Jesus Christ was God manifest in the Flesh
- Thread starter Red33
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I will happily answer this. We do see this subject slightly differently, but both of us understand what is the belief required to have eternal life according to SCRIPTURE and on that we do agree, because for us THE PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE COME BEFORE MAN AND HIS SHALLOW BELIEFS CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF BELIEF TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE
Last edited:
pps must answer for himself, but probably he is as appalled as I am that what the Bible says is the requirement to be believed to have eternal life is not accepted, but added to by many today.
And people who do stand on what the BIBLE says is the belief required to have eternal life are then called heretics by others because they will not believe what Christ never commanded anyone to believe
And it is not piggy backing each others posts, I have seen posts where you agree much with others. I think it is a pity that many more than do do not stand on what the Bible says is neccessary to believe for salvation and vociferously oppose adding to what Christ said was required to have eternal life
And people who do stand on what the BIBLE says is the belief required to have eternal life are then called heretics by others because they will not believe what Christ never commanded anyone to believe
And it is not piggy backing each others posts, I have seen posts where you agree much with others. I think it is a pity that many more than do do not stand on what the Bible says is neccessary to believe for salvation and vociferously oppose adding to what Christ said was required to have eternal life
Last edited:
Hi LBG,
Its not realy the question asked, I was asking if you and Pneuma share the same belief in who Jesus is? as you both piggy back each other and yet on the surface you seem to believe in 2 different Jesus'. Although, in your view it really doesnt matter what you believe about Jesus, from memory that is I dolatry.
Cleverly masquaraded statements do not hide that fact that what you believe is not Scriptural, but that is you perogative. Im not sure if Pneuma believes that the Jesus you believe in is the same Jesus he believes in, thats upto Pneuma to clarify, if he wants to.
It most certainly is neccessary to believe who Jesus said he is, for if you don't you ae making in your own mind a false God, no matter how much you make it sound biblical.
Phil
Its not realy the question asked, I was asking if you and Pneuma share the same belief in who Jesus is? as you both piggy back each other and yet on the surface you seem to believe in 2 different Jesus'. Although, in your view it really doesnt matter what you believe about Jesus, from memory that is I dolatry.
Cleverly masquaraded statements do not hide that fact that what you believe is not Scriptural, but that is you perogative. Im not sure if Pneuma believes that the Jesus you believe in is the same Jesus he believes in, thats upto Pneuma to clarify, if he wants to.
It most certainly is neccessary to believe who Jesus said he is, for if you don't you ae making in your own mind a false God, no matter how much you make it sound biblical.
Phil
Phil,
You may not want to agree with me but these two posters PPS and LBG are out to lunch. I have nothing to do with them. They are presumptuous and they purposely miscontrue everything you post. To me that is being deceitful and when they do it knowingly that is even worse. They do not adhere to one of the basic tenets of the faith and they can not be trusted. That is all on them and they certainly can be ignored and given no credence. They can talk into the air all they want, but they have no conviction as to their terrible error concerning God who was manifested in the flesh through the person of His Son. To response to them is fruitless and not profitable because they are deceived by their error.
As some have said in the past, 'SHAKE THE DUST and MOVE ON'.
Phil, give the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ as you understand it from the scriptures.
You may not want to agree with me but these two posters PPS and LBG are out to lunch. I have nothing to do with them. They are presumptuous and they purposely miscontrue everything you post. To me that is being deceitful and when they do it knowingly that is even worse. They do not adhere to one of the basic tenets of the faith and they can not be trusted. That is all on them and they certainly can be ignored and given no credence. They can talk into the air all they want, but they have no conviction as to their terrible error concerning God who was manifested in the flesh through the person of His Son. To response to them is fruitless and not profitable because they are deceived by their error.
As some have said in the past, 'SHAKE THE DUST and MOVE ON'.
Phil, give the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ as you understand it from the scriptures.
I can say the above post is deceitful. I have clearly stated that I accept God was manifest in the flesh of Christ via the Spirit but that did not make Christ the one true God Himself
As for the reason you do not reply to PPS it is because you cannot answer his question and give scripture to support your view concerinng the question he asked of you
But rather than in humility admit the truth you malign him as well as me
You felt the same way concerning VW but it did not bring you to ignore him and stop you commenting on his posts, far from it
I am afraid this is all part of the weak theology of man coming unstuck when confronted with the plain truth of scripture
As for the reason you do not reply to PPS it is because you cannot answer his question and give scripture to support your view concerinng the question he asked of you
But rather than in humility admit the truth you malign him as well as me
You felt the same way concerning VW but it did not bring you to ignore him and stop you commenting on his posts, far from it
I am afraid this is all part of the weak theology of man coming unstuck when confronted with the plain truth of scripture
Last edited:
And the point you raise here is all important.
The Spirit was on Christ in BODILY FORM from his Baptism
The fulness of the Godhead bodily rests on Christ now
To accept those two statements but also to accept Christ is not the one true God, only his Father is God Himself is the answer that unlocks the scriptures concerning this subject
For even when the Spirit was on Christ in bodily form he said
The Father is greater than I
The Father is greater than all
That they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
So what matters most to you? Accepting the doctrines of man and therefore being forced to dismiss much plain scripture on this subject(or do gymnastics with words in scripture)
Or will you stand on plain scripture despite your natural intellect and accept that though the Father is fully in Christ via the Spirit, the son is still the son, not the Father who is the one true God and greater than the son
The Spirit was on Christ in BODILY FORM from his Baptism
The fulness of the Godhead bodily rests on Christ now
To accept those two statements but also to accept Christ is not the one true God, only his Father is God Himself is the answer that unlocks the scriptures concerning this subject
For even when the Spirit was on Christ in bodily form he said
The Father is greater than I
The Father is greater than all
That they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
So what matters most to you? Accepting the doctrines of man and therefore being forced to dismiss much plain scripture on this subject(or do gymnastics with words in scripture)
Or will you stand on plain scripture despite your natural intellect and accept that though the Father is fully in Christ via the Spirit, the son is still the son, not the Father who is the one true God and greater than the son
Last edited:
I don't want to again now get into a long drawn out discussion on another topic on this.
But to answer your question
Christ had the spirit of God since he was born, BUT NOT in bodily form, otherwise the spirit would obviously not have descended on Christ in bodily form at his baptism
Put it this way. Do you believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Every Christian at conversion has the Holy Spirit in them, they could not be a Christian otherwise Rom 8:9
But the baptism/filling of the Spirit is something more than that
Now I know you cannot compare Christ to us as such but it is still the example I felt led to give
I've not misrepresented you or been deceitful in any manner. We've barely conversed, and your accusations are baseless. As for lunch... you're just another indoctrinated, ignorant, arrogant Trinitarian who can't support their extra-biblical belief they inherited from men. You can't present a thorough Trinity apologetic or exegete Scripture that God is three "persons".
I adamantly affirm the Deity of Christ. I just don't affirm your Filioque-Trinity error-upon-error. The dust on your feet is from walking around in the filth of men's doctrines. Go shake it somewhere else.
And if you're going to do any shaking, scripturally it should be to those who reject the Gospel. I believe Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. I just understand the Logos in John 1.
Take your Tritheistic dust elsewhere.
My issue with you was saying LBG was of the spirit of antichrist and didn't have eternal life. You're wrong for saying so, and you can't provide Scripture to support your view. I disagree with LBG, but he simply stands on the literal bare essentials of the Word for salvation.
The surest sign of indoctrination is never being able to examine other views on a stand-alone basis rather than caricaturing them to one's own single view. You can't objectively comprehend anything but Trinity; and you can't defend it beyond your conceptual understanding, or even be honest about its weaknesses.
Trinity hinges on one extra-biblical word... person(s). The main issue stems from not understanding Logos in John 1.
I affirm Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. Trinis think He's 1/3 of God. You're the one out to lunch... for only a 1/3 nibble of the truth. Go eat the bread of life... not 1/3 of it.
I adamantly affirm the Deity of Christ. I just don't affirm your Filioque-Trinity error-upon-error. The dust on your feet is from walking around in the filth of men's doctrines. Go shake it somewhere else.
And if you're going to do any shaking, scripturally it should be to those who reject the Gospel. I believe Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. I just understand the Logos in John 1.
Take your Tritheistic dust elsewhere.
My issue with you was saying LBG was of the spirit of antichrist and didn't have eternal life. You're wrong for saying so, and you can't provide Scripture to support your view. I disagree with LBG, but he simply stands on the literal bare essentials of the Word for salvation.
The surest sign of indoctrination is never being able to examine other views on a stand-alone basis rather than caricaturing them to one's own single view. You can't objectively comprehend anything but Trinity; and you can't defend it beyond your conceptual understanding, or even be honest about its weaknesses.
Trinity hinges on one extra-biblical word... person(s). The main issue stems from not understanding Logos in John 1.
I affirm Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. Trinis think He's 1/3 of God. You're the one out to lunch... for only a 1/3 nibble of the truth. Go eat the bread of life... not 1/3 of it.
Hi, Phil-
LBG and I don't have the same understanding of Jesus at all. I adamantly affirm the Deity of Christ. I disaffirm Filioque-Trinity error-upon-error.
My issue is with those, like Red, who have said LBG doesn't have eternal life when he stands on plain Scripture. Red provides no clear requirement for anything beyond what LBG believes. Based on what I've read, LBG can't be Arian, Binitarian, Unitarian, or Sabellian. He seems to have an undefined belief that falls between Transcendant Monotheism and Unitarian, but neither really describes his belief. It's unlikely he could be JW, SDA, or LDS with his belief.
Socinian would be a general term to describe non-Trinitarian beliefs of various flavors. He refuses the Trinity concept of three co-equal "persons".
Scripture indicates that believing Jesus is the Son of God is salvific. Along with his belief in the Virgin Birth and a literal resurrection, etc., I don't someone can call his salvation into question.
LBG and I don't have the same understanding of Jesus at all. I adamantly affirm the Deity of Christ. I disaffirm Filioque-Trinity error-upon-error.
My issue is with those, like Red, who have said LBG doesn't have eternal life when he stands on plain Scripture. Red provides no clear requirement for anything beyond what LBG believes. Based on what I've read, LBG can't be Arian, Binitarian, Unitarian, or Sabellian. He seems to have an undefined belief that falls between Transcendant Monotheism and Unitarian, but neither really describes his belief. It's unlikely he could be JW, SDA, or LDS with his belief.
Socinian would be a general term to describe non-Trinitarian beliefs of various flavors. He refuses the Trinity concept of three co-equal "persons".
Scripture indicates that believing Jesus is the Son of God is salvific. Along with his belief in the Virgin Birth and a literal resurrection, etc., I don't someone can call his salvation into question.
I will probably confuse more than clatify my belief on this subject with the following, but I will try my best to state where I stand
My main problem with the Trinitarian belief I read on the internet is not so much the idea of Trinity but that Christ can be called God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son. And that is my disagreement with the majority on internet websites.
To me to have a Christianity where very plain and categoric scripture is put to one side or gymnastics done with the words is never one that I could accept. I was brought up in a fundamentalist church that clearly stated we must accept plain scripture and to me the plainest of statements on this subject are put to one side by most in favour of an exegesis of not so plain scripture that gives the majority the belief they have
So in effect you have a belief not based on the plainest of scripture but the reasoning of the academic mind.
This poses important querstions
1) What would it say for the credibility of the spirit filled Bible if many plain statements in it contradict the belief that Christ is God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son? if the majority of people on this website were to be believed?
2) You then have to face the fact that no Trinityarian churches I have ever been to state clearly from the pulpit that a person has to believe Christ is God Himself to have eternal life
In fact I have never once heard it preached in a Trinitarian church that Christ is God Himself. Now. if this is so important for Trinitarians to believe, if they were not so inflexible and rigid and some may say to the point of blindness they would have to face up to the obvious question.
Why is it not plainly preached in their churches what in effect they believe is a neccessity of belief to have eternal life? Or why is something not preached plainly in their churches that is so important a belief to Christianity?
Why do NO Trinitarians face and consider such important points?
How can they justify something they believe eternal life hinges on not being plainly and continuously preached from the pulpit.
And why did it take the 'infallible' church 300 years after Christ's death on the cross to say Christ is God
To my mind(and I accept I am not as academically minded as most on this site) it comes down to one thing.
We now by and large have a Christianity of the rational mind that demands it can interpret scripture as was not plainly explained by the writers of the NT
But that is not credible. The Holy Spirit was mightily on those Apostles I would say far more than most experiance today.
So I believe man constantly reads the scriptures, always looking for some new understanding of what is written, and all too often he just ends up contradicting the plainest of scripture. But his ego will not let him accept this
The nature of the son I would agree with anyone else on this website. When I think of Christ I see him as having the very nature of his Father, he is a true reflection of who the Father is. The spirit exhibits fully in the son
But only the logical, rational mind can then say Christ is the one true God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son, for like it or not those beliefs contradict much plain scripture, and that is not something I could ever endorse
I would prefer simple, childlike faith in plain scripture rather than consider myself a scholar who by believing I could understand depths of scripture and truth therein that simply contradict the plainest of scripture in the Bible
My main problem with the Trinitarian belief I read on the internet is not so much the idea of Trinity but that Christ can be called God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son. And that is my disagreement with the majority on internet websites.
To me to have a Christianity where very plain and categoric scripture is put to one side or gymnastics done with the words is never one that I could accept. I was brought up in a fundamentalist church that clearly stated we must accept plain scripture and to me the plainest of statements on this subject are put to one side by most in favour of an exegesis of not so plain scripture that gives the majority the belief they have
So in effect you have a belief not based on the plainest of scripture but the reasoning of the academic mind.
This poses important querstions
1) What would it say for the credibility of the spirit filled Bible if many plain statements in it contradict the belief that Christ is God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son? if the majority of people on this website were to be believed?
2) You then have to face the fact that no Trinityarian churches I have ever been to state clearly from the pulpit that a person has to believe Christ is God Himself to have eternal life
In fact I have never once heard it preached in a Trinitarian church that Christ is God Himself. Now. if this is so important for Trinitarians to believe, if they were not so inflexible and rigid and some may say to the point of blindness they would have to face up to the obvious question.
Why is it not plainly preached in their churches what in effect they believe is a neccessity of belief to have eternal life? Or why is something not preached plainly in their churches that is so important a belief to Christianity?
Why do NO Trinitarians face and consider such important points?
How can they justify something they believe eternal life hinges on not being plainly and continuously preached from the pulpit.
And why did it take the 'infallible' church 300 years after Christ's death on the cross to say Christ is God
To my mind(and I accept I am not as academically minded as most on this site) it comes down to one thing.
We now by and large have a Christianity of the rational mind that demands it can interpret scripture as was not plainly explained by the writers of the NT
But that is not credible. The Holy Spirit was mightily on those Apostles I would say far more than most experiance today.
So I believe man constantly reads the scriptures, always looking for some new understanding of what is written, and all too often he just ends up contradicting the plainest of scripture. But his ego will not let him accept this
The nature of the son I would agree with anyone else on this website. When I think of Christ I see him as having the very nature of his Father, he is a true reflection of who the Father is. The spirit exhibits fully in the son
But only the logical, rational mind can then say Christ is the one true God Himself and the Father cannot be greater than the son, for like it or not those beliefs contradict much plain scripture, and that is not something I could ever endorse
I would prefer simple, childlike faith in plain scripture rather than consider myself a scholar who by believing I could understand depths of scripture and truth therein that simply contradict the plainest of scripture in the Bible
You are probably a man who had a legitimate call from God and squandered it away when you decided to stop receiving the grace of God (in certain areas of your life) and began to believe the wrong things concerning the body of Christ and some of the foundational doctrines of Christ and the church. This subject has struck a cord and I am immaterial as to what is really in your heart and what God wants to deal with. Don't let the dust get in your eye.
You're not even close. I was absolutely lost without Christ. I'm not sure who you think you are to say otherwise.
Again... averting anything about the subject and trying to psychoanalyze.
You're another novice indoctrinated Trinitarian who can't support the doctrine you received from men rather than God. Provide Scripture that God is three "persons". And you're Filioque-Trinity to boot.
You do this same garbage to LBG, as do many Trinitarians. Conceptual assertion of inferred doctrine of men with no scriptural support; then resort to personal accusation. The weird attempt at discerning my spirit was new, I suppose.
Why not just post Scripture that God is three "persons"? Is it not in the Word? Can you not defend your faith?
Same-same for your judgement of LBG. Clearly outline the scriptural requirements for eternal life from scripture.
Please... and thank you.
Again... averting anything about the subject and trying to psychoanalyze.
You're another novice indoctrinated Trinitarian who can't support the doctrine you received from men rather than God. Provide Scripture that God is three "persons". And you're Filioque-Trinity to boot.
You do this same garbage to LBG, as do many Trinitarians. Conceptual assertion of inferred doctrine of men with no scriptural support; then resort to personal accusation. The weird attempt at discerning my spirit was new, I suppose.
Why not just post Scripture that God is three "persons"? Is it not in the Word? Can you not defend your faith?
Same-same for your judgement of LBG. Clearly outline the scriptural requirements for eternal life from scripture.
Please... and thank you.
Christ was told he was possessed by Beelzebub, by religious people
Steven was stoned to death, by religious people
Paul was hounded, by religious people
And I would wager that the religious people guilty of the above would have condemned(obviously) Christ, Paul and Steven, they would have believed they were all possessed by the spirit of antichrist, and they all committed heresy
And those religous people who thought they knew the scriptures inside out could not answer or stand against the scriptural truths put to them so they lashed out and defamed them. And they were proud people who sought the praise of men yet made no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God
Steven was stoned to death, by religious people
Paul was hounded, by religious people
And I would wager that the religious people guilty of the above would have condemned(obviously) Christ, Paul and Steven, they would have believed they were all possessed by the spirit of antichrist, and they all committed heresy
And those religous people who thought they knew the scriptures inside out could not answer or stand against the scriptural truths put to them so they lashed out and defamed them. And they were proud people who sought the praise of men yet made no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God
Hi Pneuma,
LBG's beliefs contradict everything the bible teaches. He believes that Jesus is 'some other God' or 'Divine being' therefore this is not Christian biblical belief. Therefore not Christian.
It can be disguised with a thousand disguises, he can also claim that no one is loving because they don't agree with his beliefs. It is not loving to let someone folow in false beliefs and also putting these beliefs forward as truth. It realy is saddening that Christians actually either say its ok because its loving, that is the wrong definition of love, that is the (post) modern mind set and is not Love defined by God's Holy Love for His own Truth!
So answer me this Pneuma, are you in agreement with LBG in that there is God the Father and then Jesus who is like a seperate God?
LBG's beliefs contradict everything the bible teaches. He believes that Jesus is 'some other God' or 'Divine being' therefore this is not Christian biblical belief. Therefore not Christian.
It can be disguised with a thousand disguises, he can also claim that no one is loving because they don't agree with his beliefs. It is not loving to let someone folow in false beliefs and also putting these beliefs forward as truth. It realy is saddening that Christians actually either say its ok because its loving, that is the wrong definition of love, that is the (post) modern mind set and is not Love defined by God's Holy Love for His own Truth!
So answer me this Pneuma, are you in agreement with LBG in that there is God the Father and then Jesus who is like a seperate God?