keypurr
Well-known member
https://knowtheonlytruegod.wordpres...y-of-the-christ-before-the-world-was-john-17/
Sent from my iPad using TOL
Sent from my iPad using TOL
Did Christ know He was fully God?
- Thread starter glorydaz
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
Who then is the God that raised Jesus from the dead?
If Jesus is fully God,
then God was dead,
who raised the dead God from the dead?
Yes, it is the God and Father of the lord Jesus Christ that raised him from the dead. You might want to tell your trinitarian buddies that, for they believe that Jesus raised himself from the dead because of a verse they misunderstand.
Although there are over 20 passages that clearly state that God raised Jesus from the dead, they discard those verses and focus only on.
John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
They use that as proof that Jesus is God.
However, I Thessalonians 4:16 states the same about those believers who are dead in Christ at our gathering together unto him.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
The dead in Christ shall rise first it says. It does not say that God or Jesus Christ will raise them, it is clear that the dead in Christ shall rise first.
By using the same logic that trins use in John 2 to "prove" that Jesus is God, that logic then can be used to prove that the dead in Christ of I Thes are God also.
Anyway, God the Son you say.
Please show me the scripture where God uses the term "God the Son" to refer to His son.
Since you nor anyone else can, for there is no such passage in scripture, please be honest and not make up stuff and claim it is scripture.
However, Jesus is referred to as the son of God in about 50 passages.
God, in His word, his logos, his message in written form, does not use the erroneous and inaccurate and false reference of "God the Son" to refer to His son, He uses the accurate term "son of God" to refer to His son.
You might want to adjust your thinking accordingly.
Why not describe Jesus Christ like his God and Father does?
Or are you so arrogant as to suggest that God got it wrong?
Are you so arrogant so as to suggest that God's mastery of language needs your input to correct it?
God does not call His son,"God the Son", why do you?
Why not humble yourself before God instead of exalting your self against God?
Before you claim that "God the Son" and "son of God" mean the same thing, you might want to consider the fact that God chose to call his son the son of God not God the Son and that he might have done that for a reason.
Let's take a similar situation. Does "daughter of Jacob" mean the same thing as "Jacob the daughter"?????
If you are a male, and had a daughter what phrase would you use to refer to her? Daughter of JudgeRightly or JudgeRightly the daughter?
If they mean the same thing, then how can we clearly understand anything in scripture?
Then maybe daughter no longer means daughter and husband no longer means husband and children no longer mean children and lion no longer means lion and truth no longer means truth.
If the three in one God is three and one of them died then you no longer have a triune God, you only have a biune God. Is the biune God still God? No, it couldn't be because it is no longer triune.
Your God is triune, not biune. Thus a biune God is no longer God and as such is incapable of doing what God does.
By the way, you might want to ask yourself why God never describes himself as "triune" or as "trinity"
Is that because He is not smart enough, like evidently trinitarians are, to have a sufficient vocabulary to define himself accurately?
Clearly, you think God's vocabulary is inferior to yours. Well, I am sure that your three Gods appreaciate your help in instructing them in accurate terminology.
Since this reply is getting rather long and I have only touched upon two of your comments I think I will stop here for now.
I may get back to this later
After all I just got started. I have yet to get to the best parts!
Last edited:
beameup
New member
Philippians 2:6
oatmeal
Well-known member
Evidently, you disagree with gd.
After all Philippians 2:6 does not say that Jesus Christ is fully God only that he was in the form of God.
Adam and Eve were in the form of God, after all they were created in the image of God, being in the form of God is no more being God than being in the form of God.
Adam and Eve did not have any problem thinking themselves equal to God. The talked to God and spent time with God naked and unashamedly.
For that matter since Christians have the righteousness of God, II Corinthians 5:21, they are equal to God in that respect. Christianity should have no problem talking with God either, God encourages it. Of course, doing so respectfully is the right approach, but God encourages us to open up to him, to go boldly to the throne of grace.
God expects us, as His children, to go to Him. We go boldly to the throne for we are equal to God in that respect, we do not have to make an appointment to talk to God, He is accessible to us at all times. It is not robbery for us to go to God
Could you reply to my previous post by responding to each of my points as I make them? or at the very least, move your answers in your above post to just below their appropriate questions?
ie,
response
response
etc...
It makes it easier for me to respond, because I know the context of your reply.
keypurr
Well-known member
Does any one see the word "in" in verse 5 or is it just me?
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
IN Christ Jesus, small word, easy to overlook.
Sent from my iPad using TOL
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't know what you're imagining, Keypurr, but that simply means to be likeminded.
Phil. 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
oatmeal
Well-known member
I added the lines that I was responding to.
Since I posted so much based those few lines of yours, I don't think I will reply to more of your opinions.
It is too much work to teach someone who prefers tradition over truth.
However, I find that your mind is blinded to your own errors.
For instance, you contradict yourself, yet you would defend your indefensible postulation
I asked, "who raised the dead God from the dead?"
You replied,
"God the Father.
Jesus said that He, God the Son, would raise Himself from the dead, and He did. God the Father raised God the Son from the dead."
Your "God the Son" was dead. yet you say that he raised himself from the dead, but he was dead.
Then you say God the Father raised him from the dead.
So who raised him? Did God the Son raise himself or did God the Father?
Why does the trinitarian doctrine have no meaning? because the words you use have no meaning.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Jesus Christ was in the form of God
To be in the form of God is not more saying "is God", than being created in the image of God means "is God"
oatmeal
Well-known member
I am to have the mind of Christ.
You claim that Jesus knew he was fully God.
That is what was in Jesus Christ's mind
Jesus therefore must have thought, "I am fully God" in his mind.
So, since you are to have the same mind, which requires the same thoughts, you must likewise think, "I am fully God" Are you fully God?
OR is the passage about service to God, which Jesus Christ as the son of God, a man, excelled at, and we should take him as the perfect example of a man lovingly obeying God regardless of the threats and resistance and dangers.
Jesus Christ the man could redeem us because he perfectly and completely obeyed God, therefore God highly exalted him.
In refusing to know His dual nature, you refuse to know Him.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Ah, so you think Jesus could only think of one thing at a time. I don't know about you, Oats, but, even I can hold many things in my mind at the same time. Jesus, being a human being, was fully functional as a man, while at the same time being fully Divine in His abilities. He continued to accomplish all He had been doing from the beginning while walking this earth among us. Why you insist on trying to limit our Great God is beyond me. :nono:
So you consider Him to be divine?
I think the meaning of Logos is pretty apparent.
John 1:1 New International Version (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 New International Version (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Do you still say He is divine?
keypurr
Well-known member
You realize that I believe that the logos is the spirit son, the express image, I hope. God used his spirit son to do his creations. This son is second only to the Father. This son is God's first creation, firstborn of all creatures. Yes, he is divine, he is a god.
Sent from my iPad using TOL
Do you realize that the Creator is not created, correct?