The Only True God, the God of Jesus Christ.

[robert derrick]

"That's nice but Jesus is not God and we know this because Jesus died and was resurrected while the Bibles teaches us that God is Spirit and never changes."

This probably one of the most carnal things I have ever heard. A complete absence of any kind of spiritual understanding.

God did not change His holiness and righteousness and divine nature, when He came upon the earth.

He was not talking about changing His shape or appearance.

What is really interesting is how God is God and all powerful and created all things in heaven and in earth, and all creatures therein, yet it is absolutely impossible that He could ever be able to become a man. He can have a baby born of a virgin by His Spirit, but that baby cannot possibly be Himself.

This is the first time someone tried to answer the old question: Is there anything the all powerful God cannot do?

"For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1)

The same people who say it is impossible for God to become a man, likewise say it is impossible to drink the blood of the Son and so be washed with the blood of the Lamb.

They are as offended as were the Jesus, that God provided Himself as a man for sacrifice, and that Jesus made Himself God and Saviour.

 

[robert derrick]

Ill just leave you to your little loophole construct, where you insist that nothing is proven unless I can understand how the Almighty God can exist as two persons - instead of using scripture that proves that God does.

I can’t explain how the Holy Spirit can live in a person either - so by your reasoning, posting scripture that proves He does, is irrelevant, because I can’t explain HOW.

Paul wrote that Christ indwelling believers is a MYSTERY, so he can’t explain how it’s possible - thus according to your illogic, the fact that Jesus does so, is irrelevant and unproven until HOW is explained.

Well done.

But, you are dealing with some of the most thoroughgoing carnally minded people that ever gave lip service to Jesus.

Because they cannot fathom it in their humanist minds, they will never accept it, and go thru great pains to twist or reject any Scripture that plainly says so.

They also write off the blood of the Lamb as symbolic only, because they cannot fathom drinking of His blood in the Spirit. They actually believe Jesus must have been talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, while He yet lived on earth as a man. And so they say such a thing is not possible, but only symbolic.

Drinking wine at the last supper was symbolic only of His blood, but drinking His blood is exactly what we do in His Spirit, else we have no life in us.

 

[robert derrick]

LOL You are totally illogical. I only accept God, in his unitarian nature, as our Heavenly Father. Somehow, you interpret this to mean the exact opposite.



Untrue. I accept Jesus as my lord and his Father and his God as my God, Father and LORD.

And you refuse Him as God, and so not acknowledging Him for Who He truly is: the True God, then you likewise do not acknowledge the Father as He truly is.

That is, if Jesus is in fact God the Word.

But that's not why you are not saved and have no life in you. That is because you drink not His blood, which you call symbolic only.

Symbolic blood does not remit sins, no more than drinking wine as symbolic for His blood.

 

[Wrangler]

This probably one of the most carnal things I have ever heard. A complete absence of any kind of spiritual understanding.

God did not change His holiness and righteousness and divine nature, when He came upon the earth.

Continuing to assert your doctrine is not an argument, just circular reasoning.
P1: Man is not divine.
P2: Jesus is a man.
C. Ergo, Jesus is not divine.

P1: God is not a man.
P2: Jesus is a man.
C. Ergo, Jesus is not God.

P1: God is eternal and unchanging.
P2: Jesus died, which is both temporal and changing nature.
C. Ergo, Jesus is not God.

P1: God is in Heaven (As Jesus told us how to pray).
P2: Jesus was not in Heaven when he told us this.
C. Ergo, Jesus is not God.

P1: God is the Father alone (as every epistle states)
P2: Jesus is not the Father but the Son.
C. Ergo, Jesus is not God.

Regarding carnal things and spiritual understanding, I understand there is no reason or excuse to violate the 1C or the Sh'ma. God, the Father, alone is the one true God almighty. Jesus said this in John 17:3, separating himself as a different being from the one True God, his Father.

 

[Wrangler]

And you refuse Him as God

Because Jesus is not God, I refuse him as God.

and so not acknowledging Him for Who He truly is: the True God

I'll take Jesus' words at John 17:3 over yours, which totally contradicts what the Lord Jesus said.

 

[APAK]

They believe the word was created as the 1st angel of the LORD way back when, and that the 'Word was God" is only symbolic.

But for Christ being before He became a man:

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor 10)

Robert D. This verse of 1 Cor 10:4b is not the typical run of the mill variety. It actually has three idioms in it. Be careful here to get it right. I believe you have made a premature statement that supports your narrative. I wish you could explain why you think that this verse says Christ pre-existed before he was born? No matter, I will fix it for you now, that indicates the opposite.

1. The first idiom is obvious: no one clearly drank a physical drink, it was something they believed in pertaining to their spirit. their soul.

2. The second idiom means, they believed in the spiritual basis for their salvation spoken of by their Fathers. The Israelites were of course currently in the literal physical wilderness hoping for their literal physical 'promised' land given to them by the Father via Moses and then Joshua, at that time, in their life time. And it is no surprise that Joshua's name means the deliverer. The Israelites also knew and looked beyond their lifespans, beyond the physical 'promised' land, as Abraham did, to know of the future Messiah for their permanent 'solid' salvation. Who "followed them," it was Yahshua of course who would be born in their distant future.

3. This is what Paul ended up saying; it is the third idiom. The basis for the Israelites' hope even whilst in the 'wilderness,' would be given to them in the distant future, by the Father, through the Messiah, the spiritual basis and Rock of (their) salvation - Yahshua.

Note: a few translations of 1 Cor 10:4b has 'accompanied them' as in the sense of space at the same time, instead of 'followed them' in the sense of a future time and in a different space. NIV is one, that is biased toward the Trinity. I hope you see that 'followed them' as used here in this verse means 'followed them' in time and space- who would be their future Messiah, born in Bethlehem.

So Robert, you have do not have a verse in 1 Cor 10:4b that shows the Messiah existed in life before he was born.

Blessings,

APAK

 

[Curtis]

The game is grasping how to apply

1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage

I can understand why you don't want to 'play' as these foundations of grasping things don't aid your doctrine but rather exploit it as the inherent contradiction it is, like square circles.

Just one example. There are numerous verses in Scripture that says God (in his unitarian nature) raised Jesus from the dead. It is nonsense to conclude "God" and "Jesus" in these sentences are the same being.

The trinity raised Jesus from the dead.

Acts 13:13 God raised Jesus

John 10:18 Jesus raised Himself

Romans 8:11 the Holy Spirits raised Jesus

 

[Curtis]

1. The first idiom is obvious: no one clearly drank a physical drink, it was something they believed in pertaining to their spirit. their soul.

They literally drank water that came from the rock, read the account:

Num 20:7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 20:8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

Num 20:9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

David Guzik commentary:

For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: Israel even had the presence of Jesus Christ with them in the wilderness! Here, in identifying the Rock that followed them, Paul is building on a Rabbinical tradition which said Israel was supplied with water by the same rock all through the wilderness, a rock which followed them. Some Bible scholars today debate as to if the rock followed Israel, or if the water followed Israel (as in a stream). The point is the same: Jesus Christ was present with Israel in the wilderness, providing for their needs miraculously. What blessing, what privilege!

 

[APAK]

They literally drank water that came from the rock, read the account:

Num 20:7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 20:8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

Num 20:9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

David Guzik commentary:

For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: Israel even had the presence of Jesus Christ with them in the wilderness! Here, in identifying the Rock that followed them, Paul is building on a Rabbinical tradition which said Israel was supplied with water by the same rock all through the wilderness, a rock which followed them. Some Bible scholars today debate as to if the rock followed Israel, or if the water followed Israel (as in a stream). The point is the same: Jesus Christ was present with Israel in the wilderness, providing for their needs miraculously. What blessing, what privilege!

Curtis, you are in fantasy land. These verses from Numbers 20:7-9 you wrote out here are quite different from 1 Cor 10:4b, in meaning and intent.

If you really want to know the truth here, do the work yourself, then figure out why 1 Cor 10:4b is different from these Number verses. Or if it is the case, why you think they are the same. And remember to look at each context and the verse prior to and after all these verses. It's becomes very obvious they are miles apart. Yes, they did actually drink water in the Numbers verses. It was a miracle they were provided real drinking life saving water on the heels of crossing into the promised land. And you think that Christ was actually following them or even with them?

Look, I know you do not believe much of what I say, judging by your attempt to oppose all I've said already. So let me pull up a classic commentary of this area of scripture. You might believe in him then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henry’s Bible Commentary (concise)

Commentary on Numbers 20:1-13


After thirty-eight years' tedious abode in the wilderness, the armies of Israel advanced towards Canaan again. There was no water for the congregation. We live in a wanting world, and wherever we are, must expect to meet with something to put us out. It is a great mercy to have plenty of water, a mercy which, if we found the want of, we should more own the worth of. Hereupon they murmured against Moses and Aaron. They spake the same absurd and brutish language their fathers had done. It made their crime the worse, that they had smarted so long for the discontent and distrusts of their fathers, yet they venture in the same steps. Moses must again, in God's name, command water out of a rock for them; God is as able as ever to supply his people with what is needful for them. But Moses and Aaron acted wrong. They took much of the glory of this work of wonder to themselves; "Must we fetch water?" As if it were done by some power or worthiness of their own. They were to speak to the rock, but they smote it. Therefore it is charged upon them, that they did not sanctify God, that is, they did not give to him alone that glory of this miracle which was due unto his name. And being provoked by the people, Moses spake unadvisedly with his lips. The same pride of man would still usurp the office of the appointed Mediator; and become to ourselves wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Such a state of sinful independence, such a rebellion of the soul against its Saviour, the voice of God condemns in every page of the gospel.
--------------------------------------end of MH's commentary

Numbers 20:1-13 is all about the Israelites' lack of faith in YHWH to provide for them, for their physical life salvation before entering into Promised land. Moses performed the miracle by striking the physical literal rock. And Moses took the glory and credit that was meant to be YHWH's glory. Moses thus by his pride and heart became the false Messiah, he was never anointed by YHWH and falsely acted as a Messiah. YHWH was truly saving them in their current physical lives and also their SPIRITUAL lives through his own Messiah, in their distant future.

Paul in 1 Cor 10:4b was speaking about the Israelites' keeping the faith in YHWH for salvation in the future Messiah - Yahshua, the BED-ROCK of Salvation.

Get the picture Curtis? They are completely different with quite different messages.

APAK

 

[robert derrick]

Because there is no such creature! Scripture tells us God the Father many times. Never does Scripture tell us God the Son. Scripture tells us Jesus is the Son of God.

Elvis of Memphis is not equal to Memphis of Elvis. And certainly Elvis is not equal to Memphis.

I only acknowledge reality and the reality is; the trinity is not in the Bible.

As I said. You refuse to do so, because you do not believe it, and if you are right, then you have no problem with your Jehovah and Yahweh.

But if incorrect, then you do not acknowledge the Son as you ought, and so do not acknowledge the Father as you ought.

And if I worship the Lord Jesus as God with God the Father, then I am an idolater, if He is only a created being in the mind of Jehovah and humanist Saviour but not God the Saviour...

 

[robert derrick]

They literally drank water that came from the rock, read the account:

Num 20:7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 20:8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

Num 20:9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

David Guzik commentary:

For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: Israel even had the presence of Jesus Christ with them in the wilderness! Here, in identifying the Rock that followed them, Paul is building on a Rabbinical tradition which said Israel was supplied with water by the same rock all through the wilderness, a rock which followed them. Some Bible scholars today debate as to if the rock followed Israel, or if the water followed Israel (as in a stream). The point is the same: Jesus Christ was present with Israel in the wilderness, providing for their needs miraculously. What blessing, what privilege!

Don't let it bother you. Nothing about Jesus Christ is real to them. It's all just symbology, whether that Rock that gave them to drink, or His blood. They really are Old Testament Jews wanting New Testament forgiveness of sins.

 

[Wrangler]

The trinity raised Jesus from the dead.

Acts 13:13 God raised Jesus

John 10:18 Jesus raised Himself

Romans 8:11 the Holy Spirits raised Jesus

No. The trinity is not in the Bible.

God is Spirit and his Spirit is holy. Does not make it a being.

In no way did Jesus raise himself from the dead as Scripture says NOTHING of the kind. Let me give an example. If I say I WILL or WOULD give my wife a drink, that is not the same thing as Being A actually giving my wife a cup of coffee.

 

[Curtis]

No. The trinity is not in the Bible.

God is Spirit and his Spirit is holy. Does not make it a being.

In no way did Jesus raise himself from the dead as Scripture says NOTHING of the kind. Let me give an example. If I say I WILL or WOULD give my wife a drink, that is not the same thing as Being A actually giving my wife a cup of coffee.

Deny it all you want, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all raised Jesus from the dead.

BTW the word bible isn’t in the Bible, either.

But the three in one Godhead, is found in it.

 

[Curtis]

No. The trinity is not in the Bible.

God is Spirit and his Spirit is holy. Does not make it a being.

In no way did Jesus raise himself from the dead as Scripture says NOTHING of the kind. Let me give an example. If I say I WILL or WOULD give my wife a drink, that is not the same thing as Being A actually giving my wife a cup of coffee.

BY THE WAY, Jesus UNEQUIVOCALLY said He would resurrect Himself from the dead when He said, tear down this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP...and He spoke of THE TEMPLE, HIS BODY.

Jesus therefore undeniably said He would raise Himself from the dead.

That’s because Jesus wasn’t dead, His body was dead for three days.

 

[Curtis]

Curtis, you are in fantasy land. These verses from Numbers 20:7-9 you wrote out here are quite different from 1 Cor 10:4b, in meaning and intent.

If you really want to know the truth here, do the work yourself, then figure out why 1 Cor 10:4b is different from these Number verses. Or if it is the case, why you think they are the same. And remember to look at each context and the verse prior to and after all these verses. It's becomes very obvious they are miles apart. Yes, they did actually drink water in the Numbers verses. It was a miracle they were provided real drinking life saving water on the heels of crossing into the promised land. And you think that Christ was actually following them or even with them?

Look, I know you do not believe much of what I say, judging by your attempt to oppose all I've said already. So let me pull up a classic commentary of this area of scripture. You might believe in him then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henry’s Bible Commentary (concise)

Commentary on Numbers 20:1-13


After thirty-eight years' tedious abode in the wilderness, the armies of Israel advanced towards Canaan again. There was no water for the congregation. We live in a wanting world, and wherever we are, must expect to meet with something to put us out. It is a great mercy to have plenty of water, a mercy which, if we found the want of, we should more own the worth of. Hereupon they murmured against Moses and Aaron. They spake the same absurd and brutish language their fathers had done. It made their crime the worse, that they had smarted so long for the discontent and distrusts of their fathers, yet they venture in the same steps. Moses must again, in God's name, command water out of a rock for them; God is as able as ever to supply his people with what is needful for them. But Moses and Aaron acted wrong. They took much of the glory of this work of wonder to themselves; "Must we fetch water?" As if it were done by some power or worthiness of their own. They were to speak to the rock, but they smote it. Therefore it is charged upon them, that they did not sanctify God, that is, they did not give to him alone that glory of this miracle which was due unto his name. And being provoked by the people, Moses spake unadvisedly with his lips. The same pride of man would still usurp the office of the appointed Mediator; and become to ourselves wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Such a state of sinful independence, such a rebellion of the soul against its Saviour, the voice of God condemns in every page of the gospel.
--------------------------------------end of MH's commentary

Numbers 20:1-13 is all about the Israelites' lack of faith in YHWH to provide for them, for their physical life salvation before entering into Promised land. Moses performed the miracle by striking the physical literal rock. And Moses took the glory and credit that was meant to be YHWH's glory. Moses thus by his pride and heart became the false Messiah, he was never anointed by YHWH and falsely acted as a Messiah. YHWH was truly saving them in their current physical lives and also their SPIRITUAL lives through his own Messiah, in their distant future.

Paul in 1 Cor 10:4b was speaking about the Israelites' keeping the faith in YHWH for salvation in the future Messiah - Yahshua, the BED-ROCK of Salvation.

Get the picture Curtis? They are completely different with quite different messages.

APAK

The NT Bedrock of salvation metaphor doesn’t change the fact that the only rock Moses dealt with in the desert, is the one that God told Moses to speak to, and water came out - literal water - therefore that rock is unequivocally the rock spoken of in the NT, since Moses dealt with no bedrock, especially not one that water gushed out of.

The water represents Jesus giving us loving water, per the woman at the well in the NT.

You can spin facts, but that won’t change facts.

 

[keithr]

And you said to it : "I think your logic has failed in this case! Being with God doesn't mean you are God, no more than the disciples being with Jesus meant that they were all Jesus. "

So you finally admit that if the 'Word' was Yashua and it is definitely not, then Yahshua with God as in John 1:2 cannot be God the Father Almighty, or Yahshua is not equal to God.

I have always (well, for about 27 years, and in all my posts on the topic in this forum) argued against the Trinity doctrine, and I have definitely never claimed that Jesus and his Father were the same being! You must be confusing my replies with somebody else's. I do believe though that the Word (logos) is referring to Jesus, as the chief spokesman for God.

And for the rest of your Post, I will not respond as I've been doing COMMENTARIES of your scripture as my rebuttals, you have done really none that can be called a commentary. I'm doing all the work, again. As in this last post of yours, you just list scripture as your rebuttal to me

I quote verses of Scripture because God's word is better and more authorative than my comments. Which is why I quoted Hebrews 1 because in it we have God saying to Jesus, "You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands", which is quite clearly God stating that Jesus created the world and the whole universe. I can't more clearly than that indicate, or prove, that Jesus did exist before the creation of the Earth, so there was no need for me to comment on it.

And now you speak of your harmonizing of scripture. I wonder if you are only giving lip service only. I have not seen any at all. I have not seen any harmonization of scripture from you to date'.

Well, all of the verses that I have quoted are in harmony with Jesus existing before the creation of the Earth. That's why I quoted them!

 

[keithr]

They believe the word was created as the 1st angel of the LORD way back when, and that the 'Word was God" is only symbolic.

APAK's response was to my reply, so I presume you include me in the "They" that you're referring to. However, I have never claimed that the "Word was God" is symbolic. I may have claimed that it's not the best translation of the Greek manuscript text, but that's not the same as saying it's symbolic.

As for Jesus being created, then yes I would agree with that. In Revelation Jesus says:

(Rev 1:17) ... He laid his right hand on me, saying, “Don’t be afraid. I am the first and the last,
(Rev 3:14) ... These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

[Compare with Colossians 1:15, "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."]​

i.e. Jesus was the first and last creation of God, and everything else has been created by God through/by Jesus.

 

[keithr]

The Saviour to come would be named by the mouth of the LORD Himself as His new name:

"And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name." (Isaiah 62)

That chapter is referring to Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. I don't think it is referring to the Messiah. It may be alluding to the new Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation 21.

 

[APAK]

The NT Bedrock of salvation metaphor doesn’t change the fact that the only rock Moses dealt with in the desert, is the one that God told Moses to speak to, and water came out - literal water - therefore that rock is unequivocally the rock spoken of in the NT, since Moses dealt with no bedrock, especially not one that water gushed out of.

The water represents Jesus giving us loving water, per the woman at the well in the NT.

You can spin facts, but that won’t change facts.

I do not know what you are talking about here Curtis. And what does this mean "therefore that rock (I guess the real rock in the desert with Moses?) is unequivocally the rock spoken of in the NT." What?! Explain yourself more clearly please. How did you conclude this? Did Moses strike Christ the spiritual Rock, because that's what it sounds like you are saying here?....no kidding

And then the woman at the well and loving water?? are you getting carried away a bit here? And then the spinning thing?? of what facts did you give?

You see again in 1 Corinthians Chapter 10, Paul was saying to his audience that even though the Israelites hoped and were eager in a future of personal salvation, to the promised land more immediately, and they were also well aware of Christ, the spiritual Rock, for permanent salvation, who would come beyond their time, MANY really did not believe in Christ or even Moses and YHWH for that matter for salvation. They continued to do evil (mainly idolatry)and were literally killed, even before they reached the promised land. So to the Corinthians, Paul was saying, some in Corinth were living as the Israelites. Having knowledge of salvation through Moses, YHWH, and ultimately YHWH's servant, his Christ, and they knew the gospel and many professed to be Christians, saying they actually believed and drank the spirit Rock (Christ), yet their actions proved they were selfish and lived as the wicked and many were idolaters.


As 1 Corinthians 10:21 says, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord (Christ), and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

These two historical examples apply today (one in the wilderness and the other in Paul's time). Nothing changes.

It is the subject of being double-minded. Where one is fooling themselves to death. It will catch up with you in the end, and their reward is always death; physical death in the wilderness, and spiritual death to those it applied to in Corinth.

APAK

 

[Wrangler]

BY THE WAY, Jesus UNEQUIVOCALLY said He would resurrect Himself from the dead

Right. Same as me UNEQUIVOCALLY saying I would get my wife a cup of coffee. It does not change the fact that someone else actually got my wife coffee or someone else actually raised Jesus from the dead. I know you do not want to discern the difference.

In today's devotional reading I came across one of the most damning to trinitarianism. God, in his unitarian nature acted on Jesus. Jesus was acted upon by God. This is how you know they are not one in the same being. I am Curtis. I was with Curtis. Not the same.

Acts 10:38-41
The Voice

38 You know God identified Jesus as the uniquely chosen One by pouring out the Holy Spirit on Him, by empowering Him. You know Jesus went through the land doing good for all and healing all who were suffering under the oppression of the evil one, for God was with Him. 39 My friends and I stand as witnesses to all Jesus did in the region of Judea and the city of Jerusalem. The people of our capital city killed Him by hanging Him on a tree, 40 but God raised Him up on the third day and made it possible for us to see Him. 41 Not everyone was granted this privilege, only those of us whom God chose as witnesses. We actually ate and drank with Him after His resurrection.