-
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.
T
Hi hopesprings,
It's not at all silly, hopesprings, it's actually an essential question to ask yourself if you're seeking honestly and objectively what the Bible actually teaches. This is called falsifiability. If there is absolutely nothing that the Bible could say to prove your belief false (from your point of view), that means your argument is non-falsifiable. You're going to believe it no matter what the evidence. Is that true of you and the Trinity?
Early on, before our discussion, I provided a test for feedm3 that shows my belief about Jesus was falsifiable (which means there is a test that could potentially prove it false). I asked him to show me an unambiguous instance where Jesus is called God Almighty (the superlative). Now you can disagree with the test if you want, but at least there's a test. If you cannot or will not provide such a test, that just tells me that your belief in the Trinity is too hazy or too shaky that you don't know yourself what could ever prove it false to you. In other words, you don't fully understand what you believe and why you believe it.
You call it silly, I call it a check against biases.
So does this mean that you're accepting Jesus' reply as a rebuke? You didn't say anything of the man's dropping the term when he again addresses Jesus just a couple verses later.
As for your question, of course Jesus is good as are other men and even angels. For example, Barnabas "was a good man." (Acts 11:24) There's nothing wrong with this adjective when it's being used in the right way, i.e. when it's to the glory of God. The reason why Jesus takes special offense here is because he's correcting a flaw in the man seeking his help. The man was sincere, but he was approaching Jesus with the same flattering titles that the Jewish religious leaders liked to receive, which amounted to giving glory, not to God, but to men. This is to what Jesus was objecting. Instead of accepting it, Jesus chose to highlight that it is to God alone that the man should be directing that type of glory, for God is the absolute standard of goodness. This was a loving correction.
Oh TJ...I thought I told you I didn't like silly questions like this? You know...ones that don't have real answers because they don't happen 
Early on, before our discussion, I provided a test for feedm3 that shows my belief about Jesus was falsifiable (which means there is a test that could potentially prove it false). I asked him to show me an unambiguous instance where Jesus is called God Almighty (the superlative). Now you can disagree with the test if you want, but at least there's a test. If you cannot or will not provide such a test, that just tells me that your belief in the Trinity is too hazy or too shaky that you don't know yourself what could ever prove it false to you. In other words, you don't fully understand what you believe and why you believe it.
You call it silly, I call it a check against biases.
So does this mean that you're accepting Jesus' reply as a rebuke? You didn't say anything of the man's dropping the term when he again addresses Jesus just a couple verses later.
As for your question, of course Jesus is good as are other men and even angels. For example, Barnabas "was a good man." (Acts 11:24) There's nothing wrong with this adjective when it's being used in the right way, i.e. when it's to the glory of God. The reason why Jesus takes special offense here is because he's correcting a flaw in the man seeking his help. The man was sincere, but he was approaching Jesus with the same flattering titles that the Jewish religious leaders liked to receive, which amounted to giving glory, not to God, but to men. This is to what Jesus was objecting. Instead of accepting it, Jesus chose to highlight that it is to God alone that the man should be directing that type of glory, for God is the absolute standard of goodness. This was a loving correction.
G
Tell you what, TJ, speak to me first about my past questions in my last post you did not answer and ten I will answer your 'falsifiabiliy' question. Fair enough ? And, you , Yes, we right, you can be certain my heart is in Love speaking to you about your indefinitely wrong doctrine. I nic everyone, those that want no nic, no problem .
1) What did you mean by God's Word, spoken breathedly by the mind of Paul, who had the 'mind of Christ,' that was just 'inspiration?'. Is this true then to you, some of Paul's epistles are not to be taken literally, is that your train of thought? What, too, do you mean by Paul being 'accursed.'
2) Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and, The Life. Isn't that the title of 'God The Son?' Is God ever referred in Scripture as 'The Truth?' Can one true God be two true personages, or, in this case, of this 'God,' three?
3) Doesn't the great commission mean anything to you, we are to baptize all the nations in the name of 1, the Father , 2, the Son, 3, the Holy Spirit?
4) when Jesus was baptized , He heard God's voice from Heaven, and, the Holy Spirit lit on Him in the form of a dove. This is a triune appearance of God since Jesus, Scripture states, is God manifest in the flesh, and, dove symbolizes HS ?
5)
What does Collossians 1:15 mean to you?
Answer these questions and then I believe the Lord will lead me to answer your proof text verses and question on proving Jesus is/is not God.
Thank you.
And, you , Yes, we right, you can be certain my heart is in Love speaking to you about your indefinitely wrong doctrine. I nic everyone, those that want no nic, no problem .1) What did you mean by God's Word, spoken breathedly by the mind of Paul, who had the 'mind of Christ,' that was just 'inspiration?'. Is this true then to you, some of Paul's epistles are not to be taken literally, is that your train of thought? What, too, do you mean by Paul being 'accursed.'
2) Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and, The Life. Isn't that the title of 'God The Son?' Is God ever referred in Scripture as 'The Truth?' Can one true God be two true personages, or, in this case, of this 'God,' three?
3) Doesn't the great commission mean anything to you, we are to baptize all the nations in the name of 1, the Father , 2, the Son, 3, the Holy Spirit?
4) when Jesus was baptized , He heard God's voice from Heaven, and, the Holy Spirit lit on Him in the form of a dove. This is a triune appearance of God since Jesus, Scripture states, is God manifest in the flesh, and, dove symbolizes HS ?
5)
What does Collossians 1:15 mean to you?
Answer these questions and then I believe the Lord will lead me to answer your proof text verses and question on proving Jesus is/is not God.
Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
Hello GreenNnice,
Read the several posts back-and-forth between me and cfultz3. I merely quoted a verse that Paul wrote from which he inferred something that he disagreed with. Later when he still expressed disagreement, I just quoted that same verse from Paul to show that I wasn't speaking of my own originality. I emphasized that it was scripture by calling it inspired. I'm not sure what you think I was implying other than Paul's writing is inspired scripture.
As for the 'accursed' language, again, please read our discussion. He brought up the question of what it means to be accursed. I was just asking him if he was calling Paul 'accursed' by his own definition.
Again I'm not exactly clear as to what you're saying. Scripture never uses the term "God the Son". Jesus is "the truth" in that he has been sent by God to proclaim the truth.
The great commission is why Jehovah's Witnesses are known the world over for their ministry work. So yes, it means something to me. But this is not an implied Trinity formula here. Yes, these three are important for all Christians, and we have to be dedicated to and in harmony with Jehovah, his Son, and Jehovah's holy spirit, but the whole three-in-one God stuff was built around this much, much later. Why wouldn't any Bible writer say, 'by the way, these three are God'? It's because, as Paul put it, we have "one God, the Father." (1 Cor. 8:6)
The three are there, but it doesn't teach that they make up a three-in-one God! There are also texts such as the one where Paul says, "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels..." (1 Timothy 5:21) Yet you see no Trinity here merely by the naming of the three together.
I've explained this indepth previously. Jesus is "the firstborn of creation". This means he is a creature, a part of creation, and by the primary definition of the word and necessitated by the context, he was the first creature temporally.
I look forward to reading what, in your view, the Bible would need to say in order to prove that Jesus is not God.
Read the several posts back-and-forth between me and cfultz3. I merely quoted a verse that Paul wrote from which he inferred something that he disagreed with. Later when he still expressed disagreement, I just quoted that same verse from Paul to show that I wasn't speaking of my own originality. I emphasized that it was scripture by calling it inspired. I'm not sure what you think I was implying other than Paul's writing is inspired scripture.
As for the 'accursed' language, again, please read our discussion. He brought up the question of what it means to be accursed. I was just asking him if he was calling Paul 'accursed' by his own definition.
Again I'm not exactly clear as to what you're saying. Scripture never uses the term "God the Son". Jesus is "the truth" in that he has been sent by God to proclaim the truth.
The great commission is why Jehovah's Witnesses are known the world over for their ministry work. So yes, it means something to me. But this is not an implied Trinity formula here. Yes, these three are important for all Christians, and we have to be dedicated to and in harmony with Jehovah, his Son, and Jehovah's holy spirit, but the whole three-in-one God stuff was built around this much, much later. Why wouldn't any Bible writer say, 'by the way, these three are God'? It's because, as Paul put it, we have "one God, the Father." (1 Cor. 8:6)
The three are there, but it doesn't teach that they make up a three-in-one God! There are also texts such as the one where Paul says, "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels..." (1 Timothy 5:21) Yet you see no Trinity here merely by the naming of the three together.
I've explained this indepth previously. Jesus is "the firstborn of creation". This means he is a creature, a part of creation, and by the primary definition of the word and necessitated by the context, he was the first creature temporally.
I look forward to reading what, in your view, the Bible would need to say in order to prove that Jesus is not God.
G
The bible would need to be rewritten by God to prove to me God is not Jesus manifest in the flesh, that Jesus is not 'The Truth,' which He IS , capitalized 'T,' that verses proving Deity , such as Collossians 1:15, did not get put in the bible, that......
How much time have you got, TJ?
SERIOUSLY, ask a better question.
Why not offer your proof texts to me, you said you wanted to get to that after everyone asked you their questions. The Lord leads, now's the time
Be warned, I will be speaking in Love, like Jesus did those the likes of the pharasees, with my answers 'led' to provide, just a preface to our coming exchange.
So, yes, give me 3-4 verses to proof, thank you, TJ.
How much time have you got, TJ?
SERIOUSLY, ask a better question.
Why not offer your proof texts to me, you said you wanted to get to that after everyone asked you their questions. The Lord leads, now's the time
Be warned, I will be speaking in Love, like Jesus did those the likes of the pharasees, with my answers 'led' to provide, just a preface to our coming exchange.
So, yes, give me 3-4 verses to proof, thank you, TJ.
T
Hello GreenNnice,
So instead of telling me what the Bible could say to prove that Jesus is not God, you turn it around and just repeat again what you think it's saying that proves Jesus is God. In other words, you're not going to answer my question at all.
Why is this such a difficult question? Does anyone here professing belief in Jesus as God have an straight answer?
I explained the messianic text, Proverbs 8:22-31, somewhat to you above.
So instead of telling me what the Bible could say to prove that Jesus is not God, you turn it around and just repeat again what you think it's saying that proves Jesus is God. In other words, you're not going to answer my question at all.
Why is this such a difficult question? Does anyone here professing belief in Jesus as God have an straight answer?
I explained the messianic text, Proverbs 8:22-31, somewhat to you above.
C
Don't worry, only the flesh was abused. Our God gained victory by that fleshly death. If Jehovah is our Savior and Jesus is our Christ, then they both are true or else lies is to be found in Scripture. Either LORD is Lord or else God is a god.
But what if it were God's will to have died in the flesh? The Word took upon Himself flesh and if that flesh was destroyed, does that necessarily mean that the Word was destroyed?
But what if it were God's will to have died in the flesh? The Word took upon Himself flesh and if that flesh was destroyed, does that necessarily mean that the Word was destroyed?
Too complicated.
Why do you call me good? Only my father does good
My God, my God, why have you forsake. me.
Father, if there is another way ...
My father has handed me ...
This is my son, with whom i am well pleased ...
Jesus born of a woman ...
Jesus sharing God's will ...
The ONE God.
Jesus teaching disciples 'my heavenly father', 'father above me'.
Jesus being subservient to God.
It's clear as day. Jesus is not God
Jesus is as the word of God made flesh. As in, the perfect example of all God's instructions to men, but more than that; sinless
Why do you call me good? Only my father does good
My God, my God, why have you forsake. me.
Father, if there is another way ...
My father has handed me ...
This is my son, with whom i am well pleased ...
Jesus born of a woman ...
Jesus sharing God's will ...
The ONE God.
Jesus teaching disciples 'my heavenly father', 'father above me'.
Jesus being subservient to God.
It's clear as day. Jesus is not God
Jesus is as the word of God made flesh. As in, the perfect example of all God's instructions to men, but more than that; sinless
C
Too complicated. -- is it?
Why do you call me good? Only my father does good -- Correction: 'there is none good but God', said the incarnated Word we know as the man Jesus Christ
My God, my God, why have you forsake. me. -- said the man Jesus.
Father, if there is another way ...-- said the man Jesus.
My father has handed me ...-- said the man Jesus.
This is my son, with whom i am well pleased ...-- so said God to the incarnated Word known as the Son.
Jesus born of a woman ...-- so said of the Word who took flesh upon Himself
Jesus sharing God's will ... --Jesus fulfilled God's will.
The ONE God. -- there is but one God in three adminstrations.
Jesus teaching disciples 'my heavenly father', 'father above me'. -- so tuaght the man Jesus who was the Word incarnated.
Jesus being subservient to God. -- and Jesus was the perfect example of what was required of man.
It's clear as day. Jesus is not God -- it is clear as day that the Word took flesh upon Himself so that through Him God's will would have been fulfilled. And when the Word returned to Heaven, He was given His eternal throne back.
Jesus is as the word of God made flesh. As in, the perfect example of all God's instructions to men, but more than that; sinless -- either Scripture lied when it said that Jesus was the Word or it was speaking the Truth when it says that His name is: The Word of God. Who are we to believe, you who says that Jesus IS AS the word of God or Rev 19:13?
Why do you call me good? Only my father does good -- Correction: 'there is none good but God', said the incarnated Word we know as the man Jesus Christ
My God, my God, why have you forsake. me. -- said the man Jesus.
Father, if there is another way ...-- said the man Jesus.
My father has handed me ...-- said the man Jesus.
This is my son, with whom i am well pleased ...-- so said God to the incarnated Word known as the Son.
Jesus born of a woman ...-- so said of the Word who took flesh upon Himself
Jesus sharing God's will ... --Jesus fulfilled God's will.
The ONE God. -- there is but one God in three adminstrations.
Jesus teaching disciples 'my heavenly father', 'father above me'. -- so tuaght the man Jesus who was the Word incarnated.
Jesus being subservient to God. -- and Jesus was the perfect example of what was required of man.
It's clear as day. Jesus is not God -- it is clear as day that the Word took flesh upon Himself so that through Him God's will would have been fulfilled. And when the Word returned to Heaven, He was given His eternal throne back.
Jesus is as the word of God made flesh. As in, the perfect example of all God's instructions to men, but more than that; sinless -- either Scripture lied when it said that Jesus was the Word or it was speaking the Truth when it says that His name is: The Word of God. Who are we to believe, you who says that Jesus IS AS the word of God or Rev 19:13?
Last edited:
Two people?
The greeting emanates from a three-fold divine source, as ‘grace’ is the divine favor which is bestowed upon mankind, by God.
Observe…
Rev 1.4 – 6
John to the seven assemblies in Asia: Grace to you, and peace, from the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, and from the seven spirits which are before His throne; even from Jesus Christthe Faithful Witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and washing us from our sins by His blood, and made us kings and priests to God, even His Father. To Him is the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.
See the repeated usage of the Greek preposition ‘opo’, from…?
This greeting then concludes with a doxology of the Son.
You can plainly see the Trinity expressed here.
You can plainly see the Son’s deity here.
H
Hi again
TJ, you can call your question whatever you like...I call it a silly question, but just because it is a silly question doesn't mean I don't have an answer for it...it means that I don't think it will get us anywhere, since my answer to that question doesn't happen in scripture, therefore it has no real answer. And, no, that doesn't mean I am accepting Jesus' reply in Mark 10 as a rebuke, which is why I said 'apparent rebuke'. I know that you see it as a rebuke, or a loving correction...I don't necessarily. Jesus asks the man 'WHY are you calling me good?' He wanted to know WHY the young man was calling him good. We know that only God is good and I am sure that the young man probably knew this too. Jesus was probing, like he occassionally does. Did the young man recognize Jesus for who he really was? That is the question presented here; that is why Jesus was asking WHY. As to why the young man would drop the title afterwards...because he didnt' believe that Jesus was really God, just a good teacher. I think this explaination is plausible because Jesus then proceeded to answer the young man's question instead of being grossly insulted at being called something that only God is (hey...we're back here again...lol
). I think this explaination becomes even more possible when we consider the fact that Jesus calls himself good in John 10. I feel like you tried to dance around that...which is honestly why I have a hard time conversing with you...but, Jesus said no one is good except God, then he said I am the good shepherd. I see a contradiction in your interpretation. On a side note...John 10, starting in verse 11 says "I am the good Shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as my Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." (vv.11-16)
Now please...enlighten us and tell us what is your definite proof that Jesus is not God. I am sincerely asking...
C
It would have to say:
I Jesus am not Jehovah -- then again, there can only be one Lord and they are both called Lord. And the Word, who was that One in the flesh, is one of the three witnesses in Heaven concerning the Son, then he is the Faithful Witness who came to procliam the Message. If He was one of the three witnesses in Heaven, shall He not also have continued as such when He returned Home in His glorifed body? There is no argument that the God and the Holy Spirit are God, so why with the Word? All three were present at the creation. God willed creation, the Spirit pondered over it, the Word spoke it into creation
I the Word was created -- then again, it only says the Son has a beginning. Indeed, the Son was born. But yet, it is said of the Word that He was there at the beginning and that all things were CREATED by Him. Therefore, He must be the Creator of verse 1 of God's Oracles which states, "In the beginning God created........'. To say that He is anything less than God is to say that He is not the Creator of all things. And to say this is to call the Scriptures a lie. Do you see TJ what I am getting at? It must be understood that He cannot be the Creator in the New Testament if He is not the Creator spoken of in the Old Testament. To say otherwise is to nullify one part of the last statement.
I Christ do not set on my throne -- then again, it is said He asked that His glory be returned to Him as it was before He took on Himself flesh. It is said that He was MADE LOWER than the angels fro awhile. When He returned Home, He received His throne back as the Son (Your throne, O God, is into the Age of the ages). The Son being: The Word having taken on flesh. Died. Was raised in a glofied body, who now sets as Christ (the Word in a glorifed body).
You see TJ, we have been answering that question all along. The Bible would just have to be rewritten to include those contradictions we present to be self-evident and contrary to Scripture.
I hope above all else that you will see that saying that 'Christ is not God' is to say that 'Jehovah is not our Savior'. Both statements are true, seeing that saying 'Christ' is the same as saying 'Savior'. And if He is Savior then He is Jehovah. And we know that Jehovah is the One who said that there is but one LORD (Jehovah). And we also know that it says, 'the LORD is our Savior'.
Hear me TJ, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And without this part of God, just as the Holy Spirit is the part of God who is the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs, we cannot see the third member of the Trinity. The One whose will is done by/through the Word and the Spirit. The One who we call Abba. Jesus is the Way to return to our fellowship with the one true God.He is also the Truth. And if He is the Truth, then no lie can be found in Him. And if there is no lie to be found in Him, then it is true what is said of Him, there is no shadow of darkness in Him, He is perfect as the Father. And lastly TJ, HE IS THE LIFE, without Him nothing can be.
I Jesus am not Jehovah -- then again, there can only be one Lord and they are both called Lord. And the Word, who was that One in the flesh, is one of the three witnesses in Heaven concerning the Son, then he is the Faithful Witness who came to procliam the Message. If He was one of the three witnesses in Heaven, shall He not also have continued as such when He returned Home in His glorifed body? There is no argument that the God and the Holy Spirit are God, so why with the Word? All three were present at the creation. God willed creation, the Spirit pondered over it, the Word spoke it into creation
I the Word was created -- then again, it only says the Son has a beginning. Indeed, the Son was born. But yet, it is said of the Word that He was there at the beginning and that all things were CREATED by Him. Therefore, He must be the Creator of verse 1 of God's Oracles which states, "In the beginning God created........'. To say that He is anything less than God is to say that He is not the Creator of all things. And to say this is to call the Scriptures a lie. Do you see TJ what I am getting at? It must be understood that He cannot be the Creator in the New Testament if He is not the Creator spoken of in the Old Testament. To say otherwise is to nullify one part of the last statement.
I Christ do not set on my throne -- then again, it is said He asked that His glory be returned to Him as it was before He took on Himself flesh. It is said that He was MADE LOWER than the angels fro awhile. When He returned Home, He received His throne back as the Son (Your throne, O God, is into the Age of the ages). The Son being: The Word having taken on flesh. Died. Was raised in a glofied body, who now sets as Christ (the Word in a glorifed body).
You see TJ, we have been answering that question all along. The Bible would just have to be rewritten to include those contradictions we present to be self-evident and contrary to Scripture.
I hope above all else that you will see that saying that 'Christ is not God' is to say that 'Jehovah is not our Savior'. Both statements are true, seeing that saying 'Christ' is the same as saying 'Savior'. And if He is Savior then He is Jehovah. And we know that Jehovah is the One who said that there is but one LORD (Jehovah). And we also know that it says, 'the LORD is our Savior'.
Hear me TJ, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And without this part of God, just as the Holy Spirit is the part of God who is the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs, we cannot see the third member of the Trinity. The One whose will is done by/through the Word and the Spirit. The One who we call Abba. Jesus is the Way to return to our fellowship with the one true God.He is also the Truth. And if He is the Truth, then no lie can be found in Him. And if there is no lie to be found in Him, then it is true what is said of Him, there is no shadow of darkness in Him, He is perfect as the Father. And lastly TJ, HE IS THE LIFE, without Him nothing can be.
Last edited:
H
Are you talking about ancient textual support for the absence of the comma? Or, ancient textual support for the comma being placed after 'today'? On the former part, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...I do not see a break in the title...just one title...but I understand you do not see it this way.
T
Hello Bowman,
Thanks for your response.
I don't know, I seem to see 9 persons there in the parts you highlighted. God, the seven spirits, and Jesus. Further, it's only the first one mentioned there, 'the one who is, and who was, and who is coming, that is called Almighty in verse 8. Why weren't they all mentioned there?
And since the simple fact of being mentioned together is to you explicit proof of a Trinity, what do you make of a verse like 1 Timothy 5:21, which says: "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels..." That sounds an awful lot like your proof text above, doesn't it? Do you "plainly see the Trinity expressed here" as well? Was the "seven spirits" replaced by "the chosen angels"?
Thanks for your response.
I don't know, I seem to see 9 persons there in the parts you highlighted. God, the seven spirits, and Jesus. Further, it's only the first one mentioned there, 'the one who is, and who was, and who is coming, that is called Almighty in verse 8. Why weren't they all mentioned there?
And since the simple fact of being mentioned together is to you explicit proof of a Trinity, what do you make of a verse like 1 Timothy 5:21, which says: "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels..." That sounds an awful lot like your proof text above, doesn't it? Do you "plainly see the Trinity expressed here" as well? Was the "seven spirits" replaced by "the chosen angels"?
T
Hello hopesprings,
Thanks for the response.
I don't think you have an answer that can be tested. And that's my point.
This is how objection was expressed in Bible times. It's like when Jesus asks Mary, literally, "What is there in common between me and you?" (John 2:4) It's a rhetorical question; he's objecting to something she said.
If Jesus was truly asking the man, and not making a rhetorical question in order to correct him, you'd think he'd wait for the man to answer his question. He doesn't.
Wouldn't this be a super great time then for Jesus to tell the man exactly that, that in order to receive everlasting life like he wants, he must believe that Jesus is God himself? Why does Jesus disregard completely what is to you an appalling lack of faith here?
You keep saying things like this, that you feel like I didn't answer you, when I absolutely did! I said exactly why Jesus objected in this one instance to an adjective that is commonly accepted elsewhere. Did you miss that?
Why did you disregard the text I showed where Barnabas is called "good"? Is that also proof that Barnabas is God, hopesprings? If not, how is it different? Please don't ignore things like this and say that you don't feel like I answered you. Please tell me why you don't think that applies.
Well, we were already discussing Philippians 2 and how the word in verse 6, as well as the preceding comparison, support that the pre-existent Jesus didn't try to seize equality with God. Now I've been trying to get anyone here to discuss Proverbs 8:22-31 with me and its application to the Messiah. There it explains the very same scenario I've explained at places like Colossians 1 and Revelation 3, i.e. that the Son was the very first creature, and that God then proceeded to create everything through him. Thoughts?
Thanks for the response.
I don't think you have an answer that can be tested. And that's my point.
This is how objection was expressed in Bible times. It's like when Jesus asks Mary, literally, "What is there in common between me and you?" (John 2:4) It's a rhetorical question; he's objecting to something she said.
If Jesus was truly asking the man, and not making a rhetorical question in order to correct him, you'd think he'd wait for the man to answer his question. He doesn't.
Wouldn't this be a super great time then for Jesus to tell the man exactly that, that in order to receive everlasting life like he wants, he must believe that Jesus is God himself? Why does Jesus disregard completely what is to you an appalling lack of faith here?
You keep saying things like this, that you feel like I didn't answer you, when I absolutely did! I said exactly why Jesus objected in this one instance to an adjective that is commonly accepted elsewhere. Did you miss that?
Why did you disregard the text I showed where Barnabas is called "good"? Is that also proof that Barnabas is God, hopesprings? If not, how is it different? Please don't ignore things like this and say that you don't feel like I answered you. Please tell me why you don't think that applies.
Well, we were already discussing Philippians 2 and how the word in verse 6, as well as the preceding comparison, support that the pre-existent Jesus didn't try to seize equality with God. Now I've been trying to get anyone here to discuss Proverbs 8:22-31 with me and its application to the Messiah. There it explains the very same scenario I've explained at places like Colossians 1 and Revelation 3, i.e. that the Son was the very first creature, and that God then proceeded to create everything through him. Thoughts?
T
Are you talking about ancient textual support for the absence of the comma? Or, ancient textual support for the comma being placed after 'today'? On the former part, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...I do not see a break in the title...just one title...but I understand you do not see it this way.
Well, of course He is the word of God. that's been established. If God were to take every instruction to man, as it is meant to be taken, every WORD God spoke to man, and fashion it into a human, that human would be a totally perfect image/reflection of that word. So Jesus is the Word of God. OF God. Not, Jesus is God. And the word is God, because, His words are all we know Him by. His word is the only way He speaks to us and shows us his love, or shows us anything for that matter. So by Sending Jesus, He showed His character, He taught us, He showed us His attitude, His Will. He showed us, His word in the flesh. But Jesus is still a servant to the one God.
Jesus is a man. Born of a woman. Line of David. Word made into flesh (ie. perfect example of what God wants from man; sinless).Being the very sacrifice God intended to save the world.
But God is not JESUS, and JESUS is not God. They are separate, as far as that Jesus is a man, tempted by flesh, able to be hurt in flesh. Yet they are the same in that He is the example of everything that God speaks to us and instructs us.
Revelation also tells us (and also Paul), that Jesus will in the end bow down before God just like everyone else. The perfect completion.
God is my Lord, Jesus is my saviour, my teacher, my redeemer.
I will worship none but God. I will love Jesus, and learn from Jesus, and realise Jesus' perfection, his sacrifice, His place in God's Kingdom.
But Jesus also came so that we sinners would be saved. And Jesus made Himself last.
Jesus will stand with me and you and all men come the resurrection of us all, and will bring all unto God. And once that happens, He'll bow down beside us.
Jesus is a man. Born of a woman. Line of David. Word made into flesh (ie. perfect example of what God wants from man; sinless).Being the very sacrifice God intended to save the world.
But God is not JESUS, and JESUS is not God. They are separate, as far as that Jesus is a man, tempted by flesh, able to be hurt in flesh. Yet they are the same in that He is the example of everything that God speaks to us and instructs us.
Revelation also tells us (and also Paul), that Jesus will in the end bow down before God just like everyone else. The perfect completion.
God is my Lord, Jesus is my saviour, my teacher, my redeemer.
I will worship none but God. I will love Jesus, and learn from Jesus, and realise Jesus' perfection, his sacrifice, His place in God's Kingdom.
But Jesus also came so that we sinners would be saved. And Jesus made Himself last.
Jesus will stand with me and you and all men come the resurrection of us all, and will bring all unto God. And once that happens, He'll bow down beside us.
Last edited:
What happen to the two that you directed our attention towards?
Further, the doxology is in reference to the Son, demonstrating His deity.
'Grace' comes from God, and, as you can clearly see, this is bestowed by Jesus.
Theos and Jesus are not separated with the Greek article like the angels are in this verse.
I have not come across any JW's who paid any attention to the original languages..hence their predicament.
Further, the doxology is in reference to the Son, demonstrating His deity.
'Grace' comes from God, and, as you can clearly see, this is bestowed by Jesus.
Theos and Jesus are not separated with the Greek article like the angels are in this verse.
I have not come across any JW's who paid any attention to the original languages..hence their predicament.