Choose any word that you want, it all adds up to the same inane nonsense, marks.Um . . . Jesus didn't deny being God . . . I'm not sure where you are getting this from.
Much love!
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Choose any word that you want, it all adds up to the same inane nonsense, marks.Um . . . Jesus didn't deny being God . . . I'm not sure where you are getting this from.
Much love!
No, you're correlating passages that first, don't belong, and when they do, you fail to see how each individual context demands a variance in interpretation. You are assuming that your hermeneutics are viable, they are not.No conclusions to make since everything I just said comes directly from the bible concerning Christ who is God and called God numerous times in the scripture.
Your argument is with Gods word, not me. I'm just quoting Gods word.
hope this helps !!!
You apparently don't understand what I'm saying.It makes no sense that Jesus was God, but tried not to be,
Yes, APAK, agreed, that was very insightful on @jaybird 's part. A very critical point that, in the most bizarre manner, is used by god-man theorists to justify Christ's deity. And yet, as jaybird clarified, it fundamentally declares Jesus' unadulterated humanity.Very powerful words said here......I wonder if folks really get what you said here....it's a miracle that Christ walked on water.....the human being, the Son of the Almighty, his Father created this miracle, not his Son for himself...Give the Father the glory indeed,,,.Amen and Amen
Correct, because he did not raise "HIMSELF" from the dead, he "RAISE" his temple/ body from the dead. for the First death is of the Body, and not the spirit. scripture, James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.""Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world."
But, touché marks, you do not understand what I am saying. All you did was delineate a logistic, that you claim is perfectly comprehensible to you, ...but, is it meaningful? Personally, I don't believe that for one second that you understand this, on the level that it should be understood. God did not come to earth as a man, and hold back his divine attributes, because a man was needed to appease His wrath. But also, because God was needed to appease His wrath, because allegedly, man's sin against God was so egregious, that only God could rectify the offense directed at Him.You apparently don't understand what I'm saying.
Jesus, though being God, came to earth to live as a man. Not as a man with God's powers, but just as a man. He nonetheless knew Who He is, and knowing this never wavered from Who He is. It makes no sense to you, maybe, but it makes wonderful sense to me.
Because as Jesus lived His life here as a man, and overcame this world, I, a man, can overcome this world. Never, never on my own! But in Him. No man has ever overcome this world on their own, except Jesus, and this is the difference. He is the Lord of Heaven, come into the world to begin a new humanity in Him. So as we are immersed into Him, we not only share in His righteous life, we also partake of His divine nature, through - what? Through His great and precious promises. Promises!
Knowing who we are, a new creation, who is dead to sin. We life according to our faith in what God has done, that is, in the knowledge of who we are, His children. And in this we live victorious, not in our own power, Just as Jesus, Who did nothing of Himself. As He lived, we can live, but no man lived that way, only Jesus.
He wasn't trying to not be God, or to pretend He wasn't God. He put aside the advantage of being God, and submitted Himself. Perfectly. Fulfilled all righteousness, all the time, perfectly, from a perfect heart.
Much love!
Not in this manner, He didn't! You are confusing two very distinct principles. Paul was declaring that the wise of the world do not comprehend God's wisdom, but the spiritually wise do, including himself. In this context, he never once said that God's ways are beyond figuring out, but that God's wisdom separates the sheep from the goats - some do actually understand it and praise God accordingly."Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world."
Maybe this is where the disconnect is coming in, I'm not saying this. I'm saying that Jesus came to provide for us a life and death that we could share. Or more specifically, we share in His death so we can share in His life.because a man was needed to appease His wrath.
Again, I will respond with the apparent non-sequitur (which follows logically from your statement), that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness (nonsense) to those who perish; but to us who are being saved it is the power of the Lord.But, touché marks, you do not understand what I am saying. All you did was delineate a logistic, that you claim is perfectly comprehensible to you, ...but, is it meaningful? Personally, I don't believe that for one second that you understand this, on the level that it should be understood. God did not come to earth as a man, and hold back his divine attributes, because a man was needed to appease His wrath. But also, because God was needed to appease His wrath, because allegedly, man's sin against God was so egregious, that only God could rectify the offense directed at Him.
Are you anywhere close to appreciating the ludicrousness of your premise, and the mockery that you make of God by ascribing such nonsense to Him?
...because it is unteachable, Mattathias. It invariably raises more questions than it can possibly answer, leaving its proponents as nothing more than a bunch of bewildered lemmings following man's explanation, rather than humbly trying to discern the mystery of the suffering Messiah - the pre-eminent creature that God loved so much, that he handed over to him the keys of the universe.While I wouldn’t disagree with that, I think the trinitarian clergy bears responsibility for failing to preach it from the pulpit and seeing to it that it is taught in Sunday School.
I really do prefer that you would tone down your rhetoric. I get it. You have a low opinion of me, and you feel free to broadcast that opinion to anyone who would read your words.But, touché marks, you do not understand what I am saying. All you did was delineate a logistic, that you claim is perfectly comprehensible to you, ...but, is it meaningful? Personally, I don't believe that for one second that you understand this, on the level that it should be understood. God did not come to earth as a man, and hold back his divine attributes, because a man was needed to appease His wrath. But also, because God was needed to appease His wrath, because allegedly, man's sin against God was so egregious, that only God could rectify the offense directed at Him.
Are you anywhere close to appreciating the ludicrousness of your premise, and the mockery that you make of God by ascribing such nonsense to Him?
I can say unequivocally that I understand the Trinity....because it is unteachable, Mattathias. It invariably raises more questions than it can possibly answer, leaving its proponents as nothing more than a bunch of bewildered lemmings following man's explanation, rather than humbly trying to discern the mystery of the suffering Messiah - the pre-eminent creature that God loved so much, that he handed over to him the keys of the universe.
Then why did he need to be God? And don't say something superfluous.Maybe this is where the disconnect is coming in, I'm not saying this. I'm saying that Jesus came to provide for us a life and death that we could share. Or more specifically, we share in His death so we can share in His life.
Much love!
It is a non-sequitur because, your context and comprehension is incorrectAgain, I will respond with the apparent non-sequitur (which follows logically from your statement), that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness (nonsense) to those who perish; but to us who are being saved it is the power of the Lord.
He didn't "need to be" God.Then why did he need to be God? And don't say something superfluous.
You appear to have an inaccurate understanding of my view.But, touché marks, you do not understand what I am saying. All you did was delineate a logistic, that you claim is perfectly comprehensible to you, ...but, is it meaningful? Personally, I don't believe that for one second that you understand this, on the level that it should be understood. God did not come to earth as a man, and hold back his divine attributes, because a man was needed to appease His wrath. But also, because God was needed to appease His wrath, because allegedly, man's sin against God was so egregious, that only God could rectify the offense directed at Him.
Are you anywhere close to appreciating the ludicrousness of your premise, and the mockery that you make of God by ascribing such nonsense to Him?
However, He did say this in another context (Isaiah 55:8-9).In this context, he never once said that God's ways are beyond figuring out,
Isaiah 59:1-17Then why did he need to be God? And don't say something superfluous.
I am sorry, I have anything but a low opinion of you, marks. I should have reworded my expressions so that they were directed at trinitarian thought, not any one specific person. Is it possible that you may not have a conventional understanding of the trinity, so that my contentions are not having the impact that I would expect from a reasonable person?I really do prefer that you would tone down your rhetoric. I get it. You have a low opinion of me, and you feel free to broadcast that opinion to anyone who would read your words.
A man doing what only God can do.I am sorry, I have anything but a low opinion of you, marks. I should have reworded my expressions so that they were directed at trinitarian thought, not any one specific person. Is it possible that you may not have a conventional understanding of the trinity, so that my contentions are not having the impact that I would expect from a reasonable person?
The understanding, to a trinitarian, that Jesus had to be both God and man in order to obey God, and to be an uber-perfect sacrifice because disobeying God caused a cosmological and metaphysical cataclysm in the universe (yes, sarcasm for emphasis).
This is the traditional argument for the necessity of God dying for our sins - yes, I can barely even say it.