Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

[brakelite]

You don't believe that Jesus is our personal saviour?

Huh????? Where'd that come from?


The RCC does, and teaches such.

No, they don't. They teach Jesus died on the cross for the sins of men, yes. But that is not the same as teaching He is a personal Savior. Ask a number of Catholic teachers, priests, whatever how to get to heaven and you will receive a variety of answers, none of which will involve approaching Jesus. There is nothing 'personal' about the relationship between the Catholic and Jesus. They have replaced Him with rosaries, saints, Mary, the church sacraments, good works, purgatory, indulgences, and a whole raft of other useless superstitions but not Jesus. That is why the RCC is Antichrist. "Instead of Christ".

 

[OzSpen]

Why do you ignore the scriptures I have supplied that say God and Jesus are one and the same, as well as Father and Son in the physical realm?

Are you proposing the view that God the Father and Jesus the Son are one and the same person?

Do you believe in the Trinity? One God but three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is one illustration of this relationship:

​

(courtesy neverendingtruth.net)​

 

[Barrd]

Are you proposing the view that God the Father and Jesus the Son are one and the same person?

Do you believe in the Trinity? One God but three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is one illustration of this relationship:

​

(courtesy neverendingtruth.net)​

Why do I have this sudden desire to shoot a game of billiards?

 

[StanJ]

Are you proposing the view that God the Father and Jesus the Son are one and the same person?

Do you believe in the Trinity? One God but three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is one illustration of this relationship:

​

(courtesy neverendingtruth.net)​

That drawing is NOT essentially accurate Oz, because the Godhead is three separate yet INDIVISIBLE personas.
What does John 1:1, 14 & 18 say Oz? Is Jesus not the WORD incarnate? Did Jesus not say; "I and the Father are one", and, "If you've seen me you've seen the Father"? Heb 1:3 tells us Jesus is the personification of God. So to make things simple, the BIBLE tells us this, not me.

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

You don't believe that Jesus is our personal saviour?

Huh????? Where'd that come from?


The RCC does, and teaches such.

No, they don't. They teach Jesus died on the cross for the sins of men, yes. But that is not the same as teaching He is a personal Savior. Ask a number of Catholic teachers, priests, whatever how to get to heaven and you will receive a variety of answers, none of which will involve approaching Jesus. There is nothing 'personal' about the relationship between the Catholic and Jesus. They have replaced Him with rosaries, saints, Mary, the church sacraments, good works, purgatory, indulgences, and a whole raft of other useless superstitions but not Jesus. That is why the RCC is Antichrist. "Instead of Christ".

This is incorrect.

True catechized Catholics have a personal relationship with the Lord. Asking saints to pray for us does not detract from said relationship.

And doing good works helps us see Jesus at a even deeper level as we see him through the eyes of those in need.(as Mother Teresa has pointed out)

I encourage folks to read the Catholic catechism if you really want to know what the church teaches. But most do not and just want to bash that which they do not fully understand.

 

[StanJ]

Huh????? Where'd that come from?

No, they don't. They teach Jesus died on the cross for the sins of men, yes. But that is not the same as teaching He is a personal Savior. Ask a number of Catholic teachers, priests, whatever how to get to heaven and you will receive a variety of answers, none of which will involve approaching Jesus. There is nothing 'personal' about the relationship between the Catholic and Jesus. They have replaced Him with rosaries, saints, Mary, the church sacraments, good works, purgatory, indulgences, and a whole raft of other useless superstitions but not Jesus. That is why the RCC is Antichrist. "Instead of Christ".

It's a simple question brakelite.

Yes they do, and as usual you make fallacious assertions about RCC doctrine that you don't even verify are true. Your bias is atrocious.

http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/webelieve.php

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

It's a simple question brakelite.

Yes they do, and as usual you make fallacious assertions about RCC doctrine that you don't even verify are true. Your bias is atrocious.

http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/webelieve.php

There are those in the church (we call them rosary Catholics) who appear to not have any sort of relationship with God. And they make the rest of us look bad, but it's because they have deviated from church teachings.

I suspect that folks like brakelite have encountered these kind of people and made his judgment based on that, and not what the church actually teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

Why do I have this sudden desire to shoot a game of billiards?

That's because you want to identify the Trinity as promoting only one God who is in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is orthodox Christianity.

 

[StanJ]

There are those in the church (we call them rosary Catholics) who appear to not have any sort of relationship with God. And they make the rest of us look bad, but it's because they have deviated from church teachings.
I suspect that folks like brakelite have encountered these kind of people and made his judgment based on that, and not what the church actually teaches.

I agree VCS, AND, was once RC. I don't agree with many of the RCC traditions, but that doesn't mean they are anti Christian.

 

[Barrd]

This is incorrect.

True catechized Catholics have a personal relationship with the Lord. Asking saints to pray for us does not detract from said relationship.

And doing good works helps us see Jesus at a even deeper level as we see him through the eyes of those in need.(as Mother Teresa has pointed out)

I encourage folks to read the Catholic catechism if you really want to know what the church teaches. But most do not and just want to bash that which they do not fully understand.

I know that I never really felt close to God in the Episcopal church, which is pretty close to the Catholic church, except that Episcopalians do not accept the pope. ( All because ol' King Henry wanted a divorce... Just goes to show what a man will do for a woman.)
Maybe that was cuz my family was not really devout in their religion. I probably would never have become the Christian I am today, had not God gifted me with a love for reading. Or maybe it was all the ritual...the liturgical calendar, dressing the altar for the different seasons of the liturgical year, praying out of a book rather than out of the heart...just didn't work for the emotional little girl I was...and still am in so many ways...

Anyway, i read the catechism, but I didn't see anything there about a PERSONAL Savior. Perhaps I missed it?

 

[OzSpen]

That drawing is NOT essentially accurate Oz, because the Godhead is three separate yet INDIVISIBLE personas.
What does John 1:1, 14 & 18 say Oz? Is Jesus not the WORD incarnate? Did Jesus not say; "I and the Father are one", and, "If you've seen me you've seen the Father"? Heb 1:3 tells us Jesus is the personification of God. So to make things simple, the BIBLE tells us this, not me.

Stan,

The drawing I gave WAS accurate because there is one God in the Trinity with three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The more I read your posts on CyB relating to the Trinity, the more I'm coming to believe you are non-Trinitarian and are a supporter of Pentecostal Oneness theology.

• John 1:1 (ESV) states:'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God'. So the Word (the Son who became Jesus in the flesh) was in the beginning 'with God'. He was God, but he was NOT God the Father.
• John 1:14 (ESV), 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth'. The Word became Jesus of flesh who dwelt among us on earth for a time. He was the only Son sent from the Father. Because He was 'from the Father', that means he was not the same as the Father.
• John 1:18 (ESV): 'No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known'. We can't see God the Father because 'God is spirit' (John 4:24 ESV). Jesus has 'made him [God] known' by coming in the flesh. So Jesus, the Word, is a separate person from God (the Father), a person.

Stan, you can quote the Scriptures well (but without references in the following cases), but you don't do the hard yards of biblical interpretation with the words you quote:

• 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30 ESV);
• 'If you've seen me, you've seen the Father' (John 14:9 (ESV) reads, 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father').
• Heb 1:3 (ESV), which states, 'He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high'. This verse does not say what you want us to believe that 'Jesus is the personification of God' (whatever that means). 'The exact imprint of his nature' does not equate with 'the personification of God'. Hermeneutics, Stan. Do them with accuracy openness and accuracy!

In your endeavour to make short posts, you leave out lots of hermeneutical issues. I find that very unsatisfactory when you jump to conclusions that are not warranted by what the text states.

Oz

 

[Barrd]

There are those in the church (we call them rosary Catholics) who appear to not have any sort of relationship with God. And they make the rest of us look bad, but it's because they have deviated from church teachings.

I suspect that folks like brakelite have encountered these kind of people and made his judgment based on that, and not what the church actually teaches.

Now, I like that. Willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. Not quick to judge and condemn.
Not an attitude I see an awful lot of in these threads...

I may not agree with everything you believe....but I like your Christian attitude!

 

[Barrd]

That's because you want to identify the Trinity as promoting only one God who is in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is orthodox Christianity.

Yeah....that must be it...

 

[StanJ]

The drawing I gave WAS accurate because there is one God in the Trinity with three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Not from where I'm sitting, so I don't accept it.

The more I read your posts on CyB relating to the Trinity, the more I'm coming to believe you are non-Trinitarian and are a supporter of Pentecostal Oneness theology.

Then I have to conclude that you're being deliberately inflammatory.

Because He was 'from the Father', that means he was not the same as the Father.

So you dispute the accuracy of Is 9:6?

Jesus has 'made him [God] known' by coming in the flesh. So Jesus, the Word, is a separate person from God (the Father), a person.
Stan, you can quote the Scriptures well (but without references in the following cases), but you don't do the hard yards of biblical interpretation with the words you quote:

If the WORD is God, THEN THE WORD incarnate, Jesus, is also God, as Paul confirms in Col.
There is no hard yards Oz, they say what they say, unless you are being deliberately equivocal?

This verse does not say what you want us to believe that 'Jesus is the personification of God' (whatever that means). 'The exact imprint of his nature' does not equate with 'the personification of God'. Hermeneutics, Stan. Do them with accuracy openness and accuracy
In your endeavour to make short posts, you leave out lots of hermeneutical issues. I find that very unsatisfactory when you jump to conclusions that are not warranted by what the text states.

I'm sure you know what that means Oz. As MOUNCE & the NIV both translate , "the EXACT representation", and as Paul states in Col 1:19 & 2:9, FULLY God.
There really is no wriggle room there Oz. I would have thought, given your education, this would be very obvious by now? I'm VERY surprised you are not clear on this issue! My shorts posts only mean I trust most to understand the basics. Lately it seems, because of posts like these, that I may have to reconsider my style.

 

[OzSpen]

Not from where I'm sitting, so I don't accept it.

Then I have to conclude that you're being deliberately inflammatory.

So you dispute the accuracy of Is 9:6?

If the WORD is God, THEN THE WORD incarnate, Jesus, is also God, as Paul confirms in Col.
There is no hard yards Oz, they say what they say, unless you are being deliberately equivocal?

I'm sure you know what that means Oz. As MOUNCE & the NIV both translate , "the EXACT representation", and as Paul states in Col 1:19 & 2:9, FULLY God.
There really is no wriggle room there Oz. I would have thought, given your education, this would be very obvious by now? I'm VERY surprised you are not clear on this issue! My shorts posts only mean I trust most to understand the basics. Lately it seems, because of posts like these, that I may have to reconsider my style.

Stan,

Where have I ever disputed the accuracy of the prophecy of Isa 9:6? Never ever! That's your inflammatory invention about my theology.

What does 'incarnate' mean? It means 'to become flesh'. What does incarnate mean? How was Jesus God incarnate? (GotQuestions?)

I have never denied that Jesus is fully God. I fully support the Trinitarian Godhead.

My concern, Stan, was the way you seemed to be squirming on the nature of the Trinity and the Godhead.

What is your understanding of the Pentecostal Oneness and its non-view of the Trinity?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Where have I ever disputed the accuracy of the prophecy of Isa 9:6? Never ever! That's your inflammatory invention about my theology.

What does 'incarnate' mean? It means 'to become flesh'. What does incarnate mean? How was Jesus God incarnate? (GotQuestions?)

I have never denied that Jesus is fully God. I fully support the Trinitarian Godhead.

My concern, Stan, was the way you seemed to be squirming on the nature of the Trinity and the Godhead.

What is your understanding of the Pentecostal Oneness and its non-view of the Trinity?

Post #111, but apparently you can't relate a simple question to that statement that Jesus and God are NOT the same, when Is 9:6 shows they are.

You're sounding an awful lot like brakelite. Try SAYING what you mean instead of denying what people conclude based on your comments.

I am doing no such thing, and have been very adamant about the Triune nature of God, and you have never read otherwise, so to accuse me of being linked to a cult is just shameless one up man ship on your part. You seem to now be willing to resort to prevaricating about my beliefs, which really disturbs me, given the type of person I thought you were. A person I have always supported, up to now that is.

BTW, the WORD became flesh. That flesh is Jesus and that WORD is God, hence one and the same. It's pretty simple.
The UPC and any other denomination of their teaching is a cult, to which I have stated MANY times on this and other forums we've been on together, so this is nothing more than strawman tactics on your part.

 

[OzSpen]

Stan,

Whenever you have used a logical fallacy for the first time, I have given you a link to a definition of that fallacy with the Nizkor Project Fallacies. When you've used, say, a red herring logical fallacy, I provided that latter link.

It seems like I have to specifically mention what content of my post you have not addressed and how you have been off and running with the specifics of your own agenda, thus avoiding dealing with the specifics of my post. I wrongly assumed you could read the nature of a red herring fallacy and apply it to what you had done. I'll endeavour to correct that next time.

The error has been mine in assuming you knew how to apply the description from the Nizkor Project Fallacies to what you did. I'll do my best to remember to do that next time.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

Whenever you have used a logical fallacy for the first time, I have given you a link to a definition of that fallacy with the Nizkor Project Fallacies. When you've used, say, a red herring logical fallacy, I provided that latter link.

It seems like I have to specifically mention what content of my post you have not addressed and how you have been off and running with the specifics of your own agenda, thus avoiding dealing with the specifics of my post. I wrongly assumed you could read the nature of a red herring fallacy and apply it to what you had done. I'll endeavour to correct that next time.

The error has been mine in assuming you knew how to apply the description from the Nizkor Project Fallacies to what you did. I'll do my best to remember to do that next time.

Oz

You're TOTALLY missing the point Oz. At this point I can't really tell why, but yes, be specific when accusing me of something. I'm not obliged to address your every point, just as you have not likewise addressed mine in the last half dozen or so on this thread.

 

[OzSpen]

Post #111, but apparently you can't relate a simple question to that statement that Jesus and God are NOT the same, when Is 9:6 shows they are.

You're sounding an awful lot like brakelite. Try SAYING what you mean instead of denying what people conclude based on your comments.

I am doing no such thing, and have been very adamant about the Triune nature of God, and you have never read otherwise, so to accuse me of being linked to a cult is just shameless one up man ship on your part. You seem to now be willing to resort to prevaricating about my beliefs, which really disturbs me, given the type of person I thought you were. A person I have always supported, up to now that is.

Stan,

Take a close look at my post at #111. Not once in the entire post did I mention Isa 9:6. Not once. When you invent what I did not state, don't you understand that you have erected a straw man fallacy? According to the description in The Nizkor Project, we have,

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

How did Stan create a straw man fallacy?

1. Oz explained the nature of the diagram of the Trinity with Scriptures provided.
2. Stan presents a view of Isa 9:6: 'Post #111, but apparently you can't relate a simple question to that statement that Jesus and God are NOT the same, when Isa 9:6 shows they are'.
3. Stan attacks Oz's position by using Isa 9:6
4. Therefore, Oz's ;position is flawed.

The problem with Stan's kind of reasoning is that it is attacking a distorted version of what Oz presented in post #111. This attack by Stan does not represent an attack on Oz's position. As the Nizkor Project indicates, when Stan does this with his straw man fallacy: 'One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person'.

This false kind of reasoning prevents reasonable/rational discussion on a topic.

Do you want this detailed kind of explanation every time you commit a logical fallacy? I don't have the time to do it every time. I suggest that you become familiar with this prominent list of logical fallacies at The Nizkor Project Fallacies and quit using them.

You state, 'You're sounding an awful lot like brakelite'. You are using another logical fallacy, Guilt by association, and it prevents logical discussion because you are not dealing with the issues I raise with that kind of comment. You view brakelite negatively and by associating my comment with brakelite's claims, you view my claim negatively. BUT, it does not deal with the claim I raise, so what you have engaged in is fallacious reasoning, thus preventing further logical discussion of the topic.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You're TOTALLY missing the point Oz. At this point I can't really tell why, but yes, be specific when accusing me of something. I'm not obliged to address your every point, just as you have not likewise addressed mine in the last half dozen or so on this thread.

So you give me another red herring fallacy. You refuse to stop your fallacious reasoning.