A Christian who deny Jesus is God in Flesh

[justbyfaith]

nobody else did, the church had to burn people alive just to make them believe. they also had to edit scripture. very shameful.

I know that I "saw and believed" in the Deity of Christ immediately by the time I got to verse 14 in the gospel of John.

It is the Jehovah's Witnesses who have edited the scriptures in question and changed them to fit a theology that does not include the Deity of Christ as a doctrine.

 

[jaybird]

I know that I "saw and believed" in the Deity of Christ immediately by the time I got to verse 14 in the gospel of John.

I don't believe that but ok.

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't believe that but ok.

You don't believe in the Deity of Christ? or, you don't believe that I "saw and believed" in the Deity of Christ by the time I got to John 1:14?

 

[jaybird]

You don't believe in the Deity of Christ? or, you don't believe that I "saw and believed" in the Deity of Christ by the time I got to John 1:14?

I think you place manmade doctrine above scripture. I showed you Jesus and the scribe agreeing in the mark passage, we went back and forth for 2 pages, you wouldn't acknowledge that no matter what, you know it disproves the trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

If Jesus said that He was the Messiah then He was claiming to be God.

For Isaiah 9:6 is a Messianic verse and it shows that the Messiah would be God.

Isaiah 9:6 does no such thing. The most obvious proof is Jews reject the man-is-God take on their own anti-trinitarian text. Isaiah 9:6[5] does not speak of a divine king (or Messiah). - فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Clearly, this is what is written.

Jhn 8:24, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins.

Be careful when you insist on KJV and then do not copy it correctly!
We know that Jesus is the great I AM Who introduces Himself in Ex. 3:14 and then later fills in the details in the John with numerous quotes; but the Jews did not know that, nor did they know that the coming Messiah would actually be God in the flesh.
You left out "he" in the verse. " I am he", means I am the Messiah/Savior prophesied about.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think you place manmade doctrine above scripture. I showed you Jesus and the scribe agreeing in the mark passage, we went back and forth for 2 pages, you wouldn't acknowledge that no matter what, you know it disproves the trinity.

Because I don't know that it disproves the trinity; for you did not show that it does. All you did was give a chapter in the Bible and then said that it disproves the Trinity; but you did not specify what verses you were talking about and neither did you expound on why you think those verses refute the Trinity.

If you want to discuss the verses in question, by all means, be clear and specific about your contention and we will have a discussion about it.

Isaiah 9:6 does no such thing. The most obvious proof is Jews reject the man-is-God take on their own anti-trinitarian text. Isaiah 9:6[5] does not speak of a divine king (or Messiah). - فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

Of course the Jews to this day reject Jesus as their Messiah; therefore since He claimed to be God and they are full aware of that, they also reject the concept that the Messiah will be God.

But it was not always so.

Be careful when you insist on KJV and then do not copy it correctly!
We know that Jesus is the great I AM Who introduces Himself in Ex. 3:14 and then later fills in the details in the John with numerous quotes; but the Jews did not know that, nor did they know that the coming Messiah would actually be God in the flesh.
You left out "he" in the verse. " I am he", means I am the Messiah/Savior prophesied about.

The "he" is in italics; which means that it was not in the original Greek text.

 

[jaybird]

Because I don't know that it disproves the trinity; for you did not show that it does. All you did was give a chapter in the Bible and then said that it disproves the Trinity; but you did not specify what verses you were talking about and neither did you expound on why you think those verses refute the Trinity.

I explained it every which way to Sunday. You dodged every one. I asked you questions on it that you refused to answer.
You refusing to deal with it is proof enough that your doctrine does not hold water.

 

[justbyfaith]

I explained it every which way to Sunday. You dodged every one. I asked you questions on it that you refused to answer.
You refusing to deal with it is proof enough that your doctrine does not hold water.

I think you must be thinking of someone else. I had no such discussion with you.

If you want to have the discussion with me now, I am open to the conversation; I will not refuse to deal with your contention if you will make it absolutely clear what your contention is.

 

[jaybird]

The "he" is in italics; which means that it was not in the original Greek text.

It makes no difference if the he is in italics, the ones Jesus was talking to responded just the same. They asked who are you?
Had Jesus said " I am the great I Am", they would not have responded with "who?" Unless your suggestion they did not know who the Most High was which is pretty absurd.
This is the second or third time this one has been pointed out to you. Feel free to ignore it as usual.
That's a lot of scripture that has to be ignored to make this doctrine work.

 

[justbyfaith]

It makes no difference if the he is in italics, the ones Jesus was talking to responded just the same. They asked who are you?
Had Jesus said " I am the great I Am", they would not have responded with "who?" Unless your suggestion they did not know who the Most High was which is pretty absurd.
This is the second or third time this one has been pointed out to you. Feel free to ignore it as usual.
That's a lot of scripture that has to be ignored to make this doctrine work.

The Lord broke normal grammatical usage in John 8:58 to make a claim that referenced back to Exodus 3:14.

The Jews understood what He was claiming: they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59) and because "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:31-33).

The fact that Jesus claimed to be God, therefore, is absolutely clear in holy scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

The fact that Jesus claimed to be God, therefore, is absolutely clear in holy scripture.

Except it is not true. One trinitarian lie is that only a God can be accused of blasphemy. The accusation the Pharisees made was that he was the Messiah, not God incarnate.

 

[Wrangler]

The Lord broke normal grammatical usage in John 8:58 to make a claim that referenced back to Exodus 3:14.

Yea, cuz normal grammatical usage causes your flawed doctrine to fall apart.

 

[Wrangler]

We know that Jesus is the great I AM Who introduces Himself in Ex. 3:14

How do you know this? (Let's watch the circular reasoning unfold)

 

[justbyfaith]

Except it is not true. One trinitarian lie is that only a God can be accused of blasphemy. The accusation the Pharisees made was that he was the Messiah, not God incarnate.

The Pharisees did not accuse Jesus of being the Messiah. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah; and in claiming to be the Messiah He was claiming to be the God who created all of us (Isaiah 9:6).

They picked up stones to stone Jesus for blasphemy because He claimed to be God.

Yea, cuz normal grammatical usage causes your flawed doctrine to fall apart.

Therefore because the Lord does not use normal grammar, my doctrine does not fall apart.

 

[justbyfaith]

How do you know this? (Let's watch the circular reasoning unfold)

Because Jesus claimed that "before Abraham was, I AM" in John 8:58 and this was obviously a reference back to Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 9:6, it is somehow circular reasoning to make the logical connection?

Okay...

But really, does not the atheist claim that all Christians use circular reasoning when we claim that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible itself makes that claim in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Therefore, circular reasoning is not necessarily faulty reasoning.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The "he" is in italics; which means that it was not in the original Greek text.

Usually I check with a half dozen translations and they have "he", except a few, like NASB. I go to YLT as well. I must admit, I rely on these translations mostly and don't go to the Greek Interlinear Bible.
Wow, I STAND CORRECTED, didn't know that and so IT IS another reference to the great I Am. Wonderful.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

How do you know this? (Let's watch the circular reasoning unfold)

I took a poll, out of 2.65 billion Christians about 2.55 billion agreed. Oops, that may be circular reasoning ... because it goes all the way around the globe - lol. No, really, that is not the reason, although it is a good one. Wouldn't the Holy Spirit pass on truth about the nature of the Son of God to the majority, rather than just 4 % of us? I mean it is a huge part of who Jesus is.
There are so many reasons that He is God. The Book of John presents Jesus deity. A list of scriptures in it describe Him as being the exact radiance and fullness of God, the Creator and source of life itself. You would have to deny or distort them or as some have suggested, if one does not really have the Holy Spirit to give you discernment, you wont grasp scripture in any depth.
Even common sense can figure that if Jesus wasn't God, why put our faith in Him, why is the whole Bible all about Him? Wouldn't the focus be on our Father? And how could anyone, unless He is God, take away the sins of the world? Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence is required to do that. Having all authority in heaven and earth sure sounds like the All Mighty God to me.
Why would Jesus say, I am the Bread of Life or I am the Truth or I am the Light if He was not God. He would rather point only to our Father. Not to say that He didnt. We pray to the Father, but also are baptized in Jesus name and pray in His name.
The Bible would be written quite differently. It would say our Father is the light, the way, the bread, the truth, etc., etc. - follow Him, believe in Him. We would not be in Christ, the Bible would say we are in the Father or in God. The Church would not be called the body of Christ, it would be called the body of God. It is the body of God. If He wasn't God, people would not worship Him we would recognize him as we do Moses or David.
I would have a completely different concept and focus if Jesus was not God.

 

[Wrangler]

I took a poll, out of 2.65 billion Christians about 2.55 billion agreed. Oops, that may be circular reasoning

What is true is not determined by polls. Just because a majority of Christians believed the Earth was the center of the solar system does not make it true.

 

[jaybird]

The Lord broke normal grammatical usage in John 8:58 to make a claim that referenced back to Exodus 3:14.

thats not how the Jews reacted, they didnt stone Him, they asked who He was claiming to be.

The Jews understood what He was claiming: they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59) and because "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:31-33).

The fact that Jesus claimed to be God, therefore, is absolutely clear in holy scripture.

blasphemy does not mean claiming to be the Most High, why do you think this. blasphemy means profaning the "name".
there were many many many things that were punishable by death, the adulteress was about to be put to death but Jesus saved her. just because someone is being put to death does not mean they claimed to be the Holy Father.
i dont know why we are even having this discussion, the bible plainly says exactly what Jesus was being put to death for:

John 19 7
7The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

Son of the Most High, not Most High, had He claimed to be the Most High, in front of witnesses, this would have been brought up at the trial, it was not.

Make yourself G-D does not mean claiming to be the Most High. the passage means He claimed to be godly, heavenly, of the heavens. we know this because Jesus responds to this term saying they did all this because He claimed to be Son of the Most High

John 10
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

the Most High is not the "son of" anyone thats what Most High means, it means there is no one higher, nor greater, nor before. i just dont get how you guys can ignore this.

cherry picking is one thing, but this is far worse than cherry picking, you insert phrases into scripture "I am "the great" I Am"
you omit certain verses that are crucial to the passage. Jn 10
i mean, this is pretty bad. of course no one would take teachings like this serious, but do you not have any self respect at all? you cant tell me that in the back of your mind you know this is nonsense.