All the fulness of Deity dwells in Him Bodily !

[Heyzeus]

Not that I think it will make any difference...

But, Jesus claimed to be God in John 8:58 by making a statement with a breaking of normal grammatical usage...and the Pharisees did not misunderstand Him, but picked up stones to stone Him on not only that occasion (John 8:59, John 10:31-33). They understood His claim to be God.

And Jesus also claimed that believing in His Deity is an essential for salvation in John 8:24.

Do you not ever read the for context the passages that you quote ? - or do you just cherry pick out a phrase or two - with no context attached - hoping to prop up your narrative.

"4 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

What part of "The other" .. that other fellow over there .. do you not understand .. the one who sent Jesus is clearly not Jesus.

Why does Jesus need to hear God's word from the Father - if he is "the Father"

27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

What part of "Jesus is not the Father" in this passage ... do you not understand ? If Jesus is "the Father" then why did The Father need to teach Jesus things ?

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word

What part of "I do know him and obey his word" do you not understand ? Jesus is subordinate to the Father ... in every one of the passages that proceeds

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

”

So in context - this passage can not possibly mean what you claim .. since that would contradict what Jesus was saying prior to this in the passage ... and that is "without" going to the Jesus of Mark/Matt - in which your claim is just as much nonsense as it is in these passages from the exact same page of scripture you are quoting from.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Anyone who denies that Jesus is God is following Satan.

AMEN

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The you do not understand Paul's argument on the Resurrection nor the Scriptures. Body (soma) always means physical, material not immaterial. That is Pau's point in 1 Corinthians 15 regarding the soma(bodily) Resurrection of Jesus and Paul's argument in Colossians 2:9(bodily) sōmatikōs, σωματικῶς

hope this helps !!!

Ignore ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[justbyfaith]

What part of "The other" .. that other fellow over there .. do you not understand .. the one who sent Jesus is clearly not Jesus.

The Father both stayed behind and also went forward in the incarnation...for it is impossible for one who inhabits eternity to cease to dwell in eternity....for by definition they are there eternally.

What part of "Jesus is not the Father" in this passage ... do you not understand ? If Jesus is "the Father" then why did The Father need to teach Jesus things ?

Consider that John 8:27 refers back to John 8:24, where Jesus said, Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

The "He" is in italics...but even if it isn't, it should be clear that Jesus was referring to the Father when He said "He."

 

[farouk]

This is what every gnostic says to me...that I don't know what gnosticism teaches or else I would be a gnostic...

Therefore I do not want to know what gnosticism teaches.



I do not see a contradiction there...and my thread on the Trinity explains it (may post a link shortly)

True Trinity. (espcially posts #1-#6).



Jesus' take on it is that if you are going to insist on being saved by your works...the only work that will save you is simple faith in Him (John 6:28-29)



not.



Why don't you at least reference the scriptures that you think are contradicting each other so they can be dealt with.



Chapter and verse, please.



They are never separate but only distinct.



Perhaps you should quote the entire creed you are referring to and highlight the part where you think it says they are separate.



See directly above.



I have provided an explanation...you have only failed to understand it.



Again, quote the creed that states it that way and highlight the part that says they are separate.



No, "proceeds", is not the same as "emanates"...

One defines sound doctrine; and the other heresy.

@justbyfaith The great truth of God in Three Persons is indeed so plainly Biblical...

 

[Heyzeus]

Yes...and you had better believe that this means that there is still hope for you...

Hope for me ? - I am not the one who is committing the unforgivable sin - ignoring the Teachings of Jesus in Matt/Mark - the closest we have to the real Jesus in Scripture.

Same Spirit...distinct in that in the Son, the Spirit is come in the flesh

Distinct being the operative word = different from - and separate from - the Father and the Spirit.

Here is my take. Jesus is different from the Father . and the Father from the Son .. Jesus proceeds from the Father .. and not the reverse. Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. as illustrated in the John 5 - a chapter you clearly from but clearly had not read.

Yet - Jesus is one with the Father through the Holy Spirit .. Speaks God's word through the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChristisGod]

Ignore ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

that was expected when the truth confronted you.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Not one person on the NWT committee was a linguistic expert or had a degree in biblical languages. So much for you translation that is not the word of God. The house built upon sand.

Are you trying to brag with no credentials yourself or just WHO ARE YOU WHO IS SO AFRAID TO BE KNOWN... TOO FAMOUS TO TELL. 'TFTT' -- How's that for your next pseudonym?

 

[Heyzeus]

This is what every gnostic says to me...that I don't know what gnosticism teaches or else I would be a gnostic...

Therefore I do not want to know what gnosticism teaches.
.

I don't care what others say to you - if you have no understanding of what gnostism is - as you have now stated - you have no business claiming that this or that is "Gnostic" - because you have no clue what you are talking about .. and have admitted this.

I do not see a contradiction there...and my thread on the Trinity explains it (may post a link shortly)

True Trinity. (espcially posts #1-#6).

Jesus' take on it is that if you are going to insist on being saved by your works...the only work that will save you is simple faith in Him (John 6:28-29)

Faith in Jesus is not a "Work" .. sorry. Belief in Jesus will enable you to follow the straight path - do the good works that God requires - as per Matt/Mark.

Further .. the majority position is Faith + Works .. so the majority seems to agree with my interpretation of this passage .. and not yours.
Not that this makes the Majority right - as that would be an "appeal to popularity" fallacy.

What is not Fallacy - is all the passages in scripture that point to works as a requirement .. be "The Synoptic gospels" or James 2.. which states directly that "Faith Alone" is a foolish doctrine ... "Even Demons believe God is one" big deal.



not.



Why don't you at least reference the scriptures that you think are contradicting each other so they can be dealt with.



Chapter and verse, please.



They are never separate but only distinct.



Perhaps you should quote the entire creed you are referring to and highlight the part where you think it says they are separate.



See directly above.



I have provided an explanation...you have only failed to understand it.



Again, quote the creed that states it that way and highlight the part that says they are separate.



No, "proceeds", is not the same as "emanates"...

One defines sound doctrine; and the other heresy

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I have no idea what sola Fide is . But i say feast on those bibles daily and get well learned in that doctrine .
For many decievers now abound in many places . Heed the Spirit and not the flesh .

Heed no spirit in the flesh; trust no spirit that testifies of self; cursed be every spirit that does not speak Scripture.

 

[ChristisGod]

Are you trying to brag with no credentials yourself or just WHO ARE YOU WHO IS SO AFRAID TO BE KNOWN... TOO FAMOUS TO TELL. 'TFTT' -- How's that for your next pseudonym?

ahh the ad hominem's live another day very telling...........................

can't win the argument attack the person..................

you could be a politician...................

or a pharisee

Matthew 23

the choice is yours...............

 

[Heyzeus]

The Father both stayed behind and also went forward in the incarnation...for it is impossible for one who inhabits eternity to cease to dwell in eternity....for by definition they are there eternally.



Consider that John 8:27 refers back to John 8:24, where Jesus said, Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

The "He" is in italics...but even if it isn't, it should be clear that Jesus was referring to the Father when He said "He."

and once again .. in normal fashion for you - you completely ignore the scripture cited - from a Chapter you yourself brought up - and go running to other parts of the Bible to cherry pick verses that you think will help your case.

Why are you so desperate to ignore scripture ? We all know other things are said in other places .. but we are talking about John 5 and the many many times Jesus states that he is subject and subordinate to the Father.

You pointed to one part of scripture .. making a claim that Jesus was not subordinate to the Father ... I point out that the scripture you are referring to states that indeed Jesus was subordinate to the Father - in no uncertain terms .. doing so numerous times.

You then run from the scripture that you yourself presented and cherry pick from another part of the Bible .. I didn't check but probably again not taking context into consideration .. What is with this behavior ?

You complain about my reliance on Mark/Matt .. OK .. guilty - but I do not ignore other scripture and cherry pick out phrases while ignoring the rest of the chapter and ignoring context.

 

[ChristisGod]

Heed no spirit in the flesh; trust no spirit that testifies of self; cursed be every spirit that does not speak Scripture.

speaking of the flesh

So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth.

 

[farouk]

speaking of the flesh

So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

@Christophany Such a contrast indeed between the Spirit and the flesh...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Luke 21:
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

The Son of Man came to Earth.
The Son of Man was born of a virgin.
The Son of Man was Seen by men.
The Son of Man was Heard by men.
The Son of Man was Killed & Risen
The Son of Man returned to Heaven.
The Son of Man return to Earth.

You intentionally forgot Luke presupposed ALMIGHTY GOD the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory?

 

[ChristisGod]

@Christophany Such a contrast indeed between the Spirit and the flesh...

Indeed there is as evidenced by some in this thread.

 

[kcnalp]

He was made good by the Col 2:9 effect on his spirit body after resurrecting.

Prior to that, he was vulnerable to failure, but survived somehow....he was human and knew it.

That is why he shrugged off the man that called him good, and said ONLY God is good.

Jesus didn't say He wasn't good. You did!

 

[kcnalp]

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

And Jesus is God! So He ALWAYS was good. lol
John 1 The Word was God. The Word became flesh ...

 

[ChristisGod]

Jesus didn't say He wasn't good. You did!

Only God is Good !

 

[Heyzeus]

The Father both stayed behind and also went forward in the incarnation...for it is impossible for one who inhabits eternity to cease to dwell in eternity....for by definition they are there eternally.."

Really - is that what God did .. and God told you this over tea did he ... cause it sure as heck is not in scripture.

Then you say "In the incarnation" completely contradicting your self admittedly uneducated claims with respect to Gnostism.

"incarnation/emanation" Please explain the difference between these two .. in the context of "The Father stayed behind - but some incarnation of the Father went somewhere else" - and good luck.

Note that Gnostism and other religions use terms like 'incarnation" as well - but because you used such a word .. you do not seem me running around foaming at the mouth accusing you of heresy.

The term emanation - is actually a much better descriptor of what you are describing than 'incarnation" -

You are describing a part of the Godhead going forth ... going somewhere else .. which is exactly the definition of an emanation from God - going forward - while the other stays behind.