Jesus is God

[CHR_Iam_IST]

God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not different and separate from each other.

Tell me how they are different and separate?

THE SON physically died for our sins, THE FATHER didn't;
THE SON physically dwelt with us, THE FATHER didn't;
THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT impregnated Mary, JESUS CHRIST THE SON didn't;
THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT didn't come to indwell us until after JESUS CHRIST THE SON had ascended back into heaven...

If you want scripture to anything I said, just ask. Now please tell me how God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are different.

Not necessary, as you obviously don't understand what you read . . . especially since you don't know the difference between "God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

 

[Pierac]

Guess JESUS HIMSELF got it wrong too huh??? MayBE HE should consult with you and Brucey, huh???

It is written, "Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of THE FATHER, and of THE SON, and of THE HOLY SPIRIT: (Matthew 28:19 KJ2000)"

BTW, If you're here to rant, as you have, I'm certainly not impressed!

You will be...! but now to Matthew 28:19...

In a few seconds you will see how preposterous your statement really is. This verse has absolutely nothing Trinitarian about it. It is about Jesus sending them out to proclaim the gospel to the nations. First, a few definitions according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

Baptize - The phrase in Matthew 28: 19, "baptizing them into the name" would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one into whose name he was "baptized."

Name - Represents the authority, character. Expressing attributes. In acknowledgment or confession of.

This verse has nothing to do with water baptizing. With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles went out into the Gentile world and brought them the knowledge of who the only God is, who the Messiah is, and about the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they were going to receive. But as you can see, this has nothing to do with the three being one. Human tradition has made this a Trinitarian verse.

There is also a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" rather than the form which now appears in the gospel. One commentator writes, "There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).

This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this trine formula, and the Gospel of Mark is believed to be written before Matthew. 2 Corinthians 13: 13 or 14 depending on the translation states:

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
The New American Bible says of this verse,
"This final verse is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament." If this is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages, imagine what the others must be like. Just because you mention God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the same sentence does not make them the same being. In Luke 9: 28 it says:
"About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray."
If we hold to the same logic that is being applied to 2 Corinthians 13: 13, then Jesus, Peter, John, and James are the same being.

This is the extent of this argument. What this verse means is exactly what it says, that the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit is how God communicates and relates to us. Even if you say that they are three distinct persons, it still does not imply that they are the same being. Look at it objectively and not the way your human tradition dictates it must be looked at. The other few verses that are used for the same purpose are identical in structure. All they do is mention God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same paragraph. Puzzling? Yes. Biblical? No.

In the end, it really boils down to, who are we supposed to believe, Jesus and the Apostles, or the men of the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople? For me the choice is an easy one. The Bible is very clear about what it thinks of the doctrines of men you promote. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts, you disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition" (Mark 7:7-8).

Try harder
oly::sherlock:
Paul

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Answer me this if you will please:

Do you think Jesus Christ has a God?

How many Gods do you have?

Keypurr, to continue answering your question is tantamount to beating a dead horse.
My position, since my return here, has been crystal clear. You want an answer, go back and re-read what I've already stated. You're sure to find the answer to your quest there.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

You will be...! but now to Matthew 28:19...

In a few seconds you will see how preposterous your statement really is. This verse has absolutely nothing Trinitarian about it. It is about Jesus sending them out to proclaim the gospel to the nations. First, a few definitions according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

Baptize - The phrase in Matthew 28: 19, "baptizing them into the name" would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one into whose name he was "baptized."

Name - Represents the authority, character. Expressing attributes. In acknowledgment or confession of.

This verse has nothing to do with water baptizing. With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles went out into the Gentile world and brought them the knowledge of who the only God is, who the Messiah is, and about the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they were going to receive. But as you can see, this has nothing to do with the three being one. Human tradition has made this a Trinitarian verse.

There is also a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" rather than the form which now appears in the gospel. One commentator writes, "There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).

This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this trine formula, and the Gospel of Mark is believed to be written before Matthew. 2 Corinthians 13: 13 or 14 depending on the translation states:

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
The New American Bible says of this verse,
"This final verse is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament." If this is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages, imagine what the others must be like. Just because you mention God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the same sentence does not make them the same being. In Luke 9: 28 it says:
"About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray."
If we hold to the same logic that is being applied to 2 Corinthians 13: 13, then Jesus, Peter, John, and James are the same being.

This is the extent of this argument. What this verse means is exactly what it says, that the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit is how God communicates and relates to us. Even if you say that they are three distinct persons, it still does not imply that they are the same being. Look at it objectively and not the way your human tradition dictates it must be looked at. The other few verses that are used for the same purpose are identical in structure. All they do is mention God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same paragraph. Puzzling? Yes. Biblical? No.

In the end, it really boils down to, who are we supposed to believe, Jesus and the Apostles, or the men of the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople? For me the choice is an easy one. The Bible is very clear about what it thinks of the doctrines of men you promote. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts, you disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition" (Mark 7:7-8).

Try harder
oly::sherlock:
Paul

All of that gobbledygook and you still miss the obvious! Why don't you try reading Scripture as it is written, and stop basing your theology on dead folks.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, "Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:",
Grammatically, it is impossible to be "baptizing" someone "in the name", SINGULAR, of 3 PERSONS . . . unless . . . THOSE 3 PERSONS IS 1 GOD!!!

Like I said, may JESUS should have consulted with you and Brucey!

 

[daqq]

Did you come in on the butt end of the conversation, or are you just trying to impress me by restating what I'd already stated ("GOD would be HIS OWN PRIEST, for the very same reason that when HE swore to Abraham," . . because HE could swear by no greater, HE swore by HIMSELF - Hebrews 6:13 KJ2000")?

GOD THE FATHER IS GOD;
THE WORD of GOD (JESUS CHRIST) IS as much GOD as GOD THE FATHER IS GOD;
THE POWER of GOD (THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT) IS as much GOD as GOD THE FATHER IS GOD.

JESUS CHRIST IS as much GOD as GOD IS GOD; here's how, as it is written:

"In the beginning was THE WORD (of GOD), and THE WORD (of GOD) was with GOD, and THE WORD (of GOD) was GOD.

THE SAME (WORD of GOD) was in the beginning with GOD.

All things were made by HIM (THE WORD of GOD); and without HIM (THE WORD of GOD) was not any thing made that was made.

In HIM (THE WORD of GOD) was LIFE; and THE LIFE was THE LIGHT of men.

And THE WORD (of GOD) was made flesh (JESUS CHRIST), and dwelt among us, (and we beheld HIS glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN of THE FATHER,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-14 KJ2000)"

THE FATHER IS GOD = 1 PERSON;
THE WORD of GOD (JESUS CHRIST) IS GOD = 1 PERSON;
THE POWER of GOD (THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT) IS GOD = 1 PERSON

It is written, "For there are THREE (PERSONS) that bear witness in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE HOLY SPIRIT: and THESE THREE ARE ONE (GOD). (1 John 5:7 KJ2000)"

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Mediatorship has been something keypurr and I have been lightly discussing here and there recently and I was already posting in this thread before you came along. So, no, that was not coming in on the "butt end" of your conversation, nor was it butting in at the end of your conversation, (which clearly by your present exhibition of force will not be ending anytime soon anyways) and even if it was you posted what you did and I responded to your post. Your fancy and imaginative idea that "God is his own mediator" is anti-Scripture because there are plenty of passages which explain to us who and what a mediator is and what a mediator does. You subvert the entire reasoning for any priesthood to begin with: even Moses, the first Elohim-MelkiTzedek Kohen Gadol under Torah, stood between YHWH and the sons of Yisrael, (Deuteronomy 5:5) because that is what a mediator does: stand in the GAP between YHWH and man.

John 5:23 I think you may need to read the book of John several times. You are incorrect here and shouldn't be trying to correct another where your own fault lies. Your "tsk tsk" certainly reads as arrogant, which I don't believe you have room for, being incorrect and all.

Don't know you. Do know you are wrong.

-Lon

What is arrogant to one is merely chiding to another. It is the arrogant who see the most arrogance in others they have never spoken with before. Don't know you either but have no doubt you plan to make yourself known. :crackup:

 

[daqq]

You will be...! but now to Matthew 28:19...

In a few seconds you will see how preposterous your statement really is. This verse has absolutely nothing Trinitarian about it. It is about Jesus sending them out to proclaim the gospel to the nations. First, a few definitions according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

Baptize - The phrase in Matthew 28: 19, "baptizing them into the name" would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one into whose name he was "baptized."

Name - Represents the authority, character. Expressing attributes. In acknowledgment or confession of.

This verse has nothing to do with water baptizing. With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Hi Pierac,

I already agree with the other things you posted but wanted to highlight the portion of your post which I have quoted because it is so critically important and true. The name of the Father truly denotes authority, character, quality, and attributes, just as does any name, (as opposed to the simple spelling of a name). This indeed means that for modern mainstream Christianity to accept Matthew 28:19 as valid, (which as you suggest is proven false anyway by the testimony of the apostles and apostolic writers in their writings) and to hold the Matthew statement in uprightness and truly honor what it means, they cannot then be teaching that the Torah is "abolished" or "done away with" because they are eliminating the very Name of the Father that they claim they are supposedly immersed into. They are become no different from the heretic Marcion with the only exception being that the scissors they use to cut out what they do not wish to believe are invisible scissors of a theological nature. To be immersed into the name of the Father has the specific supernal meaning of becoming immersed into all of Torah, Prophets, and Writings, (all of Tanakh). In such an analogy "the name of the Son" would obviously be, at the very least, all of the Testimony of Yeshua found in the Gospel accounts. Yet even this most are not willing to immerse themselves into and rather choose Paul who plainly tells us all that we are not immersed into the name of Paul. :crackup:

 

[God's Truth]

Mediatorship has been something keypurr and I have been lightly discussing here and there recently and I was already posting in this thread before you came along. So, no, that was not coming in on the "butt end" of your conversation, nor was it butting in at the end of your conversation, (which clearly by your present exhibition of force will not be ending anytime soon anyways) and even if it was you posted what you did and I responded to your post. Your fancy and imaginative idea that "God is his own mediator" is anti-Scripture because there are plenty of passages which explain to us who and what a mediator is and what a mediator does. You subvert the entire reasoning for any priesthood to begin with: even Moses, the first Elohim-MelkiTzedek Kohen Gadol under Torah, stood between YHWH and the sons of Yisrael, (Deuteronomy 5:5) because that is what a mediator does: stand in the GAP between YHWH and man.



What is arrogant to one is merely chiding to another. It is the arrogant who see the most arrogance in others they have never spoken with before. Don't know you either but have no doubt you plan to make yourself known. :crackup:

It is not called "butting in"; it is called public debate open to all. And, I have been posting in this thread since August 25th, 2014.

 

[God's Truth]

THE SON physically died for our sins, THE FATHER didn't;

Jesus is the Father come in the flesh.

THE SON physically dwelt with us, THE FATHER didn't;

You really are lost. Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").

THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT impregnated Mary, JESUS CHRIST THE SON didn't;

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.

THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT didn't come to indwell us until after JESUS CHRIST THE SON had ascended back into heaven...

And you think that disproves anything how?

Not necessary, as you obviously don't understand what you read . . . especially since you don't know the difference between "God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Funny how when someone cannot defend their false doctrines with truth, they result to insults.

 

[daqq]

It is not called "butting in"; it is called public debate open to all. And, I have been posting in this thread since August 25th, 2014.

Why do you suppose I responded to "CHR_Iam_IST" the way I did? My response was not to you concerning those statements you have quoted because you did not accuse me of butting in, or as the other poster put it, (which appears to mean something slightly different but I tried to cover all the bases when I responded to it) "Did you come in on the butt end of the conversation"? Funny how I also got accused of being arrogant at the same time by someone else for simply saying "Tisk, tisk" while the name of this poster is "CHR_Iam_IST"! :crackup:

EDIT: I went back and now I see a quote from you in that post which I did not even respond to. Not sure what I did to get that but I will go back and remove it. However, as you can see by the statements made, I was responding to "CHR_Iam_IST" in that portion of the reply.

:sheep:

 

[God's Truth]

Why do you suppose I responded to "CHR_Iam_IST" the way I did? My response was not to you concerning those statements you have quoted because you did not accuse me of butting in, or as the other poster put it, (which appears to mean something slightly different but I tried to cover all the bases when I responded to it) "Did you come in on the butt end of the conversation"? Funny how I also got accused of being arrogant at the same time by someone else for simply saying "Tisk, tisk" while the name of this poster is "CHR_Iam_IST"! :crackup:

Y'all really are too much for yourselves to handle: each one a duo too much.

:sheep:

You are the one who put a quote in of mine after putting CHR Iam IST"s post about butting in.

I think you are a troubled person.

 

[daqq]

You are the one who put a quote in of mine after putting CHR Iam IST"s post about butting in.

I think you are a troubled person.

Well I suppose that is what I get for trying to be nice. Did you see my edit in the above post? Disregard it now. May as well leave it the way it is because everything is now self explanatory. And, no, that response was not written to you no matter how much you wish it was just so you can imagine yourself being persecuted without cause. If you had read what the other poster said to me, which I responded to, you would not have thought what you did.

 

[God's Truth]

Well I suppose that is what I get for trying to be nice. Did you see my edit in the above post? Disregard it now. May as well leave it the way it is because everything is now self explanatory. And, no, that response was not written to you no matter how much you wish it was just so you can imagine yourself being persecuted without cause. If you had read what the other poster said to me, which I responded to, you would not have thought what you did.

Instead of you admitting that you caused the confusion by doing something wrong, you act as if I did something wrong.

 

[Pierac]

All of that gobbledygook and you still miss the obvious! Why don't you try reading Scripture as it is written, and stop basing your theology on dead folks.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, "Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:",
Grammatically, it is impossible to be "baptizing" someone "in the name", SINGULAR, of 3 PERSONS . . . unless . . . THOSE 3 PERSONS IS 1 GOD!!!

Like I said, may JESUS should have consulted with you and Brucey!

Again the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ." :readthis:

Perhaps it is you who still miss the obvious! :cigar:

It's fun doing this to you in public. :maxi:
Try Harder!
oly::sherlock:
Paul

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Again the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ." :readthis:

Perhaps it is you who still miss the obvious! :cigar:

It's fun doing this to you in public. :maxi:
Try Harder!
oly::sherlock:
Paul

Now you're just being downright FOOLISH!!! Your reaction(s) belie your ability to properly respond.

If I recall correctly, I was addressing your erroneous assertion that there is no 'Trinity' teaching in Scripture . . . not whether the Disciples/Apostles baptized, in your opinion, as JESUS commanded.

I see now that, when you're made to look like an idiot, you resort to, true to your nature, all kinds, and manner, of the foolishness of a fool, that has absolutely nothing to do with, nor facilitate, the topic(s) being discussed!

Ergo, be advised, I never argue with a fool . . . because even the smartest spectators won't know who's who!!!

Now then, you have my permission to have the last word!

 

[StanJ]

Answer me this if you will please:
Do you think Jesus Christ has a God?
How many Gods do you have?

The same answer as Jesus IS God keypurr. Yes.

 

[Bright Raven]

Again the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ." :readthis:

Perhaps it is you who still miss the obvious! :cigar:

It's fun doing this to you in public. :maxi:
Try Harder!
oly::sherlock:
Paul

So what? In my church people are baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Just because the Apostles baptized in the Name of Jesus does not mean that they they did not baptized in the Name of the Father and the Holy Spirit. I can't agree with you that the Apostles would flagrantly disobey the command of the great commission.

 

[StanJ]

Again the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as you say Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."
Try Harder!
Paul

Read John 21:25 Paul. Not everything Jesus DID was recorded.

Water baptism was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit was in Jesus' name.

It would seem, YOU don't TRY at all, but just spew out your false teachings?

 

[Pierac]

So what? In my church people are baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Just because the Apostles baptized in the Name of Jesus does not mean that they they did not baptized in the Name of the Father and the Holy Spirit. I can't agree with you that the Apostles would flagrantly disobey the command of the great commission.

But in your Church you assume they did with no biblical scripture to back it up... :readthis:

So where did your church get this idea to do so? From scripture added by men... which is well documented by the Trinitarians I quoted? :think:

Pay attention.... I never said the Apostles would flagrantly disobey the command of the great commission... I said they never received one!!! Thus they baptized in the name of Jesus just like scripture teaches! Don't hate me for pointing out the truth! :readthis:

"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts, you disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition" (Mark 7:7-8).

oly::sherlock:
Paul

 

[Pierac]

Read John 21:25 Paul. Not everything Jesus DID was recorded.

Water baptism was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit was in Jesus' name.

It would seem, YOU don't TRY at all, but just spew out your false teachings?

Show me.... I showed you verses added by men... well documented by trinitarians like you... If you were correct... why did men like you feel the need to add to scripture to make their belief seem true?

Jesus is talking to you here.... "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts, you disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition" (Mark 7:7-8).

oly::sherlock:
Paul

 

[StanJ]

Show me.... I showed you verses added by men... well documented by trinitarians like you... If you were correct... why did men like you feel the need to add to scripture to make their belief seem true?
Paul

You showed me where, what post #? It's hard to tell with all the colour you use to shout at people.