God cannot cease to be God, even when He empties Himself of the attributes of Deity.if you're not all knowing then you're not God. ect...
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!
God cannot cease to be God, even when He empties Himself of the attributes of Deity.if you're not all knowing then you're not God. ect...
I have, and it want change anything. we have have all your post.I think that you just need to think some more about what I have already said; asking the Holy Ghost to illuminate my words to your mind.
This is true, for the Son of man is in flesh, have you spoken aganist him?If Jesus is the Holy Ghost, then it would be the unpardonable sin to speak against Him.
However, it is written, that if anyone speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.
finally the light blubs are coming on. the NATURE DON'T CHANGE. so that meas as we said before all the so-call person must have come doen, see the ERROR in person now?. teaching time. he took on, on, on, our humanity/flesh with blood. the teaching scripture, is this true, listen, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". is the Lord Jesus equal "WITH" God in NATURE, not equal "to" God, but equal "WITH" God... (smile). is this TRUE, yes or No?.God cannot cease to be God, even when He empties Himself of the attributes of Deity.
I'm interested in what you think the difference is between the two.not equal "to" God, but equal "WITH" God... (smile).
It is true, for it is what the scripture says....but I'm not sure what you are getting at.is this TRUE, yes or No?.
Not that I'm aware of.for the Son of man is in flesh, have you spoken aganist him?
quick answer "Separation" vs "Sharing".I'm interested in what you think the difference is between the two.
ok, understand the difference, son of Man, and Son of God.Not that I'm aware of.
So, in this; what is the difference between being equal to God and being equal with God?quick answer "Separation" vs "Sharing".
jbf, we pray that you would understand that God plurality is not in "separation of PERSON(S), but in "Sharing" of ONE PERSON. please understand the term "ANOTHER" as in G243 Allos. my source is Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words . listen to the definition.
1,,G243 G2087 ,allos heteros ] have a difference in meaning, which despite a tendency to be lost, is to be observed in numerous passages. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort;" heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort." Christ promised to send "another Comforter" (allos, "another like Himself," not heteros), John 14:16. Paul says "I See a different (AV, "another") law," heteros, a law different from that of the spirit of life (not allos, "a law of the same sort"), Rom 7:23. After Joseph's death "another king arose," heteros, one of quite a different character, Acts 7:18. Paul speaks of "a different gospel (heteros), which is not another" (allos, another like the one he preached), Gal 1:6-Gal 1:7. See heteros (not allos) in Matt 11:3; Acts 27:1; in Luke 23:32 heteroi is used of the two malefactors crucified with Christ. The two words are only apparently interchanged in 1Cor 1:16; 1Cor 6:1; 1Cor 12:8-10; 1Cor 14:17, 1Cor 14:19, e.g., the difference being present, though not so readily discernible.
They are not interchangeable in 1Cor 15:39-41; here heteros is used to distinguish the heavenly glory from the earthly, for these differ in genus, and allos to distinguish the flesh of men, birds, and fishes, which in each case is flesh differing not in genus but in species. Allos is used again to distinguish between the glories of the heavenly bodies, for these also differ not in kind but in degree only. For allos, See MORE, OTHER, etc. For heteros, See OTHER, STRANGE.
Note: The distinction comes out in the compounds of heteros, viz., heteroglossos, "strange tongues," 1Cor 14:21; heterodidaskaleo, "to teach a different doctrine," 1Tim 1:3; 1Tim 6:3; heterozugo, "to be unequally yoked" (i.e., with those of a different character), 2Cor 6:14.
THIS WILL ANSWER ALL THE GODHEAD QUESTION and many many more. especially the "GREATER" that i question.
we pray that God open your eyes.
PICJAG.
thanks for the reply. no, when people see son of "GOD", they go spiritual. and when they see son of "MAN" they go carnal.have always considered that Jesus being the Son of God means that God was His Father; and that Jesus being the Son of man means that He was also born of humanity (through Mary).
the Son of man who is spirit,
jbf, jbf, the small case "spirit" is only indicadinf that the Holy Spiri is "shared" in flesh, in a body.If the Son of man is spirit then is He not the Holy Spirit?
you can get off the unpardonable sin, ok. no one here is speaking "AGANIST" the Son of man nor the Holy Spirit.It would then be the unpardonable sin to speak against the Son of man.
you haven't read anything we posted?. forget your understanding, READ THE BIBLE. that's ok, leave it alone.My understanding is that the Son of man is flesh; that he is the Son of, man, he was born of man, flesh; for, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. And therefore the son of man is flesh.
What I am saying by that is that it is unpardonable to speak against the Spirit; but it is not unpardonable to speak against the Son.you can get off the unpardonable sin, ok
GINOLJC, to all. first thanks for the reply.What I am saying by that is that it is unpardonable to speak against the Spirit; but it is not unpardonable to speak against the Son.
But these are one and the same, exactly the same Person?
Please explain how this can be.
ok, lets examine what you said. you said, that it was God the FATHER who is alone in the BEGINNING, THIS IS CORRECT. but then you said, "the Father descended to become a Man; that is, He took on human flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ". but you have one problem the ONE who is alone, and by himself, took on flesh and became a man according to you, is now G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') in that flesh as a man, so then God is without any powers, so now who is sustaining the Universe?. remember the only one is G2758 κενόω kenoo. so what is your answer to this?I would contend that the Son existed in the beginning alongside of the Father.
And yet, for the perspective of our understanding, it is God the Father alone who existed in the beginning and throughout eternity. God the Father is the self-existent, first cause of everything.
Now the Father descended to become a Man; that is, He took on human flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Then, He ascended to once again be outside of time. Thus the Son exists alongside of the Father in eternity (outside of time)...as the continuation of the Father's existence. He was in the beginning with the Father. He was the Father. He continues to be the Father, now veiled in human flesh, existing side-by-side, next to the Father who exists outside of time; His "past" self. But there is no past, present, or future with God. So we say that the Son is a distinct Person from the Father, rather than a continuation of who the Father was in that He descended to become the Son.