Jane_Doe22
Well-Known Member
Regardless: why the big focus on this particular issue, versus all of the other possible ones?I am having a discussion. Not an argument if other people make it an argument that’s on them
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!
Regardless: why the big focus on this particular issue, versus all of the other possible ones?I am having a discussion. Not an argument if other people make it an argument that’s on them
When the angels came they called him
Immanuel. Meaning God with us
JW propoganda?And God was with mankind working through his only Begotten Son.
Matthew 1:23: “‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanʹu-el’ (which means, God with us [“God is with us,” NE]).”
In announcing Jesus’ coming birth, did Jehovah’s angel say that the child would be God himself? No, the announcement was: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.” (Luke 1:32, 35, RS;) And Jesus himself never claimed to be God but, rather, “the Son of God.” (John 10:36, RS;) Jesus was sent into the world by God; so by means of this only-begotten Son, God was with mankind.—John 3:17; 17:8.
Isaiah said: “Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. . . . Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread [Syria and Israel] will be left entirely.” (Isa. 7:14, 16) The first part of that prophecy is often applied to the birth of the Messiah, and rightly so. (Matt. 1:23) However, since the “two kings,” the king of Syria and the king of Israel, were no longer a threat to Judah in the first century C.E., the prophecy about Immanuel must have had an initial fulfillment in Isaiah’s day. Now was that person who was an imperfect human during Isaiah day, God, simply because he was given the name Immanuel, I don't think so. Also when the scriptures say that no one has seen God at anytime, that's the truth.
I believe that the best way to learn the truth about Jesus is to examine what he said about himself.
Jesus said at John 6:38- “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.” Now, that statement is a bit puzzling if Jesus were God. Jesus said he did not come down from heaven to do his own will. He said that he came to do the will of the One who sent him. If Jesus is God, who sent him down from heaven? And why did Jesus yield to the will of that person?
He made a similar statement in the next chapter.
At John 7:16 Jesus said: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." So did Jesus teach his own ideas? No, he said that his teachings belong to the One who sent him. I have to wonder: ‘Who sent Jesus? And who gave him the truths he taught?’ Wouldn’t that One be greater than Jesus? After all, the sender is superior to the one who is sent.
Consider, too, Jesus’ words at John 14:28: “You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” Based on that verse, how would you say Jesus viewed himself in relation to the Father? Jesus viewed God as his superior. Another example, notice what Jesus told his disciples as recorded at Matthew 28:18. That verse says: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” So did Jesus say that he always had all authority? God has always had all authority. So why did Jesus say all authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to him when the True God has always had all authority in heaven and on Earth? Since people say Jesus is God but the scriptures show that Jesus was given more authority who gave him more authority? God, but people say Jesus is God.
Here’s something else to consider: We’ve read that Jesus spoke of God as his heavenly Father. And when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven referred to Jesus as His Son. In fact, Jesus specifically called himself God’s Son. Now, if you wanted to teach me that two people are equal, what sort of family relationship might you use to illustrate the point? Two brothers? Perhaps identical twins? But Jesus referred to God as the Father and to himself as the Son. So, what message do you suppose Jesus is conveying? It seems to me Jesus is describing one individual as being older and as having more authority than the other.
Think about this: If person came up with such a fitting illustration of equality, that of brothers or twins. If Jesus really were God, don’t you think that Jesus, as the Great Teacher, would have thought of the same comparison—or an even clearer example of equality if that was what Jesus was teaching? But, instead, he used the terms “Father” and “Son” to describe his relationship with God, not one of equality.
If Jesus truly is God, wouldn’t you expect that Jesus’ disciples would have plainly said so?
Yet, nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of their teaching that. On the contrary, notice what one of Jesus’ early followers, the apostle Paul, wrote. At Philippians 2:9, he describes what God did after Jesus’ death and resurrection: “God exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” According to this verse, what did God do for Jesus? Doesn't the scriptures say God exalted him to a superior position?
But if Jesus were equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God? How could anyone be superior to God?
JW propoganda?
I don’t ready cuts and paste man
I did not say I quoted scripture I said I used it. And I did not paraphrase it I used the words.
you need to apologize again for
Misrepresenting me. Although I do not expect one.
his dirty what?Mary having sex or not having sex AFTER Jesus was born has no bearing on his dirty. Jesus would still be God in the flesh either way
And that is correct.God's Holy Spirit consistently inspired men to write down that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.
And that is correct.
Jesus was the second person of the Trinity, Son of the Father.
Nowhere did the Holy Spirit inspire men to write down that the Only Begotten Son of God was the second person of the Trinity.
I posted about three OT passages and Jesus words himself that showed otherwise.Actually it's God word but you're not interested in what Jesus himself says are you? What he says is against what you believe, right?
Autocorrect it should say deity, but I am sure if you were honest you would have seen this,his dirty what?
Is that another scripture paraphrase?
It was decided in scripture, we do not need some counsel to decide what is trueDoesn't mean that he wasn't.
It was dogmatically decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Doesn't mean that he wasn't.
It was dogmatically decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD
I posted about three OT passages and Jesus words himself that showed otherwise.
and you did not cut and paste the Bible you cut and pasted a commentary.
news flash, whoever wrote it is wrong,