Search results

I'm... well aware of that, JohnPaul. That's unfortunate. But again... well, let me ask it this way (and again, it's rhetorical, really): How then, do you read Christ referring to Himself as the Son of Man? How is this ~ in your view ~ different to His referring to Himself as the Son of God...

This is worth a look. It's worth an infinite number of looks, really, but let's look at it: "...though He was in the form of God... emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to...

Well of course you do. Sure. Yes, it sure as hell is. See what I did there? :) Grace and peace to you, APAK.

The torment that the eternally dead suffer in hell is inflicted neither physically nor mentally by no one, much less God. It is a mental anguish resulting from the knowledge that only they themselves are responsible for their circumstances. They have no hope of redemption or salvation, and...

So you deny that He's the Son of Man, even though He called Himself that ~ in exact words, which I know is really, really important to Jehovah's Witnesses, especially when it seems to fit their narrative. Either that or you refuse to answer the question, which would speak the same volumes...

There's really not any discussion at this point. What I asked JP was really a rhetorical question. There is no third option, APAK. As the Son of God and the Son of Man, Jesus, during His life on earth, was both in the form of God and in the form of man. He is God... always was and always...

That He's not the Father is not disputed, JohnPaul. That Jesus is the Son of God is not disputed. But Jesus is also, JohnPaul, the Son of Man, as He Himself said. So, the question(s) then is (are), is He neither God nor man, and thus... something else? Or is He both? :) Grace and peace to you.

He said what He said during His lifetime here on earth, in both the form of God and the form of man. But he had set aside for a time for our sake the former and lived His life in the latter. Sure, in relating the things of God to men, yes. "Always..." You think that when He was a child, God...

One can certainly hear and not understand. Grace and peace to you, Truther.

Now if you could only apply that truth about the Oneness of a multiplicity to the triune Jehovah. Like you say, it's always been there, even from the beginning. Grace and peace to you.

Continued from immediately above: I answered this before, that both Jesus's and Paul's context are different from what you suppose. Their contexts in those two passages are not what you suppose them to be, are not nearly as simplistic as you make them out to be: Again, Jesus is speaking to...

Sure, in that he is who God made the great nation of Israel. But all of corporate Israel are our forefathers, including Jacob, renamed Israel in Genesis 32. We worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). Come on, Rich, I don't know you personally, but I'm very comfortable...

Yes, lacking intellectual insight. Myopic in that sense. That's you, to a good degree, in the things we have been discussing here. Yeah, I'm with you there; rethinking Scripture is... not a good idea. :) Grace and peace to you.

I'm... not sure you understand what 'myopic' means... :) But we should all try to see in full and living color, no? Grace and peace to you.

The contextual violence continues. One day it will be brought to a screeching halt. Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Grace and peace to all.

We are part of the one, catholic (universal), apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, yes. But it is a distinct possibility that you are a bit myopic on some things... :) Grace and peace to you.

I'm not sure if you think what you've pointed out and said here nullifies what I said, but it doesn't... :) Romans 5:5 says "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Certainly, this is the case now and since Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit...

Are you... myopic? :) Grace and peace to you.

Those are actually modifications of 'Jesus,' Whose name people also use from time to time in expletive form. And yes, is another form of using God's name in vain. 'Gosh,' 'golly,' and the like are modifications of 'God,' and there is no difference in principle or effect. Israel was always the...

I realize this question was directed at Rich, but I will point out ~ and I'm sure you are well aware of this ~ what Isaiah quotes God as saying: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways..." (Isaiah 55:8-9) And we are in the same position as David, when he declares...