Jesus the ventriloquist?

[Paul Christensen]

Nonsense.

He is the Son of God, always has been, always will be.

(Aside: LDS Christians have a lot of misconceptions about Nicene Christians, just like the vise versa).

I will restrain going into a discussion about Mormonism, because it would not be consistent with the theme of the thread.

 

[Enoch111]

That's strange, because I have had Mormons tells me that they don't believe in the deity of Jesus - that He is the created Son of God and not the eternal God who has no beginning nor end.

Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons try to hide the fact that their teachings about the Godhead and the Deity of Christ are actually unbiblical.

Christians should always be aware that for Mormons, there are ADDITIONAL "SCRIPTURES" AND TEACHINGS which are just as authoritative as the Bible. Thus the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are all a part of their "Scriptures". And they will quote the Book of Mormon more frequently than the Bible itself. Joseph Smith was regarded as a prophet (and much more), and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was regarded as authoritative also.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I will restrain going into a discussion about Mormonism, because it would not be consistent with the theme of the thread.

Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons try to hide the fact that their teachings about the Godhead and the Deity of Christ are actually unbiblical.

​

Christians should always be aware that for Mormons, there are ADDITIONAL "SCRIPTURES" AND TEACHINGS which are just as authoritative as the Bible. Thus the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are all a part of their "Scriptures". And they will quote the Book of Mormon more frequently than the Bible itself. Joseph Smith was regarded as a prophet (and much more), and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was regarded as authoritative also.​

​

Sure, we'll keep this for a different discussion.

 

[DNB]

Your answers remind me of answers given by politicians when asked specific questions. They never directly answer the interviewer's question. They sidestep and carry on with their own point of view.

Your answer reflect that you don't really know how to answer my questions and in spite of the clear implication given by the points I have quoted in my questions, you insist on giving your own theological view regardless.

Just like a politician who doesn't want to give direct answers to direct questions. Or like an English lecturer I knew when I was at university. Even if one asked him the time, he would give a vague answer!

The point was that none of your verses had the weight to entertain such a radical claim. They were all implicit at best.
I circumvented the need to address them by appealing to a higher principle, God concertedly imparts his Word of eternal salvation in a manner that is emphatic, explicit, clear and wise. You have not come even close in giving Him that glory.
I was not to be taken down your rabbit trail of petty verses, in order to disprove the incomprehensible. Do you see the point?
Example, one need not address every whim of a conspiracy theorist in order to undermine their position. We just appeal to the main fundaments of the argument. i.e. a radical conclusion, requires a radical testimony.

But, I am going to brief, and solely for the sake of brevity, selective as to which points I address (a few should be enough to show that you're heading in the wrong direction).


How come the Hebrew word for God is a plural? - I understand that it is always plural, as in English, sheep is both singular & plural
Why did God say when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, "they have become like us, knowing good and evil". Who is the "us", and who was God speaking to? - The other created beings (angels) that were endowed with his image, as we were (his spirit)
When Jesus was baptised, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son"? And, what was the bodily form that descended on Jesus from we don't know where? - anthropomorphism - The spirit is also tongues of fire (this theophany is just for the audience's sake)
Is the Holy Spirit, God? - Yes, but not an autonomous person, but his image that he gives to man as he sees fit (no redundancy in the Godhead - 2 omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient persons in the same Godhead?????)
Is Jesus God? - No,
Is the Father God? - He is the only true God, no one else beside him as deity, not the Holy Spirit, not the Son
How do we explain that? - Your questions are too childish to even bother
When Jesus was transfigured, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him." - who do you think? God spoke to God in your mind? it was the Father. your questions are really stupid
When Mary met Jesus after His resurrection, why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father? - I have no idea, what in the world is your point?
How come Jesus said that He did only the will of His Father? - You're crazy - every single human on earth is to have that attitude?????
Why did John say, "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ"? - you don't understand how the Atonement works, and each one's involvement, and Jesus' exaltation due to it?????
Why did Paul say, "That I might know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent?" - you're just ridiculous!
If Jesus isn't God, how come He was able to take upon Himself the eternal wrath of God for every single soul who received Christ, past, present and future, within just the three hours He hung on the cross before He died? - I'm not a penal substitution advocate for this very reason
How come the Father is a spirit, and no man has ever seen Him, and yet Jesus, as God, is a man that everyone could see clearly? - you made a really stupid assumption here, it's called circular reasoning


That's enough, you're really incompetent!

 

[DNB]

No, I don't know enough about theology - I only gained an M.Div, and didn't go on to do a PhD. So I come a little short in that department!

Actually, my questions in my previous post are based on what the Scripture actually says, not any personal theory of my own.

Also, Jesus clearly referred to Himself as God and gave that distinct impression to the degree that it was the main reason why the Jewish leaders wanted Him killed. If Jesus referred to Himself as God, then he was either a lying lunatic, or exactly who He said He was.

My goodness, are you unable to put forth a valid and dialectically sound thesis for your position?
You saw the way that i presented my arguments, i started at the most fundamental principles, precluding the need to delve into the details until the fundaments get resolved.
You keep employing circular reasoning 'well Jesus clearly said that he was God, therefore, he is God'. What is clear in your mind, when none of the trinitarian nomenclature can be found in the Bible??????

 

[Paul Christensen]

The point was that none of your verses had the weight to entertain such a radical claim. They were all implicit at best.
I circumvented the need to address them by appealing to a higher principle, God concertedly imparts his Word of eternal salvation in a manner that is emphatic, explicit, clear and wise. You have not come even close in giving Him that glory.
I was not to be taken down your rabbit trail of petty verses, in order to disprove the incomprehensible. Do you see the point?
Example, one need not address every whim of a conspiracy theorist in order to undermine their position. We just appeal to the main fundaments of the argument. i.e. a radical conclusion, requires a radical testimony.

But, I am going to brief, and solely for the sake of brevity, selective as to which points I address (a few should be enough to show that you're heading in the wrong direction).


How come the Hebrew word for God is a plural? - I understand that it is always plural, as in English, sheep is both singular & plural
Why did God say when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, "they have become like us, knowing good and evil". Who is the "us", and who was God speaking to? - The other created beings (angels) that were endowed with his image, as we were (his spirit)
When Jesus was baptised, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son"? And, what was the bodily form that descended on Jesus from we don't know where? - anthropomorphism - The spirit is also tongues of fire (this theophany is just for the audience's sake)
Is the Holy Spirit, God? - Yes, but not an autonomous person, but his image that he gives to man as he sees fit (no redundancy in the Godhead - 2 omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient persons in the same Godhead?????)
Is Jesus God? - No,
Is the Father God? - He is the only true God, no one else beside him as deity, not the Holy Spirit, not the Son
How do we explain that? - Your questions are too childish to even bother
When Jesus was transfigured, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him." - who do you think? God spoke to God in your mind? it was the Father. your questions are really stupid
When Mary met Jesus after His resurrection, why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father? - I have no idea, what in the world is your point?
How come Jesus said that He did only the will of His Father? - You're crazy - every single human on earth is to have that attitude?????
Why did John say, "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ"? - you don't understand how the Atonement works, and each one's involvement, and Jesus' exaltation due to it?????
Why did Paul say, "That I might know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent?" - you're just ridiculous!
If Jesus isn't God, how come He was able to take upon Himself the eternal wrath of God for every single soul who received Christ, past, present and future, within just the three hours He hung on the cross before He died? - I'm not a penal substitution advocate for this very reason
How come the Father is a spirit, and no man has ever seen Him, and yet Jesus, as God, is a man that everyone could see clearly? - you made a really stupid assumption here, it's called circular reasoning


That's enough, you're really incompetent!

In other words, you can't answer my questions directly, maybe because there is only one viable answer which you wouldn't accept anyway.

The fact that you have to feel like discrediting my competence shows that you would rather kick the play than the ball when the game goes against you. Similar to my younger brother upsetting the table and chess board when he knows he's losing!

 

[Paul Christensen]

My goodness, are you unable to put forth a valid and dialectically sound thesis for your position?
You saw the way that i presented my arguments, i started at the most fundamental principles, precluding the need to delve into the details until the fundaments get resolved.
You keep employing circular reasoning 'well Jesus clearly said that he was God, therefore, he is God'. What is clear in your mind, when none of the trinitarian nomenclature can be found in the Bible??????

I could put forward a very convincing thesis on the basis of the Scriptural quotes I have put forward as my questions. But I decided to put them as questions to see how you would answer. Instead of answering the questions, all you are doing to continuing with your own thesis - which you have every right to do - as long as it is presented as your personal thesis and not as objective truth that has to be accepted otherwise the person not accepting it be personally flamed in some way.

 

[Josho]

I don't think that this is a subject really up for questioning and that we should just take God's word for it, that He is the Son, He is the Father and He is the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

So this prophecy that has been fulfilled, says it all.

"A child is born, unto us a son is given" that is Jesus.

"..... And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor (Holy Spirit), The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, (the Father) Prince of Peace. (Another name for the Son, Jesus)

 

[Paul Christensen]

I don't think that this is a subject really up for questioning and that we should just take God's word for it, that He is the Son, He is the Father and He is the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

So this prophecy that has been fulfilled, says it all.

"A child is born, unto us a son is given" that is Jesus.

"..... And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor (Holy Spirit), The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, (the Father) Prince of Peace. (Another name for the Son, Jesus)

Yep. Pretty clear to me. But then I just believe the Bible without having personal theological prejudice.

 

[DNB]

In other words, you can't answer my questions directly, maybe because there is only one viable answer which you wouldn't accept anyway.

The fact that you have to feel like discrediting my competence shows that you would rather kick the play than the ball when the game goes against you. Similar to my younger brother upsetting the table and chess board when he knows he's losing!

Paul, you freak me out a little, i answered most of your questions. But, I also explained why I didn't feel a need to. I was being extremely reasonable and fair.
You truly are not appreciating the crux of the issue. Like I said in a later post, i started reasoning at the top of the equation, explicit Biblical attestation, in either terminology or principle. Patriarchs, Prophets, Kings, Priests anyone, praying or proselytizing with such a formula. The incomprehensibility and implausibility of the concept. The imbalance of power all to the Father, partially to the Son in a certain capacity, but never to the Holy Spirit, ....
This is where proper Biblical exegesis starts. All the above can be confirmed with the three other main revelations of the OT (Suffering Messiah, Faith over works, Gentiles into the Kingdom)

 

[DNB]

I could put forward a very convincing thesis on the basis of the Scriptural quotes I have put forward as my questions. But I decided to put them as questions to see how you would answer. Instead of answering the questions, all you are doing to continuing with your own thesis - which you have every right to do - as long as it is presented as your personal thesis and not as objective truth that has to be accepted otherwise the person not accepting it be personally flamed in some way.

Paul, I answered most of them. Half of them were circular reasoning, the others were just naive????

 

[Paul Christensen]

Paul, you freak me out a little, i answered most of your questions. But, I also explained why I didn't feel a need to. I was being extremely reasonable and fair.
You truly are not appreciating the crux of the issue. Like I said in a later post, i started reasoning at the top of the equation, explicit Biblical attestation, in either terminology or principle. Patriarchs, Prophets, Kings, Priests anyone, praying or proselytizing with such a formula. The incomprehensibility and implausibility of the concept. The imbalance of power all to the Father, partially to the Son in a certain capacity, but never to the Holy Spirit, ....
This is where proper Biblical exegesis starts. All the above can be confirmed with the three other main revelations of the OT (Suffering Messiah, Faith over works, Gentiles into the Kingdom)

The Scriptural references I have alluded to clearly imply that God is more than just one Person and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are represented as totally different Persons with different roles, albeit in absolute unity of nature, character and purpose. The Messianic prophecy describes the Messiah as "the mighty God, the everlasting Father", showing that the Holy Spirit, inspiring the prophet believed that the Messiah is God. We know that Jesus is the Messiah, and therefore He is God - unless the prophet is mistaken. So, if the Father is God, and Jesus is God. and the Holy Spirit is all-powerful and omni-present and does have a voice of His own, therefore He has to be God as well.

I believe that the prophet Isaiah meant what he said and said what he meant about the Messiah being the mighty God, and that Jesus meant it when He referred to Himself as being one with the Father; and even after Jesus forgave a man's sins, the Jewish leaders exclaimed, "Only God can forgive sins" and so they were offended at Jesus because He conducted Himself as if He was God. Also Jesus said about Himself, "Before Abraham was, I AM", directly quoting God speaking out of the burning bush to Moses when He said, "I AM WHO I AM".

So as you can see, I am showing substantive proof from the pages of Scripture that Jesus presented Himself as God, equal with the Father. and the all-powerful Holy Spirit who was the creating agent for the whole universe to carry out the Father's design, and omni-present, indwelling every Christian believer.

Furthermore, seeing that the Scripture says, "No one has seen the Father at any time", shows that the Father, being Spirit, is invisible. So this shows that the Jehovah who often appeared in person to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and others in the Old Testament was actually the Son of God, the second Person in the trinity, who came and presented Himself as the God/man who died on the cross for our sin. Only a perfect man could be our one-time sacrifice for sin, and only God could endure the eternal wrath of the Father for the sin of mankind in just three hours. It took Jesus just that amount of time to satisfy the wrath of God that every unsaved person would have to endure for the rest of eternity. Only an eternal being could bear that immense wrath without being vaporised instantly.

Moses was as close to God as anyone could get, and yet on Mount Sinai, God could not show him His face, and just seeing the hind part of God changed him forever and made him a totally different man. But the Father is never been seen by any man at any time, so it could not have been the Father; so it had to be the pre-incarnate Son of God. So, if Moses had been vaporised if he was exposed to the whole glory of God, then no ordinary human being could have endured the eternal wrath of God for an instant; but Jesus endured it for three hours and totally satisfied it for every soul who would turn to Him in faith for salvation, either looking forward in faith to the coming Messiah, or turning to the resurrected and ascended Christ.

Paul, on the Damascus Road was exposed to just a blinding light when Jesus appeared to him. The glorified Jesus could not have appeared to Paul in all His glory because it would have vaporised him. Even so, the flash of light was enough to blind him, requiring a miracle to restore his sight.

All John had was a vision of the glorified Christ, and he fell down as if dead just by being exposed to the glory of Christ in a vision!

These are absolute substantive evidence that Jesus is really God and not just a glorified human being.

 

[Stranger]

Why in the world would you make such a claim as, God from heaven, spoke to God the Son on earth, and not feel an need to elaborate on, or explain such a radical statement? Earlier you said 'I do believe Jesus is Deity. God the Son.' You appear to be rather oblivious to the implications and implausibility of your conviction. I would never make such an unfathomable and un-Biblical assertion, without feeling a dire need to qualify my statement.
I personally, cannot conceive of what you just said, nor have I ever read 'God the Son' or 'trinity', from anywhere in the Bible?
Am I lacking the wisdom, or are you being reckless and irresponsible with your affirmations?

You are lacking the wisdom.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Hi Nancy, ...you know that Stranger was not referring to me (bitter), in his statement that you quoted? So I don't know the relevance off-hand?

What in the world is going on here, the Biblical verse in question was Matthew 17:5, of which there is absolutely no mention of the Holy Spirit, nor a dove for that matter. Thus no three persons, nor a dove. Why are people contending my point, with some extraneous verses?

Nancy, very, very bad exegesis, you do know that there is no reputable textual critic that accepts the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) as being authentic, don't you? Now, of course, this is not your ultimate arsenal. For as far as you are concerned, you have a myriad of other proof-text that you feel will validate your point.

And therefore, I was very explicit in stating simply the logistical implausibility of what he said i.e. God spoke to God? And, I questioned his use of the words 'God the Son', and 'trinity'. I merely said that I couldn't find those terms from anywhere within scripture, nor did I understand the concept, as many will agree. That is, it clearly warrants explanation. He cannot come and make such radical assertions, in such a presumptuous manner that he did, without qualifying them.
I said nothing more than that.

And I was not speaking to you when I referenced (Matt. 17:5). I was responding to the subject that was already in play.

And, Jesus being Deity is not a 'radical' assertion. It is Scriptural.

Most here know all the arguments concerning the Trinity. So to most, it is nothing new.

Stranger

 

[101G]

I've been wavering back and forth over the concept of the Trinity/Godhead for several years now. At times I would find myself firmly on the trinitarian side, then firmly anti trinitarian. Right now, simply because the Bible does not elaborate on the actual nature of good at all, and most of our beliefs regarding such are merely assumptions, I would rather just leave the subject alone. But I feel myself being constantly drawn back into these discussions. Oh well, sigh.

GINOLJC, the bible is clear on the Godhead.
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". as you well know that there is no one "EQUAL" with God... right. so if the Lord Jesus whom we call the son is a separate person of...of....of... of God then one have two Gods, plain and simple.

but the scripture clearly states that he, the Lord JESUS is God, but how can he be God and yet the Son of God?

the term "Son of God" only refers to the “natural” flesh and bone with blood that he the “Spirit” came in. but the question is how did God come in Natural Flesh and still be God, the answer is right in Philippians 2:6 “equal WITH” by being “of” God. “of “ God simply means, and I’m using Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, “of” translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and the objective are mentioned here, which need careful distinction. the genitive case simply means the “SAME” person, but here’s the distinction is in, subjective and objective. what do we mean?

A. subjective is existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. OTHER WORDS “ABSTRACT”

B. objective is something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: 2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. (READ THAT AGAIN). example, the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

in Philippians 2:6, it said that he, the Lord Jesus, is in the FORM of God who is “Spirit”. and the term “Form” here, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

see definition #2. our saviour have the same exact nature as the Spirit, which is Spirit. are we saying that its “TWO” equal Gods? no, for in the definition of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') it’s ROOT word tells us exactly what kind of “EQUAL” nature that the Lord Jesus has, "WITH" the Spirit we call GOD. listen to the root word. G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1.a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).
definition #1 states “a portion”, do you know what’s another word for “portion” is? answer “SHARE”.
our Lord Jesus have “the” same “EQUAL" nature” as the Spirit because he is “OF” that one same self Spirit. so by being the “EQUAL” share, he is termed “ANOTHER”, and what do “ANOTHER” means? ANOTHER is G243 Allos, I’m again using the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. ANOTHER means, G243 allos, “Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort”. a numerical difference is 1, 2, or 1 Father, 2 son, but is this two seperate Person, NO, because its the “EQUAL SHARE” OF, OF, OF, the same one person. (BINGO). the Lord JESUS is "another" of God himself in Flesh.

now knowing this, by being the same person shared in flesh and blood, God, the Spirit, he, JESUS, the Share, is the “CONCRETE” of himself in “FLESH”. meaning he’s the “OBJECTIVE” of himself in flesh. this is why he, Jesus, the Lord, who is God is called the Son, or his "own" ARM in the NT, and in the OT, he, JESUS, who is "LORD", all caps, unshared, God without flesh and bone with blood is the “Subjective”, meaning he’s “ABSTRACT”, which cannot be seen, nor heard. and “ABSTRACT, means terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents. Concrete is just the opposite.

so God the Father is “Subjective”, or “ABSTRACT”, not seen nor heard, but in various forms, or similitudes manifested himself, see Hosea 12:10 that's in the OT. now the NT,
the Son, who is the Equal “Share” of God, the Spirit, is "SHARED" in FLESH and BONES with BLOOD, which he's the “objective” or the “CONTRETE”, "FORM" of God, seen and heard, NT. (BINGO).

see the difference now?

this sharing of oneself in another nature/Form is called differentiation, and that’s the the ONLY “distinction” between the Father and the son. meaning God shared himself in Flesh as the “ANOTHER” of himself.

NOW the big question is what I teach, “Diversity”, meaning God, ”God shared himself another form is the same person”, IS IT IN THE BIBLE? yes, with a resounding YES. it's in the TERM “OFFSPRING”, which identifies God the Father as the “son” SHARED in flesh, it is the Greek word, G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n. kin. {abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096

THERE IS OUR WORD "diversity" right there in the BIBLE. unlike the term "trinity" which is NOT IN THE BIBLE.
see that ROOT word, watch it, G1096 γίνομαι ginomai (ǰiy'-no-mai) v.
1. to cause to be (“gen”-erate).
2. (reflexively) to become (come into being).
3. (of events) to happen.
{used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):}
[a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb]
KJV: arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought

Generate, means to be “born”, see John 1:14. and where is “Offspring” found in the bible, just for Starters.

1.Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star". Notice he's the "ROOT", Father, "ABSTRACT". and he's the "OFFSPRING", Father shared in flesh,"SON". (BINGO).

2.Acts 17:29 "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

knowing this, in Philippians 2:6 our Lord Jesus is the “EQUAL SHARE” of himself, (GOD, who is Spirit), in Flesh. (BINGO AGAIN).

if you study this, you will come into the KNOWLEDGE of Christ. as the scriptures states, "not every man have this KNOWLEDGE".

and a good place to find the term, "another" G243 allos, relating to the Godhead is, John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”, and the OT, Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones”.

if you really want to know and understand the Godhead, this is the basic to that understanding. and if you’re are serious in wanting to know the truth of the Godhead, and want to get off the fence, then this is the start of getting off the fench. "Diversity" answers all and any question concering the Godhead. and if you have have any questions, just ask.

PICJAG.

 

[DNB]

You are lacking the wisdom.

Stranger

Of course you won't dare to try and explain yourself, for fear of sounding like a fool. So don't even try to accuse me of being deficient in understanding.
I challenge you to explain what a god-man is, or how three omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent persons can coexist in a single Godhead, without confusion or redundancy, and without appealing to mystery, ...as in, you being mystified?
You won't even dare to try, ...so your frivolous and impetuous comment about my wisdom, does nothing more but reflect your incompetency.

 

[DNB]

And I was not speaking to you when I referenced (Matt. 17:5). I was responding to the subject that was already in play.

And, Jesus being Deity is not a 'radical' assertion. It is Scriptural.

Most here know all the arguments concerning the Trinity. So to most, it is nothing new.

Stranger

Don't think that the concept of a god-man is not radical, just because it's popular. You get that part, right?
And again Stranger, if you're willing to explain what a god-man is, and succeed, only then you can assert that it's not radical. Otherwise, you sound deluded. You get that part, right?

 

[DNB]

The Scriptural references I have alluded to clearly imply that God is more than just one Person and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are represented as totally different Persons with different roles, albeit in absolute unity of nature, character and purpose.

Again, you don't have explicit attestation to this. It is inferred from a series of isolated passages. I would never be dogmatic by such a hermeneutic.

The Messianic prophecy describes the Messiah as "the mighty God, the everlasting Father", showing that the Holy Spirit, inspiring the prophet believed that the Messiah is God. We know that Jesus is the Messiah, and therefore He is God - unless the prophet is mistaken.

Yes, Isaiah 9:6 is Messianic, but considering that there is not a single trinitarian in history, that would ever use the term 'father', to describe the 'son', especially because it is only the name that distinguishes one from the other (don't even try to say otherwise), the inspired author is clearly using superlatives that are not meant to be understood as essence, but eminence.

...Jesus meant it when He referred to Himself as being one with the Father;

John 17:20-22
17:20. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21. that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;

and even after Jesus forgave a man's sins, the Jewish leaders exclaimed, "Only God can forgive sins" and so they were offended at Jesus because He conducted Himself as if He was God.

This was clearly the Jews misunderstanding, that only God can forgive sins. If Christ loved God with all his heart, mind and souls , and for this reason, was perfect, then he is both qualified and authorized, to judge righteousness if God deems it so.

Also Jesus said about Himself, "Before Abraham was, I AM", directly quoting God speaking out of the burning bush to Moses when He said, "I AM WHO I AM".

He did not quote Exodus 3:14. The Tetragrammaton is a complete expression, a concept. Countless people in the Old Testament used 'eh-yeh to refer to themselves. 'I am', is not reserved for God. Paul, the blind man, and others in the New Testament used the exact same expression 'ego eimi' to refer to themselves, the same way that Jesus did.

Furthermore, seeing that the Scripture says, "No one has seen the Father at any time", shows that the Father, being Spirit, is invisible. So this shows that the Jehovah who often appeared in person to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and others in the Old Testament was actually the Son of God, the second Person in the trinity, who came and presented Himself as the God/man who died on the cross for our sin.

If all 3 persons of the trinity, are co-equal and co-eternal, why is one invisible, and the other not? How can one do, what the other can't?

Only a perfect man could be our one-time sacrifice for sin, and only God could endure the eternal wrath of the Father for the sin of mankind in just three hours.

Even if one subscribes to penal substitution theory, this Atonement model is absurd because it makes God punish Himself, in order to propitiate His wrath against man. You see the nonsense, right?

Moses was as close to God as anyone could get, and yet on Mount Sinai, God could not show him His face, and just seeing the hind part of God changed him forever and made him a totally different man. But the Father is never been seen by any man at any time, so it could not have been the Father; so it had to be the pre-incarnate Son of God.

You constantly, constantly jump to conclusions. What about option #3???? Anthropomorphism, or God stirring up physical matter to reveal His presence (eg; Pillar of Cloud). Also, if Christ was visible to thousands during his time on earth, why the discretion in the case of Moses. Therefore, this was the Father that 'appeared to Moses', not the Son, as the passage clearly states (in the context, God distinguishes between different parts of His 'body', not His 'persons').

Paul, on the Damascus Road was exposed to just a blinding light when Jesus appeared to him. The glorified Jesus could not have appeared to Paul in all His glory because it would have vaporised him. Even so, the flash of light was enough to blind him, requiring a miracle to restore his sight. All John had was a vision of the glorified Christ, and he fell down as if dead just by being exposed to the glory of Christ in a vision!

So, one minute Jesus can appear to man (Moses, Abraham), in an incarnate state i.e. his full glory, but in another case, he can't??????? You are beyond inconsistent!

 

[Dcopymope]

The party I disagreed with is the suggestion that "our spirit' is our real 'person'... As if it can be separated from the body and continue to be that 'real person'. I have seen no evidence of that in the Bible.

Neither have I

So what is your theory about what happens to a converted Christian when he or she dies?

No theories are necessary regarding this matter, its been plainly stated to us from the beginning of the book. If you get sent to heaven, its because God wants you there. Its not something that happens on default of you dying a "saint".

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

And this is confirmed in so many ways throughout the book, that all departed spirits are still in Sheol:

(Acts 2:29-35) "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. {30} Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; {31} He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. {32} This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. {33} Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. {34} For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, {35} Until I make thy foes thy footstool."

So, we have people on this website and in Christianity the world over who have convinced themselves they are more special to God than King David himself since they believe that upon death, they will be sent to a place that THE King David never set foot in. Do you now see what the issue is? Are you more special than King David? What is it about you that makes you better than David that makes you believe you will go to heaven?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

@DNB to be honest, I dislike reading long posts-- I feel that it frequently delutes the point that's trying to be conveyed. Could you give me a short sum up of how your views differ from some of the others here.