Search results

Um, what? This seems to be... not a complete sentence... Jesus was always in existence from all eternity... Agreed (although there were no microscopes in those days...). But still, God he was then. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary (this is not...

You seemed to be implying that our righteousness is our own, of ourselves. Faith, too. If not, then good on ya. :) Grace and peace to you

We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And where does our faith, which is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen, come from, Barn? Do you not believe that it is given to us by God, by His Spirit, who convicts? Grace and peace to you.

Your statement number 1 is taken out of the context in which it is made, both by Jesus and Paul. So, the the conclusion, though logical in the strictest sense, is wrong. Do we have to keep doing this over and over again? Isn't that the definition of insanity, doing something over and over and...

Like Abraham, Rich, we believe God ~ at least I do; I cannot speak for you ~ and it is credited to us as righteousness (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3). We do not have any righteousness of our own, in and of ourselves... yet. :) Grace and peace to you.

Says he who then takes it right back out of context (yet again). If the proper context of both Jesus and Paul was as you want to limit it to, then it would be very logical. But you get the context wrong (maybe intentionally, but whether intentional or unintentional matters not; it is what it...

I guess, all in all, the exact same of you, Rich. The same way you do; I just don't... manufacture it. :) Grace and peace to you.

in referring to the Father as the only true God, both Jesus and Paul were contrasting God with the world’s false gods\idols, and not with Jesus Himself, Rich. Context matters; it cannot be disregarded by me or you or anyone else. Grace and peace to you, Rich.

That God sees us that way is indisputable, as we are covered by the blood of Christ. But yet... we are not "100% now" conformed to Christ. We will be, one great day, the Day of Christ, but not yet. For now, though, we are regarded by the Father as He regards Christ because we are in Christ...

This is the same "challenge," really as the fourth, 'D,' immediately above. So the answer is the same. Grace and peace to you.

That Jesus the Son is undisputed, even between you and I. And building on the previous answers ~ even just the first is sufficient ~ that Jesus is sent by the Father implies His eternality, glory, deity, and essence with the Father (the same is true regarding the Spirit). So, Jesus is the Son...

All answered above. If Christ is ~ or Christ and the Spirit are ~ sent by the Father... and they indisputably are... Then this "challenge" is answered in full. NOTE: "undisputed" is a ridiculous requirement, because there is always going to be some dispute regarding anything and everything...

Again, reading Jesus's words in John 14, we count, "one, two, three." Actually saying the word "three" is wholly unnecessary. Grace and peace to you.

LOL! The answer is not to your liking, but that matters not. Yes, we all know what you have... "found." :) Jesus is very clear in John 14 in particular. Jesus's and the Spirit's both having been sent by God is directly relevant... and indisputable. To the rest of your post regarding...

Sure (as if this hasn't been done...). Jesus said the Father sent Him many places all through John's gospel (John 4:34, John 5:23, John 5:24, John 5:30, John 5:36, John 5:37, John 5:38, John 6:29, John 6:38, John 6:39, John 6:44, John 6:57, John 7:16, John 7:18, John 7:28, John 7:29, John 7:33...

I agree wholeheartedly, farouk. I would add ~ and I think you will probably agree ~ that the more accurate translation to English of the Greek μονογενῆ (monogenēs) is not "only begotten" but rather merely "only," or "one and only," as in "(God) gave his only Son" or "(God) gave His one and only...

"enjoy dissecting words of others"... I mean, sometimes it's necessary. Your previous statement was ~ no offense ~ kind of a jumble of okay and not okay stuff, so to speak. Never say never... :) I think you probably do sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with that when necessary. I'm...

Come on, Rich. It's both now and not yet, meaning it's not yet in it's fullest, complete, final sense, but we can live now as if it's already fully true, because it is a certainty. Come on. I think more of you than your intentionally ridiculous statement here... or maybe it's not so...

Yes and no ~ it is now, but it is also not yet, in the same vein as the fact that we are saved and at the same time are being saved. And also that the kingdom is here now (has been since Jesus came) but not here in its fullness yet (will be when Jesus returns). Interesting that you're quoting...

I think I would need to understand what you really think you're hearing from me, APAK. Not trying to dodge or evade in any way, but quite honestly, the clumsy way you state this supposed position of trinitarians ("John 10:30 means the Father is the same as the Son or visa versa...