I And My Father Are One

[Live4Him3]

For the heretics on this thread (and others):

Galatians chapter 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

This isn't a game.

If you want to distort the word of God, then be prepared for Divine judgment and retribution.

 

[wattie]

It says whatever you want it to say.

Huh?

All of scripture speaks of Jesus being equal with the Father. Therefore when Jesus says the Father is greater it means something OTHER than superiority.

 

[bluto]

Find the verse where Jesus says, "I am not the Father"

Your asking a question that in logic is called "an argument from silence." The proper way to determine truth is to understand what IS SAID. I cannot show you the verse that says "Peter and Paul were Christians." Shall we use your damaged logic and say that these apostles were not saved?

The point is that there is no verse where Jesus says, "I am not the Father" but there is an abundance of evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Which brings me to a question I would like to ask you? You mentioned in another post that Jesus was the "Son of Man," which is a true statement.

Can you please tell why Jesus Christ Himself referred to Himself on numerous occasions as "The Son of Man" and as "The Son of God." Lastly, are you by chance a Oneness Pentecostal?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[bluto]

If your intended point is that both Jesus and the Father are God, then I have no problem with that whatsoever because they both are God.

That said, they are still not the same person.

Yes, they both are the one being of God and John 10:30 and the following verses are teaching specifically they are one in nature/essence. Lot's of people (especially in the cults) figure John 10:30 is only teaching one in purpose but there's more to it than just that as the context indicates.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Live4Him3]

Yes, they both are the one being of God and John 10:30 and the following verses are teaching specifically they are one in nature/essence. Lot's of people (especially in the cults) figure John 10:30 is only teaching one in purpose but there's more to it than just that as the context indicates.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Not to open another can of worms, but the Bible never mentions "God the Son". Instead, it mentions "the Son of God" repeatedly, and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

Anyhow, like I said, I believe that both the Father and Jesus are God, but they are not the same person (for lack of a better term).

 

[bluto]

Not to open another can of worms, but the Bible never mentions "God the Son". Instead, it mentions "the Son of God" repeatedly, and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

Anyhow, like I said, I believe that both the Father and Jesus are God, but they are not the same person (for lack of a better term).

Well you are opening a can of worms. Show me a verse that specifically says the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul were Christians? Shall we then use your damaged logic and say that these two apostles were not saved? Jesus Christ is God the Son by using "deductive reasoning." You just said Jesus is God. The Bible also says that Jesus is the actual Son of His Father who is God, therefore by deductive reasoning I am perfectly in line to say "God the Son."

Now, you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that does not share the same nature as his father. Jesus Christ often times referred to Himself as "the Son of Man" and as "the Son of God." He's the Son of Man on His mother's side which makes Him human. He's the Son of God on His Father's side which makes Him Deity/God. Two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. Do you believe in the "hypostatic union" of Jesus Christ? The combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ. Tell me, is this Orthodox Biblical theology, yes or no?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Live4Him3]

Well you are opening a can of worms. Show me a verse that specifically says the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul were Christians? Shall we then use your damaged logic and say that these two apostles were not saved? Jesus Christ is God the Son by using "deductive reasoning." You just said Jesus is God. The Bible also says that Jesus is the actual Son of His Father who is God, therefore by deductive reasoning I am perfectly in line to say "God the Son."

Now, you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that does not share the same nature as his father. Jesus Christ often times referred to Himself as "the Son of Man" and as "the Son of God." He's the Son of Man on His mother's side which makes Him human. He's the Son of God on His Father's side which makes Him Deity/God. Two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. Do you believe in the "hypostatic union" of Jesus Christ? The combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ. Tell me, is this Orthodox Biblical theology, yes or no?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

There's nothing damaged about my logic at all. In fact, you inadvertently just proved my point that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as "the Son of God" in scripture and never referred to as "God the Son".

Most people who refer to Jesus as "God the Son" do so from a totally unscriptural (mis-) understanding of how the word "begotten" is used in regard to Jesus in scripture. In other words, they believe the hogwash that Jesus was "eternally begotten", a self-contradictory term, or that he somehow sprang forth out of God the Father eternally as his Son. With such truly damaged logic, they refer to Jesus as "God the Son".

In fact, the aforementioned hogwash is part of the Nicene Creed, and I totally reject that particular part of it for very solid scriptural reasons.

 

[bluto]

There's nothing damaged about my logic at all. In fact, you inadvertently just proved my point that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as "the Son of God" in scripture and never referred to as "God the Son".

Most people who refer to Jesus as "God the Son" do so from a totally unscriptural (mis-) understanding of how the word "begotten" is used in regard to Jesus in scripture. In other words, they believe the hogwash that Jesus was "eternally begotten", a self-contradictory term, or that he somehow sprang forth out of God the Father eternally as his Son. With such truly damaged logic, they refer to Jesus as "God the Son".

In fact, the aforementioned hogwash is part of the Nicene Creed, and I totally reject that particular part of it for very solid scriptural reasons.

So, are you telling me that the Son did not eternally exist before His incarnation as a man? That's all I'm asking for now.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Live4Him3]

So, are you telling me that the Son did not eternally exist before His incarnation as a man? That's all I'm asking for now.

The one that we now call "Jesus" definitely eternally existed as God.

However, if you're asking me if I believe in the doctrine of "Eternal Sonship" (that Jesus existed eternally as "God the Son") or if I believe in the doctrine of "Incarnational Sonship" (that Jesus became "the Son of God" during his incarnation), then I lean exceedingly heavily towards the latter of the two.

Anyhow, I'll check back in here tomorrow evening as I've got an early work day tomorrow, and I need to head off to bed.

Good night.

 

[Wansvic]

Whose point are you trying to prove?

Mine or yours?

You've only proven mine.

The Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS GOD.

There are clearly two different persons (for lack of a better word) being identified as "God" here.

Do you deny the Triune Godhead?

Seemingly, you do.

If so, then the entire Bible testifies against you, starting with Genesis 1:1 in which "God" is introduced in the PLURAL as "elohim".

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: [5] And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. " Deut. 6:4-5

 

[Wansvic]

Jesus expresses the truth while standing in the presence of Nicodemus in John 3:13:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Your asking a question that in logic is called "an argument from silence." The proper way to determine truth is to understand what IS SAID. I cannot show you the verse that says "Peter and Paul were Christians." Shall we use your damaged logic and say that these apostles were not saved?

If you truly believe truth is determined by what is said in the Bible then Jesus is the everlasting Father. (Isaiah 9:6)

Which brings me to a question I would like to ask you? You mentioned in another post that Jesus was the "Son of Man," which is a true statement.

Can you please tell why Jesus Christ Himself referred to Himself on numerous occasions as "The Son of Man" and as "The Son of God."

1. Jesus, I believe, never referred Himself as the Son of God.
2. You would have to ask Him why He referred Himself as the Son of man.

Lastly, are you by chance a Oneness Pentecostal?

I'm a Christian.

 

[soberxp]

Was not is

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Anyhow, like I said, I believe that both the Father and Jesus are God, but they are not the same person (for lack of a better term).

Do you believe each has a mind?