Search results

Too funny! Parsing begotten to mean not created, person different from a Being, dead with partially dead, these folks lament untwisting words to their normal meaning have the audacity to project others do what they do.

No. I’ve already explained this to you multiple times. It is not about WHEN but WHO. The verse explicitly reads that God - meaning in his wholeness, his unitarian nature - made Jesus. This means Jesus was a created being. Jesus was created to be both lord and Messiah by his God and our God...

Sons are created. Acts 2:36 God made Jesus (both lord and Messiah).

I know the Scripture. Jesus may be your rock and my rock but THE rock is Jesus’ God.

No. It shows nothing of the kind since there is not one passage in all of Scripture - certainly none in all of the NT - that identifies Jesus as any kind of father.

Of course, they have to reject agency to make their worldview appear credible.

This is a figure of speech still used today. When your Dad says, ‘your mother and I are of one mind on this,’ he is not literally claiming your parents are actually one Being. It means they are ‘on the same page.’ These figurative words of Jesus, like the figurative temple being rebuilt in 3...

No. It’s because YHWH put his words in Jesus mouth as he said he’d do at Deut 18:15-18.

Putting aside the clown comment, numerous men in Scripture were worshipped - Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and David. Doesn’t make them God.

I think it is the healthy, positive and proper way to look at it. The other day I listened to sport fanatics delve into minutia of who was the GOAT in a certain sport. These grown men invest their passion in irrelevant matters. By contrast, my neighbor is an active member of a local church...

Sad and goes to show the importance of translation cross reference. 3 of my preferred translations are in the first group. However, my understanding of text is the practicing, 2nd group. Perhaps the study notes led me to a proper grasp of God’s word - in addition to the spirit of God.

Do you think God, Jesus’ Father, YHWH, meant to glorify his son over his own name? If so, it’d be odd that he exempts himself in all who is under Jesus’ authority.

No. I think you know that is not what I nor Scripture is saying.

Ernest, I applaud your analysis. Many others have expressed similar sentiments but behold is a OSAS to the core. He does not have eyes to see or ears to here.

So, you believe universalism is correct doctrine? It logically follows from your claim that Christ alone gets people to heaven, which necessarily means nothing on the part of the person is required. A statement of faith? No. An actual heart felt believe? No. Actions consisten with the will of...

Implied is that you believe this translation can hold up to scrutiny? Other than it fits your doctrine, do you have any factual basis for holding this translation has it correct but other have it wrong? For the record, I declare that Jesus is Lord. Note what else the verse says this...

Oh, how delightful! Scripture that explicitly states that God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah - does not mean that but I am advocating something false. Please enlighten us without relying on pseudo-grammatical arguments yourself.

Discernment brother. By definition, "works" is external and not a basis of salvation so no man may brag. Of course, it takes humiliation or the work of humbling oneself to recognize the need for a savior. Generally, a drowning man does not credit himself with grabbing hold of the rope, which...

Not responsive to the Scriture which Jesus God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah. This is not equivalent to God making himself lord and messiah. God made somebody else, some other being these things. Isn’t that what Acts 2:36 says?

It is work but not works in the Biblical sense. The former is internal while the latter is external.