood by their third translation of Philippians 2:6. Le Monde (March 21-22, 1971) commented: “This translation . . . was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand.” However, to avoid disturbances during the Palm-Sunday Mass, several bishops allowed priests in their dioceses to use the 1959 translation. Notwithstanding this concession, demonstrations occurred in cathedrals in Paris and also in Lyons.

THE DILEMMA OF THE FRENCH BISHOPS

Oddly enough, these traditionalist demonstrators were trying to be better Catholics than the French-speaking bishops and cardinals! As good Catholics they believe in the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal within the Godhead. They were profoundly shocked by a hierarchy-approved translation of Philippians 2:6 that shows Christ never claimed to be “the same as God.” They were right in saying that this translation denies that Christ is God. But the point they overlook is that Christ himself denied it, speaking of his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, Douay) He did not teach a Trinity doctrine.

The intriguing question is: Why did the French-speaking upper clergy feel obliged to authorize a translation that so obviously denies one of the basic doctrines of Catholicism? But that is not all. Is it not passing strange that these prelates considered it necessary to have a fresh translation made of this passage? What about all the Catholic Bibles duly carrying the nihil obstat and the imprimatur? What about the Jerusalem Bible, the Crampon Bible, the Liénart Bible, the Maredsous Bible, the Glaire Bible, the Osty New Testament, the Saci Bible and still others, all officially recognized French Catholic translations? Why make a new translation when all of these Bibles make this passage read as if Christ were equal to God, as do the English Catholic translations, the Douay Bible and the more recent Jerusalem Bible?

This mystery is cleared up by the following remark printed in Le Monde (April 6, 1971): “The scholars responsible for this change —a change ratified by the majority of the French bishops— consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former one was [italics ours].”

So now the French-speaking Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Either they recant, withdrawing their new translation of Philippians 2:6, in which case they will show themselves to be more attached to the Trinity doctrine than to accuracy of Bible translation, or they maintain their new official translation of this important passage, at the cost of admitting that French Catholic Bibles (not to speak of those in other languages) have mistranslated this scripture by giving it a trinitarian twist.

The JW's are not alone in slanting scripture to fit their beliefs, rather than letting God's Word mold them to the truth that frees. Many denominations do the same thing with other areas. The most dangerous being on the issue of sin. There are denominations far more dangerous than JWs and are even mainstream. So don't think I'm picking on you, personally, and telling you, you can't read. You can read the words, but don't understand the deep understanding of them. God is Spirit, and must be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth.

 

[APAK]

Let's try The Living Bible. Even though it is a paraphrase, like a rolling commentary, it has helped me over the years, and I have never found it to contradict translations.

5 Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ, 6 who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God, 7 but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. 8 And he humbled himself even further, going so far as actually to die a criminal’s death on a cross.

The point is Jesus IS God.

First Century:

The Bible you are using to convince folks that Phil 2:6 says Jesus is God is a deceitful ploy.

You are deliberately using a proven corrupt version of the Bible such as the New Living Translation (NLT) or the Contemporary English Version (CEV) or some other one like these two.

Jesus was ‘in the form’ or same mental image of his Father. It does not say he has a divine nature or he was God. You will have to try harder.

Read the context and you will see the point of the conversation what to encourage folks to have a humble attitude and perform the will of God as Jesus did even though he could have taken God’s work and credit it himself as his own. It was not a conversation to announce Jesus was God. There would be 'deer in the headlights' if this actually was the context. Read the context before announcing your find you are forcing on folks

It is a great practice to cite your Bible version when you are using and scripture for your argument.

Thanks


Bless you,


APAK

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The JW's are not alone in slanting scripture to fit their beliefs, rather than letting God's Word mold them to the truth that frees. Many denominations do the same thing with other areas. The most dangerous being on the issue of sin. There are denominations far more dangerous than JWs and are even mainstream. So don't think I'm picking on you, personally, and telling you, you can't read. You can read the words, but don't understand the deep understanding of them. God is Spirit, and must be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth.

I'll say this, that people in the past said Jesus himself was not staying in scripture, that he was a demon, a false prophet so I know there are going to be those who disagree with me. Like I said I will continue to believe it was the Only-Begotten Son of God who became flesh, died for me and then was resurrected by God three days after his death and as long as I exercise faith in this loving act by God and his Only-Begotten Son I will be saved. You and others who believe as you do I believe are encouraging people to deny this. I will not deny this, others may but I will not.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

That's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, but again that still means nothing to me when I know I can read and reason things out for myself. Just because someone tells me something concerning the scriptures doesn't mean I don't look and study to see if those scriptures are saying what those people are saying is true. Just because you disagree with them and me, which like I said is your right, doesn't mean anything to me when like I said I have read and studied to see if what was said is true. like I said and will continue to say I believe you and others who agree with you are ignoring the context of these scriptures.

Palm-Sunday Dispute in France

“CHRIST is God and not an image!” The amplified voice echoed around the Gothic arches of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, covering momentarily the reading of the “Epistle.” Some two thousand Catholics present had barely recovered from their surprise when they heard the Apostles’ Creed being sung in Latin. This protest singing was quickly drowned out by the mighty organ. At that the demonstrators left and the Mass continued.

Similar demonstrations occurred in other churches in Paris at Masses celebrated during that weekend of Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971. The demonstrators were not Protestants or atheists but traditionalist Catholics! But why the protest?

It involved the reading of the “Epistle” in the vernacular, in French. As any practicing Catholic knows, the “Epistle” read during Mass on Palm Sunday is Philippians 2:5-11. In the 1959 French lectionary Philippians 2:6 read: “Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to the rank that made him equal to God.” But in 1969, the French-speaking bishops authorized the publishing of a new lectionary that was approved by the Holy See in Rome on September 16, 1969. In this Philippians 2:6was rendered: “Christ Jesus is God’s image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God.”

One noted French Catholic scholar, André Feuillet, wrote: “This version . . . stirred up sharp criticism on all sides. Was it not liable to make the faithful believe that Christ is not God in the strictest sense of the word?” (Esprit et Vie, December 17, 1970) Ah, there was the problem!

Pressure was brought to bear on the French hierarchy, who consented to revise this second translation of Philippians 2:6. However, when it became known that this third translation of Philippians 2:6 was no more trinitarian than the second rendering and that it would be read out in all the churches on Palm Sunday, April 4, 1971, traditionalist Catholics reacted violently.

The Catholic monthly magazine Itinéraires brought out a special supplement dated January 1971. Referring to the second translation of Philippians 2:6, Itinéraires stated: “If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it.” And, commenting on the third rendering, this magazine said that if Christ “did not choose to claim to be the same as God,” this implies that he was not “the same as God.” With this the New American Bible, a Catholic edition of 1970, agrees, saying: “He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at.” In Itinéraires’ view, “the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy.” It encouraged its readers to demonstrate their disapproval during Masses celebrated on Palm Sunday, inviting them to await the “Epistle” reading and then to cry out “Blasphemy!”, “Jesus Christ very God and very man,” or to sing the Apostles’ Creed.

In spite of these threats, the French episcopate stood by their third translation of Philippians 2:6. Le Monde (March 21-22, 1971) commented: “This translation . . . was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand.” However, to avoid disturbances during the Palm-Sunday Mass, several bishops allowed priests in their dioceses to use the 1959 translation. Notwithstanding this concession, demonstrations occurred in cathedrals in Paris and also in Lyons.

THE DILEMMA OF THE FRENCH BISHOPS

Oddly enough, these traditionalist demonstrators were trying to be better Catholics than the French-speaking bishops and cardinals! As good Catholics they believe in the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal within the Godhead. They were profoundly shocked by a hierarchy-approved translation of Philippians 2:6 that shows Christ never claimed to be “the same as God.” They were right in saying that this translation denies that Christ is God. But the point they overlook is that Christ himself denied it, speaking of his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, Douay) He did not teach a Trinity doctrine.

The intriguing question is: Why did the French-speaking upper clergy feel obliged to authorize a translation that so obviously denies one of the basic doctrines of Catholicism? But that is not all. Is it not passing strange that these prelates considered it necessary to have a fresh translation made of this passage? What about all the Catholic Bibles duly carrying the nihil obstat and the imprimatur? What about the Jerusalem Bible, the Crampon Bible, the Liénart Bible, the Maredsous Bible, the Glaire Bible, the Osty New Testament, the Saci Bible and still others, all officially recognized French Catholic translations? Why make a new translation when all of these Bibles make this passage read as if Christ were equal to God, as do the English Catholic translations, the Douay Bible and the more recent Jerusalem Bible?

This mystery is cleared up by the following remark printed in Le Monde (April 6, 1971): “The scholars responsible for this change —a change ratified by the majority of the French bishops— consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former one was [italics ours].”

So now the French-speaking Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Either they recant, withdrawing their new translation of Philippians 2:6, in which case they will show themselves to be more attached to the Trinity doctrine than to accuracy of Bible translation, or they maintain their new official translation of this important passage, at the cost of admitting that French Catholic Bibles (not to speak of those in other languages) have mistranslated this scripture by giving it a trinitarian twist.

I hope you hold up your words as truth and won't let JWs convince you with any scare tactics of "apostacy" if you find the Scriptures don't agree their twist of meaning.

I am Trinitarian. However, I do not for one minute judge those who believe that Jesus is all three in Himself. Jesus is the Child of Isaiah 9:6. He is Wonderful Counselor (Holy Spirit), Mighty God (Elohim), Everlasting Father (Jehovah), and Prince of Peace (Messiah). They recognize the deity of Jesus. That's the area where JWs don't understand Isaiah 9:6 or the gospel. You personally do not understand that the Word of God emptied Himself of His deity for a brief time only, to live as man and sinless, making Himself who is the Creator of all things, a servant, because He loved His creation enough to die for them. And now you are going to sit there and say, you think for yourself, and still say that Jesus is not God???

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

John 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

You may think you have God, and still deny the deity of the Son. But when you do, you don't have the Father either. Only if you do not deny the Son, do you have the Father also. Why? They are one. If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

First Century:

The Bible you are using to convince folks that Phil 2:6 says Jesus is God is a deceitful ploy.

You are deliberately using a proven corrupt version of the Bible such as the New Living Translation (NLT) or the Contemporary English Version (CEV) or some other one like these two.

Jesus was ‘in the form’ or same mental image of his Father. It does not say he has a divine nature or he was God. You will have to try harder.

Read the context and you will see the point of the conversation what to encourage folks to have a humble attitude and perform the will of God as Jesus did even though he could have taken God’s work and credit it himself as his own. It was not a conversation to announce Jesus was God. There would be 'deer in the headlights' if this actually was the context. Read the context before announcing your find you are forcing on folks

It is a great practice to cite your Bible version when you are using and scripture for your argument.

Thanks


Bless you,


APAK

I use NKJV accept when I discern an error. Then I check the verse in question with all translations, including the YLT. I find the NASB to have the best translation of meaning of word for word translating, however, they do not include all the Word of God in their Bible, leaving out crucial passages, as do ALL modern translations. I prefer the most of God's Word, not the least.

My response was in light of the Title of this entire post which questions the deity of Christ.

The scripture in Philippians 2 was in no way "admitting" that Jesus was not God. Just the opposite. And if our Great God can humble Himself, emptying Himself of His all powerfulnes, and become a servant, how much more should we. That is what that verse means. It is not a proof text of JW's erroneous claim.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I'll say this, that people in the past said Jesus himself was not staying in scripture, that he was a demon, a false prophet so I know there are going to be those who disagree with me. Like I said I will continue to believe it was the Only-Begotten Son of God who became flesh, died for me and then was resurrected by God three days after his death and as long as I exercise faith in this loving act by God and his Only-Begotten Son I will be saved. You and others who believe as you do I believe are encouraging people to deny this. I will not deny this, others may but I will not.

I don't know who you are now claiming to call Jesus a demon or false prophet, or why you would even bring up such a heinous claim. Yikes! But just so you know, it was the Trinity who brought Jesus back from the dead.

Father: Acts 2:24; Romans 6:4
Son: John 10:17-18; John 2:19
Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 8:11

But I can relate to all those who do not realize that Jesus is God. I went to church for 30 years, before I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What a difference that made in every area of my life, including seeing what scripture is actually saying. I even have the Bible with bold writing in the margin, when I first realized this truth and wrote "Jesus is God!" I was shocked!

I don't expect to get through to anyone who hasn't received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To the carnal mind, many things in Scripture are just foolishness. 1 Corinthians 2.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

yes, i am aware of the logic chain, and tbh it is not even the principle i object to, but the practices. Trinity doctrine is not used to include, but to exclude. The inference is that Jesus should be "worshipped" as in "ritually bowed down to," and the same bunch will of course be defining Jesus also; you will be required to worship the White Jesus, the Institutional Jesus. Iow Christ is crucified again.

Two Greeks came to worship Jesus, and He hid from them; and it takes a priest to break up Nehushtan.
These are not sermons that one ever gets in a congregation i guess

are you fam with Nehushtan at all? Know who he is?

Jesus is Emmanuel God with us, no one can come to the Father but through Emmanuel, God with us, you need to understand that he is incarnate as the word of God to Man and the Holy Spirit and only does the will of the Father, who is one in the same.
Fact is no one can come to know God and they never did until he came, all people were lost before Jesus came and he is the one, that Holy Moses said of will come and it can not happen any other way.

If you do not believe in the Trinity then you are lost and could follow stupid crap like idolising so called Jews and so called Israel.
True Israel is True Christianity and Jesus is the King of Israel, if one follows the so called Jews that means they reject Jesus Christ and such are Anti-Christ and fact is they will go to hell. they are the ones who say lord lord doing stupid ignorant mans works.

It's all about Jesus is Christ, he is our Lord and Saviour and without him you don't have a leg to stand on. like a dog going back to it's vomit.
The Problem is with the religious ? Jesus never came for religion, he came and destroyed religion, the Jews were using religion as their tool and that's why the morons wanted to kill Jesus, they did not want salvation because it's nonsense to carnal men and Jesus was exposing them for what they truly were, of there Father the Devil, they had Destroyed the tribe of Israel and the Tribe of Judah from within, with their cunning tempting and lies and killed all the Prophets of God.

There is no religion ! there is only they who abide in Jesus first and foremost in there lives, religion can not cut that, because it adds on to with gibberish.
If it's not abiding in Jesus, then such will be burnt up, so it's Jesus first then all that is abiding in Jesus is the way and the Truth.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit so abide in him, it's he who is the wellspring.
The Jews who turned their backs on God never had a hope, history proved they failed ever time they turned from God and when Jesus came the ones who rejected him were lost and the fact is not all the Jews were lost, the real Jews knew who Jesus truly was, as Holy Moses said they would.
Nathaniel was a true Israel and he knew who Jesus was and Jesus said that he was a true Israel.

 

[bbyrd009]

You may say you are done with that subject, but if you really were I wouldn't have discerned it in what you said.

then it should be no prob to answer the Q, seems to me?
It's not like it was "loaded" or anything, i don't get it.
i made a ref to Strong Men defining Jesus for us, and Nehushtan
which both seemed pertinent to the op?

 

[bbyrd009]

all people were lost before Jesus came and he is the one

ok ty Reggie, but i'm not sure why you tagged me if you are not going to address the post?
Or i guess you did, but i am not making the connection, sorry;
Strong Men are not addressed, Two Greeks are not, Nehushtan is not, etc?
i might ask if Emmanuel is the same understanding that ppl who are waiting for Jesus to physically return hold, do you think?
the two understandings seem mutually exclusive to me anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

The amazing name Jesus: meaning and etymology

 

[1stCenturyLady]

then it should be no prob to answer the Q, seems to me?
It's not like it was "loaded" or anything, i don't get it.
i made a ref to Strong Men defining Jesus for us, and Nehushtan
which both seemed pertinent to the op?

Do you mean the serpent on the pole? What about it? Long after the snakes were gone, the Jews kept worshiping it, turning it into an idol. It was only to be looked upon, and was a foreshadow of Jesus on the cross. Hezekiah destroyed it, so it couldn't be worshiped any longer. They had a living God, not one made of brass and wood.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I would be VERY careful implying the Oneness group is demonic and doesn't recognize Jesus, only the Spirit - another spirit. Have you ever read Romans 8:9?

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Paul used a parallelism in this verse. One clarifies the other. This is an example of one of the Semitic writing styles.

Just as a further example of parallelism, but off subject. Read Acts 4:33. This will tell you that Paul says grace is power (great power; great grace), just as he equated the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ.

And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

There we see grace turned from being unmerited favor (while we were yet sinners) to a noun with substance. This grace is how we are dead to sin; it is the power of God.

Jesus has warned believers about false prophets broadening the way to God; Matthew 7:13-14 & the solution is Luke 13:24. What is the only way? John 14:6 That means all invitations to the Holy Spirit is not the invitation given in coming to God the Father by. ( John 5:22-23 ) because climbing up any other way around the Son is the action of a thief ( John 10:1 ) when Jesus is the only door as in the only invitation given by God the Father to come to Him by ( John 10:7-9 )

That being said, His warnings are to saved believers having the Holy Spirit in them since salvation departing from faith in thinking they can receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation after a sign of tongues or other signs in the flesh wherein believers do fall down or do other confusing things out lack of self control. Matthew 7:24-27 and the consequence is being left behind from the Marriage Supper ( Luke 13:24-30 )

Any believer doing any work of iniquity other than that are at the same risk of being left behind which is why those with His seal, even former believers, are called to depart from iniquity so they can be received as vessels unto honor in His House to attend the Marriage Supper when the Bridegroom comes.

Proof that those with the Holy Spirit can be led astray is found here; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 as they depart from faith in giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. What is after the spiritual rudiment of the world? They receive spirits after signs again and again and again like mediums do. That is how the world receives their spirits but not so with the promise of the Holy Spirit at our salvation as that will be the only time one can receive Him which is by FAITH in Jesus Christ not by SIGHT of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:1-2 & Hebrews 11:6 & Galatians 3:14 & Galatians 3:26

That is why His disciples were not officially saved until the Father had given them the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost when Jesus was no longer physically present with them on earth but with the Father in Heaven so they share like testimony as to how they had received salvation which was by faith in Jesus Christ.

Tongues were a sign for the unbelievers; tongues were not to serve as a sign or proof for the believers in receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit at their salvation. 1 Corinthians 14:22

Saved believers that had the Holy Spirit since their salvation ( and still do as He is permanently indwelling see Ephesians 4:30 ) has opened themselves up to other spirits in seeking to receive them after a sign, thinking that is the Holy Spirit coming on them. They called for the Holy Spirit and so it must be Him that came and fell on them. Some believers will claim they were seeking the Holy Spirit to fall on them with tongues but it happened BUT what they had failed to realize that they are preaching another spirit to receive by a sign of tongues and therefore preaching another gospel as some of those that had this phenomenon will change their testimony as to when they were saved to that moment. This is the falling away from the faith spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2nd chapter as those who believe that lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation after a sign, God will permit that strong delusion to occur. As in he who let will let until he be taken out of the way, meaning the restraining power of the Holy Spirit will not be operational when believers are inviting other spirits to enter into them, not heeding Jesus's warning to not suffer a thief to break through for why He would be judging the House of God first at the pre great trib rapture.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Paul reminds the believers the tradition taught of us and that is we had received the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth at the calling of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15. Paul goes on to the next chapter testifying that those that will be damned as vessels unto dishonor in His House are still His in spite of being wicked and unreasonable men that have not faith that have departed from the tradition taught of us and are disorderly ( 2 Thessalonians 3:1-7 ) because they are not the enemy, but we are to withdraw from them in admonishing as brothers still. 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

So may the Lord help you to see why those with the Holy Spirit in them can still go astray, especially when they heed another calling apart from the gospel in receiving what they believe was the Holy Spirit after a sign of tongues that never comes with interpretation apart from salvation.... and unfortunately, it doesn't stop with tongues without interpretation, but goes on with other signs of "confusion" which God is not the author of.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Jesus has warned believers about false prophets broadening the way to God; Matthew 7:13-14 & the solution is Luke 13:24. What is the only way? John 14:6 That means all invitations to the Holy Spirit is not the invitation given in coming to God the Father by. ( John 5:22-23 ) because climbing up any other way around the Son is the action of a thief ( John 10:1 ) when Jesus is the only door as in the only invitation given by God the Father to come to Him by ( John 10:7-9 )

That being said, His warnings are to saved believers having the Holy Spirit in them since salvation departing from faith in thinking they can receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation after a sign of tongues or other signs in the flesh wherein believers do fall down or do other confusing things out lack of self control. Matthew 7:24-27 and the consequence is being left behind from the Marriage Supper ( Luke 13:24-30 )

Any believer doing any work of iniquity other than that are at the same risk of being left behind which is why those with His seal, even former believers, are called to depart from iniquity so they can be received as vessels unto honor in His House to attend the Marriage Supper when the Bridegroom comes.

Proof that those with the Holy Spirit can be led astray is found here; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 as they depart from faith in giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. What is after the spiritual rudiment of the world? They receive spirits after signs again and again and again like mediums do. That is how the world receives their spirits but not so with the promise of the Holy Spirit at our salvation as that will be the only time one can receive Him which is by FAITH in Jesus Christ not by SIGHT of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:1-2 & Hebrews 11:6 & Galatians 3:14 & Galatians 3:26

That is why His disciples were not officially saved until the Father had given them the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost when Jesus was no longer physically present with them on earth but with the Father in Heaven so they share like testimony as to how they had received salvation which was by faith in Jesus Christ.

Tongues were a sign for the unbelievers; tongues were not to serve as a sign or proof for the believers in receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit at their salvation. 1 Corinthians 14:22

Saved believers that had the Holy Spirit since their salvation ( and still do as He is permanently indwelling see Ephesians 4:30 ) has opened themselves up to other spirits in seeking to receive them after a sign, thinking that is the Holy Spirit coming on them. They called for the Holy Spirit and so it must be Him that came and fell on them. Some believers will claim they were seeking the Holy Spirit to fall on them with tongues but it happened BUT what they had failed to realize that they are preaching another spirit to receive by a sign of tongues and therefore preaching another gospel as some of those that had this phenomenon will change their testimony as to when they were saved to that moment. This is the falling away from the faith spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2nd chapter as those who believe that lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation after a sign, God will permit that strong delusion to occur. As in he who let will let until he be taken out of the way, meaning the restraining power of the Holy Spirit will not be operational when believers are inviting other spirits to enter into them, not heeding Jesus's warning to not suffer a thief to break through for why He would be judging the House of God first at the pre great trib rapture.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Paul reminds the believers the tradition taught of us and that is we had received the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth at the calling of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15. Paul goes on to the next chapter testifying that those that will be damned as vessels unto dishonor in His House are still His in spite of being wicked and unreasonable men that have not faith that have departed from the tradition taught of us and are disorderly ( 2 Thessalonians 3:1-7 ) because they are not the enemy, but we are to withdraw from them in admonishing as brothers still. 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

So may the Lord help you to see why those with the Holy Spirit in them can still go astray, especially when they heed another calling apart from the gospel in receiving what they believe was the Holy Spirit after a sign of tongues that never comes with interpretation apart from salvation.... and unfortunately, it doesn't stop with tongues without interpretation, but goes on with other signs of "confusion" which God is not the author of.

Okay, I'm confused. Where in all this thread did I say anything about tongues? You've gone on and on, and its like you are responding to someone else. So what prompted this long response.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Okay, I'm confused. Where in all this did I say anything about tongues? You've gone on and on, and it like you are responding to someone else. So what prompted this book.

You defense for Oneness..

I would be VERY careful implying the Oneness group is demonic and doesn't recognize Jesus, only the Spirit - another spirit. Have you ever read Romans 8:9?

Pentecostal/Charismatics are sharing the same bed.

So are the Catholics since they were using tongues as a sign as proof that they were keeping the doctrines of the church within. Indeed, it is a Catholic teaching to seek the gifts of the Spirit FROM the Holy Spirit as if the Holy Spirit is also a Mediator between God and men; NOT! 1 Timothy 2:5

The way has been broaden in the worship place to include the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son so that by addressing the Holy Spirit in worship by prayer and hymns, they are allowing spirits of the antichrist to come in with their signs of visitations. Indeed, some will be moderately mild by inviting the Holy Spirit to come and just feel His Presence in the place but that is the definition of the antichrist as deferring from the real indwelling Holy Spirit when testing the spirits ( 1 John 4:1 & 1 John 4:3-4 )

Oneness has the Holy Spirit in them; it is opening themselves up to receiving what they believe is the Holy Spirit again or for the first time apart from salvation in getting this tongue that never comes with interpretation is the apostasy.. the spiritual fornication; the spiritual adultery they are committing as they utter the depths of Satan for which they speak as warned towards the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2nd chapter.

As it is... a brief summary of Oneness is below:

What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals?

"Answer: The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes." "

When they treat the Holy Spirit as if He is the actual Jesus, then their focus is on the Spirit and not really "Jesus only". They relate to the "Spirit" as if He is the go to in coming to God the Father by. He is not. Jesus said so and He meant it that He is the only way to come to the Father by.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That is why you have chaos and confusion in their movements of the "Spirit" because that is not the Holy Spirit coming in those visitations since God is NOT the author of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

There can be no loss of self control since temperance is a fruit of the Spirit and a house divided cannot stand and thus the confusion is not of Him.