Christ is God

[Noose]

Jesus, the Son, was praying to Father. They are two different persons, so that one can speak and the other one can listen.

In your reading, one authority was speaking to non-existing authority (or to himself). Thats not what the text says.

So Jesus did not pray to God because apparently the Father alone can't be God, just another person, the three make up one God. How sad.

Yes, Jesus being the son submitted to the authority of the Father.

 

[trofimus]

I'm not limiting God in any way, i'm just focusing on Jesus because He was a human and therefor the definition of a being used for humans can be used for Jesus.

Surely for humans we can say one being or two beings;
Was Jesus one being when He was alone?

I have already answered it to you. Define being as you wish and decide, if Jesus in body corresponds with that definition.

I have no problem saying that God is one complex being composed of three entities/persons that can be called beings on their own, but with the rule that they are not independent, but are one complex being.

Was Jesus alone or with Father?

 

[trofimus]

So Jesus did not pray to God because apparently the Father alone can't be God, just another person, the three make up one God. How sad.

Yes, Jesus being the son submitted to the authority of the Father.

God the Son prayed to God the Father. I have no idea what is sad about it.

According to your reading, the Son only faked the prayer, because He and His Father are the same person.

 

[Noose]

I have already answered it to you. Define being as you wish and decide, if Jesus in body corresponds with that definition.

I have no problem saying that God is one complex being composed of three entities/persons that can be called beings on their own, but with the rule that they are not independent, but are one complex being.

Yes you have too much problems with that. If Jesus is one being already and you want to describe God as three persons in one being, then it means the Father and the Holy spirit are not beings- this already is blasphemous.

Was Jesus alone or with Father?

It doesn't really matter; at baptism, Jesus was alone standing in the water as one being, the Father was in heaven.

 

[Noose]

God the Son prayed to God the Father. I have no idea what is sad about it.

According to your reading, the Son only faked the prayer, because He and His Father are the same person.

Because of your position you are now ashamed to call the Father, God. Jesus was not ashamed, He called the father, the true God.

One simple question:

Did Jesus pray to God (Father/son/Holy spirit)?

 

[trofimus]

Yes you have too much problems with that. If Jesus is one being already and you want to describe God as three persons in one being, then it means the Father and the Holy spirit are not beings- this already is blasphemous.

Wait, what did you just say? That if Father and the Holy Spirit are not beings, its blasphemous? This is what you are saying all the time! You contradict yourself so much...

And your rule that if Jesus is being, then God cannot be being of a higher order, is a nonsense, look:

 

[JChesney]

There's no such thing as half and full revelation or half and full manifestation of God- presence of God means God; the reason Moses was told to remove his sandles for even the ground became holy.
Does the presence of the Father in us make us the Father? NO, who did we beget for us to be called the Father? Jesus is the Father because He is our God; He begot us and the son will always be subject to the Father forever.

frankly speaking, what you write and your like-minded people here is some incomprehensible newly appeared Gnosticism mixed with the ideas of monarchianism and modalism (at the moment I can not yet classify exactly the type of your false teaching).

 

[trofimus]

Because of your position you are now ashamed to call the Father, God. Jesus was not ashamed, He called the father, the true God.

One simple question:

Did Jesus pray to God (Father/son/Holy spirit)?

What are you talking about? You are inventing something in your head only. I am ashamed to call Father God? Where? Quote me.

 

[Noose]

What are you talking about? You are inventing something in your head only. I am ashamed to call Father God? Where? Quote me.

Now that you are not ashamed, will you answer the simplest question;

If your description of God is The Father/son/Holy spirit, did Jesus pray to God (Father/son/Holy spirit)?

 

[trofimus]

Now that you are not ashamed, will you answer the simplest question;

If your description of God is The Father/son/Holy spirit, did Jesus pray to God (Father/son/Holy spirit)?

God the Son prayed to God the Father. Read J 1:1 to understand the basic concept.

 

[Noose]

Wait, what did you just say? That if Father and the Holy Spirit are not beings, its blasphemous? This is what you are saying all the time! You contradict yourself so much...

And your rule that if Jesus is being, then God cannot be being of a higher order, is a nonsense, look:

Nope.
Jesus is a being and Jesus is the Father and is the Son and is the Holy spirit.
Something not being a being means it doesn't exist, that why i said your notion is blasphemous because it amounts to saying that God doesn't exist.

 

[Noose]

God the Son prayed to God the Father. Read J 1:1 to understand the basic concept.

We know God the son is one being, on the earth, is God the Father also a being or is he not?
John 1:1 is nothing near your thoughts.

 

[trofimus]

Nope.
Jesus is a being and Jesus is the Father and is the Son and is the Holy spirit.
Something not being a being means it doesn't exist, that why i said your notion is blasphemous because it amounts to saying that God doesn't exist.

Jesus cannot be the Father, when he came from Father and prayed to Father and said that Father is with him. Use logic.

 

[Noose]

frankly speaking, what you write and your like-minded people here is some incomprehensible newly appeared Gnosticism mixed with the ideas of monarchianism and modalism (at the moment I can not yet classify exactly the type of your false teaching).

At what point did i tell lies? all my arguments have been based on scripture alone with very concrete proof.

 

[trofimus]

We know God the son is one being, on the earth, is God the Father also a being or is he not?
John 1:1 is nothing near your thoughts.

I have no idea why you are asking again and again, when I answered you three times already.

John 1:1 is nowhere near to your heresy.

 

[Noose]

Jesus cannot be the Father, when he came from Father and prayed to Father and said that Father is with him. Use logic.

Actually, 3 persons making one being is a failure in logic. You can not put conditions on what Jesus can be or can not be.
Isaiah called Him the everlasting Father (Isa 9:6)
Jesus called Himself our Father Rev 21:7

And whether you choose to apply logic or not, you'll always come to the conclusion that Jesus calls himself Father here:

John 14: 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work..... 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

 

[trofimus]

Actually, 3 persons making one being is a failure in logic. You can not put conditions on what Jesus can be or can not be.

You contradicted yourself in two first sentences. You started that something is a failure in logic and ended that I cannot put conditions on what God can or cannot be. Be consistent. Either you want me to judge God by your human logic or God can be three persons, because you cannot put any conditions on him.

Decide what you want.

Is 9:6 is "father of the age to come". It does not say that the child is the Father in heavens.

 

[NWL]

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy over the last few days. Please do what I ask below and I will then reply to your last response.

My question is this, if Jesus didn't die, could he be called the firstborn from/of the dead? Its not a theological question but rather a linguistic question

This is about Him being the first among humans to be resurrected with a new, spiritual body. So this is about His humanity, not about His deity.

Also, notice the difference between:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως - Col 1:15 (ambiguity)
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν - Col 1:18 (he is one of the group)

As NIV translates:
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created."

You didn't answer my question, please answer it. If Jesus didn't die, could he be called firstborn from the dead? It's technically a yes or no answer but please state your reason to it.

 

[Noose]

You contradicted yourself in two first sentences. You started that something is a failure in logic and ended that I cannot put conditions on what God can or cannot be. Be consistent. Either you want me to judge God by your human logic or God can be three persons, because you cannot put any conditions on him.

Decide what you want.

Is 9:6 is "father of the age to come". It does not say that the child is the Father in heavens.

Three distinct persons in one being is something that can not be, so we can't even start applying logic to it, it's like a square circle, it doesn't exist- so God can not be something that doesn't exist to begin with. An example of a contradiction is saying the three persons are distinct yet one.

Isa 9:6 The Father of the age to come is also the Father of the age that past so we can just say Father.

 

[NWL]

actually i think it does.

the 'copy' you describe is exact according to the scripture you cite. therefore it is identical in every respect, by definition: every aspect, facet, quality, characteristic. one of the characteristics of God is that He is uncreated: before all things, another is that there is no other god before Him. Jesus being the exact representation of God means He exactly has these same qualities: the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily as a man, for He humbled Himself, setting aside His glory, for our sake, and for His glory, because all things are to Him and for His glory ((Romans 11:36)) - while simultaneously YHWH proclaims He does not share His glory with any other, Christ, being the exact representation/copy/likeness/form of YHWH likewise receives all glory and does not give it to another.
this is either contradictory or Christ and YHWH are One. therefore Jesus is God. Father, Son, One God.

excuse my human reasoning and way of speaking -- brothers should not separate over what is ((imho)) the inadequacy of human language, reason and perception. we perceive from the perspective of the frame in which we are created, and are constrained by time and knowledge in ways that the Creator of time and knowledge is not.

You fail to realise one thing, a copy of anything implies the very thing that is copied is excatly the same expect the age of that copy. If the Father was in existence alone, and then created a copy of himself (Hebrews 1:3), namely Jesus, then how does it make sense that Gods age also copies over to the copy of himself. Again, Jesus being a copy imples he is the same in every respect apart from God eternalness. Moreover, almighty God is NOT a copy of anyone, but Jesus is, therefore Jesus can't be God.

As Jesus himself stated, he lives because of the Father. God almighty lives because of no person or thing. Jesus lacks the main attribute of almighty God, that being having no beginning nor end.

(John 6:57) "..I [Jesus] live because of the Father.."