How could the Messiah be sinless?

[justbyfaith]

C'mon JBF, the passage is clearly indicating two different entities. Not to mention, one is called God, the other Lord (i can't believe that you even used this verse).

The word "and" in this verse can be translated "even" so that it reads like this:

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; even one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

For it is clear that there is one Lord (cf. scripture above; and Ephesians 4:5); and that this Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). Afraid to look these scriptures up?

No one will ever call Jesus God in such a matter-of-fact, or unqualified means.

Thomas did in fact call Him his Lord and his God in no unqualified terms.

I do not need to quote the scripture on this; no doubt as a Jehovah's Witness you have been confronted with it many times.

I see you are speaking for yourself. I've been born again, so I'll believe and live the Word of God. 1 John 3:9

I was testing to see if you still had me on Ignore.

Yes, 1 John 3:9 teaches us that as those who are born of God, we "doth not" and "cannot" sin. This does not contradict 1 John 1:8.

For 1 John 1:8 teaches us that we have indwelling sin. The sin in question does not have to be alive, so that it has any say over our behaviour. It can be rendered dead (Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8).

I have said this many times; and I am surprised at how dull of hearing people are at the truth of this matter.

 

[justbyfaith]

Unbelief concerning the Deity of Christ is clearly an issue of the heart; for there has been given uncontrovertible proof on the matter even in this thread; so that if it were a matter of intellectual understanding the people who reject it would have repented long ago.

 

[DNB]

I would just like to comment on this. When Adam sinned, man lost the image of God, for God is a holy God. If mankind are still in the image of God, and Jesus Christ (the Son) is the image of God, every man then is said to be in the image of the Son, Jesus Christ. And that of course is not the truth.

You made absolutely no sense here. You didn't explain anything that you said, and your logic is ridiculous. All humankind is created in the image of God, Adam, Eve, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Pharaoh, King Ahab & Jezebel, Jesus Christ, and me and you. No where does the Bible teach that we lost it, how absurd.

Genesis 5:3. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
Genesis 9:6. "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Romans 2:14-16
2:14. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

To the contrary, the passage speaks of the preeminence of Jesus Christ over all creation. In the language of man, that is to say, He is the firstborn over all creation.

In the verse, the Greek word that was translated in the English "firstborn" is "prototokos" which literally means first to be born, as being the eldest. But of course, when scriptures there said of Jesus Christ as the "firstborn over all creation", that obviously could not be literal, but is figurative language.

No, it obviously is figurative as God cannot be the first-born of anything. No one would describe eternality as first-born or pre-eminent. Jesus was the first-born in God's mind for creation, all things were created with him in mind, thus through him and for him. Thus, the mystery is in his chronology, not his ontology.

Not only do they (as others also do) perhaps laugh at the trinity nature of God, but first laughed at the message of the cross that is preached. Do you laugh with them?

Yes, of course I laugh at such idiocracy, and defamatory remarks about God. Three persons, identical in all attributes, in one god-head, is utterly redundant, ridiculous and infantile. Why have three omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent persons in the god-head, when only one is necessary to create and maintain the entire universe? You slander God with such irreverent sentiments and theories.

A god-man, what in the world is a god-man? Such vulgar stupidity and nonsense. Every attribute that defines deity, is antithetical to what constitutes humanity. Do you think that you're being clever or pious making such pagan and incomprehensible assertions?

 

[DNB]

The word "and" in this verse can be translated "even" so that it reads like this:

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; even one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

For it is clear that there is one Lord (cf. scripture above; and Ephesians 4:5); and that this Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). Afraid to look these scriptures up?

Thomas did in fact call Him his Lord and his God in no unqualified terms.

I do not need to quote the scripture on this; no doubt as a Jehovah's Witness you have been confronted with it many times.

Either way, as even or and, it still means two distinct beings. That is what the context is denoting. Exegesis requires wisdom, you are being extremely dull and ignorant trying to justify a trinity from such ambiguous proof-text.
Thomas said 'my Lord and my God'. No one says this about God, a repetition as such. God is many things, but it is redundant to say the those to characteristics in the same sentence. Jesus is Lord, to the extent that he has become a God to us, as Moses was to the Israelites. The repetition in this case, is for emphasis, and superlative. Jesus is a unique man. Plus, 1 week earlier Thomas didn't even believe that he was the messiah, was such a sudden leap of recognition, when others had been raised from the dead also. Thomas acknowledged Christ's Messiaship. Plus, no one in the room remarked at Thomas' exclamation, if he meant that Jesus was God. This would be undeniably expected.

No one is JW over here. I do not deify Jesus in any manner, whatsoever. There is one God, the Father. And one creature that he ordained to be the first-born of creation, and first-born from the dead, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, namely Jesus. God cannot become a man, nor can He save man from their sins. Only a creature, can mediate between God and man, and this, to the glory of God's mercy and wisdom.

 

[justbyfaith]

Either way, as even or and, it still means two distinct beings.

No, for if the word is even, it is saying that they are the same Lord (1 Corinthians 12:5, 2 Corinthians 8:19); for the Father is indeed the Lord of heaven and earth and there is also one Lord; nevertheless, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth.

 

[Tong2020]

You made absolutely no sense here. You didn't explain anything that you said, and your logic is ridiculous. All humankind is created in the image of God, Adam, Eve, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Pharaoh, King Ahab & Jezebel, Jesus Christ, and me and you. No where does the Bible teach that we lost it, how absurd.

Genesis 5:3. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
Genesis 9:6. "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Romans 2:14-16
2:14. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

I would not had made sense to you, not because what I said is nonsense, but that you just don't realize the sense of it.

Genesis 9:6 refers to the creation of man by God, that is with reference to the creation in Genesis 1 of man, the unfallen Adam.

To say, according to your own words, "we are all in the image of God" is false and is a lie, and even is blasphemous, I would have to point out. Adam, when God created him was in the image of God. He was created holy, clean, undefiled, not corrupted, without sin. But when Adam had sinned, he had become unclean, corrupted, and unholy. And that is certainly not the image of God. For God is Holy. Now, did Adam lost the image of God? Or would you rather insist that the unclean, corrupted, and unholy Adam is the image of God? Your choice.

Now, all men came from unclean unholy Adam. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one! As such, while in the beginning God made man in His image, after the fall of Adam, no man who was born of a woman, is in the image of the Holy God. This is why we read in scriptures concerning those who are being saved:

Romans 8:29
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

First, it speaks of the image of His (God) Son, who is Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15, we are told that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God.

As to why those whom God foreknew, He had predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, that is, the image of God, is exactly because they are not in the image of God. If you say that all mankind are all in the image of God, Romans 8:29 becomes meaningless, if not altogether senseless.

Further, Romans 8:29 implies that them that God foreknew are not in the image of God. What implication does that have regarding the rest of mankind? You know the obvious answer to that.

Tong
R0812

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said:
To the contrary, the passage speaks of the preeminence of Jesus Christ over all creation. In the language of man, that is to say, He is the firstborn over all creation.

In the verse, the Greek word that was translated in the English "firstborn" is "prototokos" which literally means first to be born, as being the eldest. But of course, when scriptures there said of Jesus Christ as the "firstborn over all creation", that obviously could not be literal, but is figurative language.

No, it obviously is figurative as God cannot be the first-born of anything. No one would describe eternality as first-born or pre-eminent. Jesus was the first-born in God's mind for creation, all things were created with him in mind, thus through him and for him. Thus, the mystery is in his chronology, not his ontology.

Your interpretation that Jesus was firstborn in God's mind for creation is what is out of context. It could be nothing but your eisegesis, for nowhere in the passage nor in the whole of scriptures that it teaches what you teach there.

You are teaching, in other words, that God had created all of creation for Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ would be reason and purpose behind all creation. And who is Jesus Christ to you? Is he not a creature you say? Now, do you really think and believe that God did not create all things for Himself but for a creature?

Here's what scriptures says of God:

Romans 11:36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Tong
R0813

 

[justbyfaith]

Tong2020 said:
To the contrary, the passage speaks of the preeminence of Jesus Christ over all creation. In the language of man, that is to say, He is the firstborn over all creation.

In the verse, the Greek word that was translated in the English "firstborn" is "prototokos" which literally means first to be born, as being the eldest. But of course, when scriptures there said of Jesus Christ as the "firstborn over all creation", that obviously could not be literal, but is figurative language.



Your interpretation that Jesus was firstborn in God's mind for creation is what is out of context. It could be nothing but your eisegesis, for nowhere in the passage nor in the whole of scriptures that it teaches what you teach there.

You are teaching, in other words, that God had created all of creation for Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ would be reason and purpose behind all creation. And who is Jesus Christ to you? Is he not a creature you say? Now, do you really think and believe that God did not create all things for Himself but for a creature?

Here's what scriptures says of God:

Romans 11:36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Tong
R0813

How about Revelation 4:11 (kjv)?

Rev 4:9, And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
Rev 4:10, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

That coupled with Colossians 1:16-17...nice!

Col 1:13, Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14, In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15, Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16, For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17, And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said:
Not only do they (as others also do) perhaps laugh at the trinity nature of God, but first laughed at the message of the cross that is preached. Do you laugh with them?

Yes, of course I laugh at such idiocracy, and defamatory remarks about God. Three persons, identical in all attributes, in one god-head, is utterly redundant, ridiculous and infantile. Why have three omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent persons in the god-head, when only one is necessary to create and maintain the entire universe? You slander God with such irreverent sentiments and theories.

A god-man, what in the world is a god-man? Such vulgar stupidity and nonsense. Every attribute that defines deity, is antithetical to what constitutes humanity. Do you think that you're being clever or pious making such pagan and incomprehensible assertions?

Nothing in what you said there justifies your laughing at the trinity nature of God and of the message of the cross.

To say the least, you laugh because you apparently don't understand what the message of the cross is. This is evident in that you totally ignored this part of my post and I quote:

.....I hope not. For here's what scriptures says concerning those who laugh at the message and preaching of the apostles concerning the Messiah, the Anointed One.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

By the way, do you know the message of the cross? If so, please go ahead and tell us what you say it is. And what do you think is the reason they see the message of the cross to be foolishness?

Your no answer to the questions and your laughing says a lot about you and your view of God and Jesus Christ.

Tong
R0814

 

[Renniks]

And not, having God seated beside himself in heaven, how utterly retarded!

So the scripture is retarded according to you.

 

[Renniks]

My contention is that, for one, God cannot become human for he is transcendent, immortal and incorruptible. Did God really go of into the woods to defecate and urinate? And two, there is no necessity, glory or soundness in such an absurd notion of God propitiating Himself, or raising Himself from the dead. This is the crux of the issue, the nonsensical and inefficacious results of such an act,

He is the propitiation for our sins. I have no idea what you are going on about. The results of dying as our Ransom are anything but nonsensical.

 

[Joseph77]

So the scripture is retarded according to you.

Well, to most of the world,
and many many multitudes of gentiles, (and maybe likely some Jews also) ?
it is retarded.... (although it is worded differently in the Bible) ....

 

[Renniks]

No - you made a choice to reserve to yourself whether to accept God's Word or not, each time, so to speak.

I made a choice to always accept His Word, no matter what , forever, and always to do as He Says, (yes, by His Accomplishment of this - even the desire to seek Him is a gift from Him) , no matter the cost.

My will is totally surrended and willingly always doing as He says....

You have said apparently that you retain your will independent of Him, and have not submitted to Him to be as He says always.

Your will is not submitted.

Mine is.

This is a choice TODAY - IF YOU WILL HEAR HIS VOICE, (or if you do hear His Voice ? ) , do not rebel like they did in the wilderness....
TODAY - CHOOSE who you will serve, choose now, once for all time, forever, who you will serve...

But you already told me I have no such choice. We make this choice moment by moment and no one's will is perfectly submissive. Yes I mess up a lot. Yes I fail to be what I should be. So do the ones who claim total sanctification. I have no doubt that some of them are holier than me, but all still fall short.

 

[Joseph77]

But you already told me I have no such choice.

quote me.

 

[Tong2020]

There is one God, the Father. And one creature that he ordained to be the first-born of creation, and first-born from the dead, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, namely Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

DNB, who do you say does 1 Timothy 6:15 refer to as the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see?

Psalm 136:3 Oh, give thanks to the Lord of lords!
For His mercy endures forever:

DNB, who do you say does Psalm 136:3 refer to as the Lord of lords?

And here are few more questions for you to answer:

1. What do you understand when scriptures says of the Son, Jesus Christ, as the "prototokos" or "firstborn"?

2. What do you understand when scriptures says of the Son, Jesus Christ, as the "prototokos pases ktiseos" or "firstborn over all creation"?

3. Other than God, who do you say could man worship and serve?

4. Whose way do you say was John the baptist sent to prepare?

Tong
R0815

 

[DNB]

No, for if the word is even, it is saying that they are the same Lord (1 Corinthians 12:5, 2 Corinthians 8:19); for the Father is indeed the Lord of heaven and earth and there is also one Lord; nevertheless, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth.

No, you are choosing an equivocal option, even might mean the same, and it may not. We don't build our theologies on ambiguous passages.
Since either can be true, although, like I said, the context DEMANDS that they are two distinct and autonomous beings, you'd bring more glory to God if you'd just find the word trinity in the Bible, and base your incomprehensible and defamatory doctrine on that premise.
It's shameful that you need to decipher the word 'even' in order to make your point, as in all the trinitarian's other inferred proof-text.

 

[DNB]

But when Adam had sinned, he had become unclean, corrupted, and unholy.

Prove this! I have no idea what you're talking about? How can man lose a part of his intrinsic constitution? No where in the Bible does it say this. What was Adam before he sinned, meaning, why did he disobey God in the first place? That was an unholy thing to do, even prior to the fall. Being in the image of God does not mean perfect, for there is still free will. Being in the perfected image of Christ, is the goal of man. You are confusing to very distinct principles.

 

[Joseph77]

TWO <> TO

 

[DNB]

You are teaching, in other words, that God had created all of creation for Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ would be reason and purpose behind all creation. And who is Jesus Christ to you? Is he not a creature you say? Now, do you really think and believe that God did not create all things for Himself but for a creature?

Yes, this is exactly what I am professing. God is love, prefect, is self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, ... Therefore, God needs absolutely nothing, for anything. NO, He did not create the universe for His own pleasure, He is perfectly complete as He is. But, more astutely speaking, He created all for the love of His creatures. He made us, to enjoy Him, not the other way around, as you are so erroneously espousing.
God's first love was Christ, and for him, meaning through him and with him in mind, He created a family/bride for him, that is us. He is pre-eminent over all creation for this reason.
You take away the true love of God when you make Him out to be so nonsensical in His will. He did not exalt Himself to His right-hand, but his first-born creature, who He loved so much that He even handed all authority over to him.
This is the unselfish and unthreatened love of God.

 

[DNB]

Tong2020 said:
Not only do they (as others also do) perhaps laugh at the trinity nature of God, but first laughed at the message of the cross that is preached. Do you laugh with them?


Nothing in what you said there justifies your laughing at the trinity nature of God and of the message of the cross.

To say the least, you laugh because you apparently don't understand what the message of the cross is. This is evident in that you totally ignored this part of my post and I quote:



Your no answer to the questions and your laughing says a lot about you and your view of God and Jesus Christ.

Tong
R0814

I didn't answer your post because, for one, it's too elementary for this discussion, and two, is not pertinent to it either.
My ridicule of your god-man theory has nothing to do with why people mock the Gospel. For, I could say the same about you, not accepting my position. You're playing a silly and childish game with your rhetoric. I told you why your trinitarian theory is implausible, and you said that my points were irrelevant. You're not being serious!