I don't know. You are going to have to ask them. I'm not defending Trinitarianism. I'm defending Christ as deity. Your denial of that is your greatest stumbling block... Not the Trinity.
Controversial... Hence debate forum.
- Thread starter Brakelite
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
So do you want to call it binitarianism? A rose by any other name....it is still not scriptural.
Where in all of scripture does it say that Jesus is a deity to be worshipped? Where does Jesus say that he is in any way equal to his God and Father? Please show me direct statements.
“Theos” in Greek is any god or goddess.....even satan is called a god. But in the Bible according to Jesus’ own words, he indicated that “gods” can be those appointed with divine authority. Moses was “god” to Pharaoh, demonstrating God’s power to him. (Exodus 7:1) The Judges in Israel were called “gods” by Jehovah himself because they ruled by divine authority. (John 10:31-36)
Being called a “god” by that definition does not make them a deity, or in any way equal to God.
As for worship, look that up and see that it pertains to God alone. Rendering worship to one who is not God Almighty, Yahweh....is a breach of the First Commandment and this was a capital offence in Israel. Not once is Jesus ever called Yahweh.
Rendering “obeisance” however (the same word) is proper toward a human who commands divine authority or who holds an office deserving of respect and honor.....this breaks no command of God.
As I said, I am not concerned with the various definitions of the trinity....but with the notion that Jesus was anything but what he called himself.....”the Son of God”. He never once commanded worship for anyone but his Father. (Luke 4:5-8)
You can worship whomever you wish....I am not your judge.
But perhaps you need to put away that archaic translation you are so attached to and actually see how linguistics has improved since people spoke that outdated language. Try widening out in your use of many available translations online to see how the KJV distorts so many things in scripture. It is not a reliable translation....but you will never know that unless you see it for yourself by comparing. Don’t assume that the KJV is without its biases and will not distort the scripture to push the trinity. (or in your case the issue of Christ’s deity)
The results of the choices we make now, will last forever.
@Aunty Jane
The Father, according to Paul, was addressing His Son, saying, "Thy throne O God...". If you can't understand language that you call archaic, by all means, read it in a new translation. But you won't convince me that the translators got that so wrong as to change it's meaning so radically to say the opposite of what it clearly says in the KJ. The Father is calling His Son, God. And it is not too be altered or misunderstood, or claim it doesn't say what it really says, because Jesus claimed to be God's Son. That is the precise reason Jesus is God! The Jews knew what Jesus was claiming to be. When He said He was the Son of God, they knew what He was claiming to be, which is why they wanted to some Him!!
How then can they Father and the Son both be God? We don't know, because that isn't explained to us. Like I said previously, we know that it is, because scripture says so. Like Father like Son. Like begets like. A perfect God begets God. Not a lesser god. Not an exalted angel. But a Son begotten in His express image. I make no apologies for that, and I have no need to defend it any further, it is what it is... Jesus is who He said He was... The Son of the Almighty.
The Father, according to Paul, was addressing His Son, saying, "Thy throne O God...". If you can't understand language that you call archaic, by all means, read it in a new translation. But you won't convince me that the translators got that so wrong as to change it's meaning so radically to say the opposite of what it clearly says in the KJ. The Father is calling His Son, God. And it is not too be altered or misunderstood, or claim it doesn't say what it really says, because Jesus claimed to be God's Son. That is the precise reason Jesus is God! The Jews knew what Jesus was claiming to be. When He said He was the Son of God, they knew what He was claiming to be, which is why they wanted to some Him!!
How then can they Father and the Son both be God? We don't know, because that isn't explained to us. Like I said previously, we know that it is, because scripture says so. Like Father like Son. Like begets like. A perfect God begets God. Not a lesser god. Not an exalted angel. But a Son begotten in His express image. I make no apologies for that, and I have no need to defend it any further, it is what it is... Jesus is who He said He was... The Son of the Almighty.
How appallingly Carnal ! and only religious, Religion never Saved anyone.Nope, covered it all.
Controversial... Hence debate forum.
You are rehashing.....what's the point?
The answer is none.....you know why? Because the pre-human Jesus was no ordinary "angel". If you know what an angel is you will know that they have rank.....messengers, cherubs, seraphs and the Archangel Michael...the Commander in Chief of the angelic forces. Only two persons in scripture have command of the angels...Jesus and Michael, which is why we believe that they are one and the same person. Jesus has more than one name.....Jehovah doesn't. Nowhere in scripture is Jesus ever called Jehovah.
You do understand how ridiculous people sound when they try to explain something that is incomprehensible? There is no such word as "godhead" in the Bible...the trinitarians made it up, along with "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost"....non existent deities.
Rehashing. Been there done that. "Begotten" is used elsewhere in the Bible and is not a word that is used exclusively for Jesus. Those who are "begotten" need a 'begetter' who existed before them and caused their existence.
Nowhere does it ever say that Jesus is "God from God"...where the heck are you getting this stuff?
The Father and Son have a relationship that is self explanatory....why bother calling themselves "Father and Son" if that is not their relationship? If Jesus was God and the holy spirit is a third person in a godhead, then why are the scriptures silent about that? Why does it have to be read into verses that do not say anything of the sort.
The KJV is your problem....not mine. The interpretation is appalling IMV. If you want to believe the rendering of that flawed translation, go ahead. That is your choice.
Wow.....now that is some bit of scripture twisting there....not to mention that it does not make a lick of sense.....if there is only "one true God" and Jesus did not include himself in that definition, then why are trinitarians continually forcing scripture to say what it never did. One part of God sent an equal part of himself to die as a human on earth.....but God cannot die. Humans cannot kill God. Jesus was "sent" by his Father to die a sacrificial death, because he is not God....its really that simple.
Jehovah is the OT name for god, remember they did not know God !
It was only when Jesus went to Heaven that the disciples of Jesus knew that he was truly the Christ. Our Lord and Saviour ? not to mention it's only through him that one truly gets the Holy Spirit, not to mention that no one comes to the Father but through his only begotten Son.
Now now ! If one is in communion you will need all three, The Holy Spirit and our Lord and Saviour to be able to come to the Father ? they are all One ! and in the Same ! but 3 different identity's in themselves. but to the Carnal mind, such can not understand the gravity of the issue that's at hand.
I have a car ? but she has no engine ?
Ok now I have and engine in my car ? but she no go !
Ok now I have a car with engine and I have petrol ? now she works. this is the objective. or she has nothing, take out one and she can not make the objective work.
The Holy Spirit could be likened to the fuel ? now Bible points out that we need the Well Spring to come to drink from ?
The Engine could be the driving force for you and this is the same of Christ Jesus. as without him you have nothing !
The Car she is likened to God in a way ? as that is the vehicle. Like the Earth is yours.
That's just for a carnal person to mull on some what in a way and maybe get the drift. that not everything is a one sided issue.
Maybe their is Dick and also Dora ? now one knows that the two are who they are but then comes along a baby from them both that they made ? now how was that ! one may question. it can not be ! but it does happen, it's a miracle ! So to is the Trinity but just the same one has to understand the facts of how such truly works, not even in depth can one truly explain how a Baby is 100% made, can we make such in a experiment in the lab from scratch. I am going to make a Dinosaur tomorrow
.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
7 And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire,” 8 but of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.
So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.”[/quote]
Like I said ambiguous or mistranslated verses lead people in the wrong direction. This is a quote from Psalms 45:6-7 is addressed to a human king.
The NET renders that verse...."Your throne, O God, is permanent.
"The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
7 You loved justice and hate evil.
For this reason God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions."
This is talking about God's throne, shared with his son; (Revelation 3:21) it's about God's everlasting rulership by his anointed one....."God your God" is talking about God's anointed Messiah.
God cannot be his own God. (Revelation 3:12)
I have covered all this, but if you need to cling to your old faithful KJV then do so, it makes no difference to me.
Like I said ambiguous or mistranslated verses lead people in the wrong direction. This is a quote from Psalms 45:6-7 is addressed to a human king.
The NET renders that verse...."Your throne, O God, is permanent.
"The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
7 You loved justice and hate evil.
For this reason God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions."
This is talking about God's throne, shared with his son; (Revelation 3:21) it's about God's everlasting rulership by his anointed one....."God your God" is talking about God's anointed Messiah.
God cannot be his own God. (Revelation 3:12)
I have covered all this, but if you need to cling to your old faithful KJV then do so, it makes no difference to me.[/QUOTE]
And you cling to your beloved NET. The NIV says...
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8 NIV
Hebrews 1:8
@Aunty Jane
And the ESV says
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8 ESV
Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now
And the ESV says
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8 ESV
Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now
@Aunty Jane
And the NASB says
Hebrews 1:8
[8]But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
And the NASB says
Hebrews 1:8
[8]But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
@Aunty Jane
Oh, and there's this, although I haven't figured out how to copy paste from this, do here's a screenshot...
Oh, and there's this, although I haven't figured out how to copy paste from this, do here's a screenshot...
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Again Backlit? This is still rehashing....
You are putting all your concentration on this one verse.....
“but of the Son he says...
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom."
Jesus shares the throne with his God, remember? (Revelation 3:21)
God's throne is the same throne as the one Jesus is sitting on forever and ever.
It was a quote from Psalm 45:6-7 addressed to a human King.
yet you ignore the next verse which says...
"9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.
So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.”
This is about God's anointed one....who is not God but who has a God.
Does God worship himself?
One misinterpreted scripture does not make a doctrine. Grasping at flimsy straws doesn't either.
You are becoming predictably predictable. You repeat a number of times that attempts at exposing my beliefs are limited by the KJV. You likewise suggest I'm stupid and ignorant for using the KJV and that it is on my own best interests to diversify, because the KJ is fraught with error and archaic language you cannot understand.
So, in response to this, I quote several other modern versions and... You shift the goalposts and fail to actually address the issue... That translators simply don't see things your way as much as you would like. Not even the Greek NT agrees with you.
Nor do the commentators. For example...
But unto the Son he saith - In Psalm 45:6-7. The fact that the writer of this Epistle makes this application of the Psalm to the Messiah, proves that it was so applied in his time, or that it would be readily admitted to be applicable to him. It has been generally admitted, by both Jewish and Christian interpreters, to have such a reference. Even those who have doubted its primary applicability to the Messiah, have regarded it as referring to him in a secondary sense. Many have supposed that it referred to Solomon in the primary sense, and that it has a secondary reference to the Messiah. To me it seems most probable that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. It is to be remembered that the hope of the Messiah was the special hope of the Jewish people. The coming of the future king, so early promised, was the great event to which they all looked forward with the deepest interest.
That hope inspired their prophets and their bards, and cheered the hearts of the nation in the time of despondency. The Messiah, if I may so express it, was the “hero” of the Old Testament - more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, and Aeneas of the Aenead. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ all their most magnificent imagery in describing him, and to present him in every form that was beautiful in their conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and hopes of the nation. Everything that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished on him, and they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too great magnificence in his personal reign; too great beauty of moral character; or too great an extent of dominion. That which would be regarded by them as a magnificent description of a monarch, they freely applied to him; and this is evidently the case in this Psalm. That the description may have been in part derived from the view of Solomon in the magnificence of his court, is possible, but no more probable than that it was derived from the general view of the splendor of any Oriental monarch, or than that it might have been the description of a monarch which was the pure creation of inspired poetry.
Indeed, I do see not why this Psalm should ever have been supposed to be applicable to Solomon.
“Thy throne.” A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings when acting as rulers sit on thrones. Thus, a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his “rule” or “dominion” would be perpetual - “forever and ever” - which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon. “O God.” This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove - that he is above the angels. The argument is, that a name is given to “him” which is never given to “them.” They are not called “God” in any strict and proper sense. The “argument” here requires us to understand this word, as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name אלהים 'elohiymis given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel - or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels.
The word “God” should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates Psalm 82:6, it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah, there is no such necessity, John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6; 1 John 5:20; Philemon 2:6, and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The “form” here - ὁ Θεὸς ho Theos- is in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it - Stuart. This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, “God is thy throne;” but how can God be “a throne” of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary? - This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah “as king.”
It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people. Still, the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is “divine.” It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine. “Is forever and ever.” This could not in any proper sense apply to Solomon. As applied to the Messiah, it means that his essential kingdom will be perpetual, Luke 1:33. As Mediator his kingdom will be given up to the Father, or to God without reference to a mediatorial work, (1 Corinthians 15:24, 1 Corinthians 15:28 - see notes on these verses), but his reign over his people will be perpetual.
There never will come a time when they shall not obey and serve him, though the special form of his kingdom, as connected with the work of mediation, will be changed. The form of the organized church, for example, will be changed, for there shall be no necessity for it in heaven, but the essential dominion and power of the Son of God will not cease. He shall have the same dominion which he had before he entered on the work of mediation; and that will be eternal. It is also true that, compared with earthly monarchs, his kingdom shall be perpetual. They soon die. Dynasties pass away. But his empire extends from age to age, and is properly a perpetual dominion. The fair and obvious interpretation of this passage would satisfy me, were there nothing else, that this Psalm had no reference to Solomon, but was designed originally as a description of the Messiah as the expected King and Prince of his people. “A scepter of righteousness.”
That is, a right or just scepter. The phrase is a Hebraism. The former expression described the perpetuity of his kingdom; this describes its “equable nature.” It would be just and equal; see notes on Isaiah 11:5. A “scepter” is a staff or wand usually made of wood, five or six feet long, and commonly overlaid with gold, or ornamented with golden rings. Sometimes, however, the scepter was made of ivory, or wholly of gold. It was borne in the hands of kings as an emblem of authority and power. Probably it had its origin in the staff or crook of the shepherd - as kings were at first regarded as the “shepherds” of their people. Thus, Agamemnon is commonly called by Homer the “shepherd” of the people. The “scepter” thus becomes the emblem of kingly office and power - as when we speak of “swaying a scepter;” - and the idea here is, that the Messiah would be a “king,” and that the authority which he would wield would be equitable and just. He would not be governed, as monarchs often are, by mere caprice, or by the wishes of courtiers and flatterers; he would not be controlled by mere “will” and the love of arbitrary lower; but the execution of his laws would be in accordance with the principles of equity and justice. - How well this accords with the character of the Lord Jesus we need not pause to show; compare notes on Isaiah 11:2-5.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Thank you for that copy and paste.....am I supposed to be convinced that Jesus is God now?
Commentators? Seriously? The musings of men mean little to me if they are trying to support something the Bible simply does not teach in any way. It’s all in the interpretation, not in the scriptures themselves.....so we have a choice concerning which “commentators” we are listening to. The ones who tell us what we want to hear, or the ones who tell an inconvenient truth that what we have perhaps believed all our lives is nothing but lies....
It’s not just the archaic old KJV, but Christendom’s beliefs in general and their fake doctrines gleaned from ancient pagan ideas that have a thin veneer of “Christianity” overlaid on them. That should convince people of their worth in God’s eyes. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
What the RCC invented as “Christianity”, never was...and a bit of research is all it takes to see what “fruitage” was produced by them. (Matthew 7:16-19)
What became “Christendom”, after the Reformation (denominationalism) perpetuated all the main Catholic doctrines assuming them to be scriptural, so the errors were carried over to the present day in all those denominations....except the right one.....who will prove to be the “wheat” among the “weeds”. This is what Jesus tells us in the scriptures....so unless we have found that “faithful and wise slave” (Matthew 24:45) whom Jesus appointed to “feed” his household at this “time of the end”....we will suffer Christ’s rejection when he comes to judge the world. (Matthew 7:21-23) No excuses will be accepted. Those breaking the First Commandment will not go unpunished. (Exodus 20:3)
So, regardless of whether you are binitarian or trinitarian, Jesus is not the “one God” of Israel. (Deuteronomy 6:4) Simple as that. Yahweh is the Father who shares his Godship with no one, hence his First Commandment. God’s Son remains his Father’s most faithful “Holy Servant” for all eternity. (Acts 4:27)
So, unless you have a direct statement from either God or his Christ, confirming that Jesus is a deity to be worshipped equally with his Father, your detailed excuses have no validity to anyone unless they hold your beliefs. To me, they are the musings, ideas and traditions of men. (Matthew 15:7-9) I find them completely unacceptable for all the reasons I have stated. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but when we choose the path, we choose the destination. (Matthew 7:13-14)
To contravene the first and most important Commandment is blasphemy, (a capital offence).
The pre-human Jesus was not God (John 3:16)....the man Jesus was not God, but 100% mortal human (1 Timothy 2:5)....and the resurrected Jesus is not God either, but still worships his God and Father, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)
The scriptures do not support any belief that Jesus was anything other than what he himself claimed to be. (John 10:31-36)
Are you yourself not “becoming predictably predictable”? Your excuses are wasted on me. The scriptures speak for themselves.
Last edited:
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
I don’t know where these people ever got the idea that Jesus is God, if he always referred to God as his father, so according to this people who keep preaching the same thing over and over Jesus was calling himself father.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
be careful how you hear.....Jesus
Well there ya go..... how you hear determines everything!
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Who determines how we hear QT? Is it just us?
If Jesus said “no man can come to me unless the Father draws him”(John 6:44; 65)....who is the one that opens those hearts to the truth? Who invites us into his family of faithful worshippers?
God is obviously “drawing” those who respond to the message of the Kingdom....OTOH those who are full of their own ideas or who subscribe to the views of those not appointed by Jesus to teach and make disciples, then what becomes of them? Jesus has already provided the answer...(Matthew 7:21-23)
None of us will actually know until then...but we can have faith that what we believe is true.
Will our faith make it true though? That is not what Jesus said, is it? Only a “few” are on the road to life, and only Jesus knows who they are.... (Matthew 7:13-14)
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
It’s something that they have been taught to accept as the primary doctrine of the “Christian” faith.....but it never was. No Bible writer believed in a trinity because they were all Jewish. That idea would have been thrown out as blasphemy in the first century. No Jew could believe that their Messiah was God incarnate....he was to be a human king and rule in an earthly kingdom....the only piece of the “sacred mystery of the kingdom” (Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:26-27) that was missing until Pentecost, was that it’s king and his co-rulers would rule the over earth from heaven.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Why not? His Father said Jesus was God.
KJV Hebrews 1:8, 12
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
The Father is telling His Son that the Son's throne is forever and ever. The Father called Him God...a name Jesus received by inheritance. Jesus received everything by inheritance. The attributes of the Father. His eternal nature, His power, His authority, His name. Everything except rank. Which is why you see Jesus submitting to His Father in all things, when calling His Father His God.
By saying that Christ was the express image of God’s inner person (nature/being), Paul was saying everything that God is (in His nature) so is the Son (in His nature). This expression therefore (express image of God’s person) means that Christ is a visible representation of the inner person/character/being of the invisible God. This is why Jesus told Philip (when Philip asked Him to reveal the Father) “…Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9 The apostle Paul continued his introductory remarks “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:4-5 Angels have a superior nature to that of humanity (Hebrews 2:7, 2:9, 2:16, 2 Peter 2:11). Paul is saying here that Christ’s nature, in His pre-existence, is far superior to that of the angels. This was not referring to Christ’s human nature during the incarnation. That was fallen human nature (Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:16). Christ’s pre-existent nature is divine. His attributes are those of deity. This was His inheritance as a son. The attributes of the angels are not those of deity. Angels are created. They did not receive their nature as an inheritance.
Jesus was a prophet in His own right yet He was far different than anyone who had gone before Him. Others could say, in effect, “listen to me and I will tell you what God is like”. Jesus though is the only One who could truly say, “Look at me and I will show you what God is like”. He is the only One who could, without the slightest misrepresentation, declare God. This was John’s intent in his wording of John 1:18. Christ could do this because He is God. When John wrote these words it was around the end of the first century (c. AD 96). This was now over 60 years since Christ had returned to His Father in Heaven. John could say therefore that Christ had returned to His rightful place “in the bosom of the Father”. There is nothing in Scripture that would lead us to conclude that Christ has ever forfeited His Godhead. Even when on earth the Godhead was still His own. He still retained those divine attributes that made Him God. As the apostle Paul wrote of Christ “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 KJV “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” NASB Colossians 2:9 This indwelling was not metaphorical. It was real. Paul’s words could only apply to someone who is God. He said that this indwelling was “bodily” (corporeal). This was Christ’s inheritance as the Son of God. He was God from God. Paul had previously written “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” Colossians 1:19 KJV “For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him” Colossians 1:19 NASB
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” NIV
KJV Mark 9:7
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I do as a matter of fact, but it pales compared to my love for his Father.....he loves his Father too.....does God love himself?
My faith is not based on emotion...that 'hand waving' 'swaying' "falling down" "Praise the Lord" kind of religion makes my skin crawl TBH.
That kind of display is shallow IMO because it lacks substance and knowledge....Jesus was a teacher, so my faith is based on the word of God and that gives me a connection to Him and an appreciation for the role of his son...."sent" by the Father to bail us out of the debt that Adam left for us. How could we ever be grateful enough...?
We have to "know the only true God and the one whom he sent" (John 17:3).....or our faith is mere performance.
What about you?
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Firstly AJ I'm not talking about 'that 'hand waving' 'swaying' "falling down" "Praise the Lord" kind of religion makes my skin crawl..' no more than if I asked you if you had an emotional relationship with your husband....which I assume you do have or have had.
Sooo, tell me about your relationship with Jesus.
You know, the devils have a cognitive understanding of Jesus. Theirs is no doubt far superior to ours seeing they have millennia up their sleeve to study every detail of scripture including Jesus. They could run rings around us mortals and they often do...cognitively.
Anyway, pease tell me about your relationship with Jesus.
Sooo, tell me about your relationship with Jesus.
You know, the devils have a cognitive understanding of Jesus. Theirs is no doubt far superior to ours seeing they have millennia up their sleeve to study every detail of scripture including Jesus. They could run rings around us mortals and they often do...cognitively.
Anyway, pease tell me about your relationship with Jesus.
Similar threads
