Jesus is God

[keypurr]

Did you read what you posted? Gill supports 1 John 5:7. You should also include Matthew Henry in your review.

I question all friend. The scriptures have been corrupted for many years so we need to prove all things. he verse itself does not say that they are all God, it says they are one with God. I am also one with God, you can be too.

 

[Caino]

Yes, Jesus is still God and he still has a Father,

 

[Rosenritter]

Yep, there is distinction in the GodHead. FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS GOD.

Here we see Jesus (the Word) was God...not the Father. A fine distinction, but an important one, if you want to stay true to all that is written in Holy Scripture.

Without necessarily agreeing with the model, if one is going to speak in Trinitarian terms, "God" shouldn't be confused with "Father" yet it seems to happen fairly often. When the Old Testament says that God spoke, have you noticed that people instinctively substitute "Father" in their explanations?

 

[God's Truth]

Do you have a verse for that? :think:

I have many. Here are some to consider:

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,

 

[God's Truth]

I do not care if you accept the truth or not. They are three distinct persons.

They are not different they are the same.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your status has no impact on my doctrine: the kingdom of Elohim is within you.

By the way:

The highlighted portion in red is simply wishful thinking as there are Coptic texts which agree more with the Alexandrian type, being that the Alexandrian type appears to either have originated from Egypt or was brought into Egypt very early on, and some of those Coptic texts are some of the oldest manuscripts, (Bodmer Papyri), much older than the Byzantine representatives. And as for the KJV which you have stated elsewhere that you believe to be the most accurate, the Textus Receptus essentially came from the Erasmus junk text which he placed along side his "new Latin version" so as to highlight his new and improved LATIN text which he was trying to sell. His whole point was to slap together a generic faulty Greek text and place it along side his new Latin text so as to show the superiority of his Latin text. And yet nobody wanted anything to do with his Latin text and rather fell in love with his Greek text because it had so many wonderful places that suddenly supported church doctrine out of nowhere. The amazing thing is that the original text which came to be known as the Textus Receptus does not even exist anymore; for even though it came about at the beginning of the age of the printing press, it is claimed that the original was copied and reproduced so many times that it simply vanished into dust particles. Wow, how convenient, no one can actually go look at a so-called Textus Receptus family of texts, from which the KJV eventually came, because the T/R only exists in print and now online. :rotfl:

Someone's been reading the rumors in Wikipedia...

 

[keypurr]

Walk with YHWH and His Son, and you will be one with them.

Amen


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[glorydaz]

Without necessarily agreeing with the model, if one is going to speak in Trinitarian terms, "God" shouldn't be confused with "Father" yet it seems to happen fairly often. When the Old Testament says that God spoke, have you noticed that people instinctively substitute "Father" in their explanations?

Yep....some do it all the time, even though the Scripture doesn't seem to have that problem.

 

[keypurr]

The problem with Christendom is that you've attributed divine authority to writings that weren't recognized as such by the Messiah or His 12 apostles. That's why you're all so confused about what YHWH, the God of Israel, requires of you. There is no divine edict or demand, for you to accurately define God's infinite essence or to speculate about His nature, or of His Son's. What they require is your allegiance and obedience, to their instructions. God's law. That's it.

All of this speculation about Messiah's nature and how He is supposedly co-equal and co-eternal with His Father, won't save you from anhiliation or grant you the previledge of living into the next age/aeon. If Jesus is God, or not God, that won't make a difference, if you don't live for Him.

Good post, how true. Without love they are as clanging symbols.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Rosenritter]

The answer.

Do you not claim that Jesus was a man? and that he is also YHWH Elohim Almighty who became the man Jesus? Since I'm pretty sure I have seen you saying such things perhaps you should explain my error or assumption if I am incorrect about your stance. And if I am incorrect I do apologize. However, if you say that Jesus was/is a man, and YHWH Elohim Almighty became a man, (Jesus), then again, the two passages I quoted utterly refute your doctrine.

You are making an error by ignoring the intended context. I understand that you think you are on a holy Crusade to destroy the Trinity and thus the ends justifies the means, but look at the gospel book that you used for support for a moment, please:

John 1:14 KJV
(14) And the Word was made flesh, 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 1:18 KJV
(18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:13 KJV
(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.

John 17:5 KJV
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

When you attempt to isolate one tiny portion by itself it is the equivalent of being unable to see the forest because of the twig you've stuck in your eye. All of those components weave together.

The Word was God.
The Word was made flesh (a man).
No man hath seen God at any time obviously excludes He who was God that John calls the Word. One sees themselves for free.

[satire]
You sneak into the room. Your companion asks you, "Were you followed? Did anyone see you?" "No," you reply, "no one saw me!" "LIAR" your friend exclaims. "You saw yourself, you are obviously lying!"

When Jesus is already defined as In the beginning, with God, and was God, then OF COURSE he counts as having seen God!
[/satire]

No man has ascended to heaven, we are told, but this obviously excludes Jesus.
Jesus says not only did he come down from heaven, but that he was currently in heaven.
Jesus confirms in John 17 that he existed before the worlds, with the same glory as He whom He introduced as the Father.

If you attempt to take one isolated portion and bend it around to contradict the intended meaning of all the other portions that might be called "wresting scripture to your own destruction."

So was Jesus a man? It depends on the sense of the word meant by the question.

If you mean "Was he born of woman in the form of a man two thousand years ago" the answer is yes.
If you mean "Was Jesus exclusively a man, not the Word made flesh who was with God and was God" then the answer is no.
If you mean "Was Jesus just a man" to the effect described above, then the answer is still no.

I am sure that you know well that the meaning of a word is oft contingent on the context. When John says "No man has seen God at any time" Jesus is not a man within that context. Jesus existed far before he came as a man, his natural glorious form is not that of a man.

 

[Rosenritter]

The bible says that it would be tampered with. A true Christian seeks the truth. The answer is easy, just separate the Paganism from Judaism, and then you will have the true word of God.

I'm fairly certain that the Bible says that it will not pass away and be preserved.

Matthew 5:18 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Rosenritter]

I proved that it is questionable.

The verse does not say that they are all God. It says they are one, I am one with God also, you can be too.

[MENTION=3801]keypurr[/MENTION], I am quite familiar with this particular tiny topic, and there are some pure fabricated lies being circulated on the side of the "against 1 John 5:7" side. Lies which sometimes have been officially retracted but continue to be repeated by people who have read them off the internet. The presence of a spin does not mean that the spin has legitimacy.

 

[Rosenritter]

It does not say Jesus is God, or even the express spirit image is God. Keep in mind also God created all through his first creation, Christ. That would mean time also. Open your mind to what may be friend as God has no boundries.

So I take it that you aren't aware of any passage that defines the Son of God as necessarily a distinct different individual cannot-be God? Because that's what you've been using as the basis for all your responses that I've seen so far.

 

[KingdomRose]

So I take it that you aren't aware of any passage that defines the Son of God as necessarily a distinct different individual cannot-be God? Because that's what you've been using as the basis for all your responses that I've seen so far.

Your question is screwed up. I can't make out your point from reading and re-reading it. If you are trying to say that two distinctly different individuals can both be God, you are defying thousands of passages of Scripture. I don't know how people here can give you any credibility at all.

Keypurr is correct if he is saying that Jesus and God are two distinctly different individuals, and only one can be God. Jesus said CLEARLY who that God is (John 17:3) and so did other Bible writers (MANY other Bible writers).

"...There is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, THE FATHER, from whom are all things..." (I Corinthians 8:4b-6, NASB)

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus says that he himself will live in the saved. The scriptures also say that Jesus is Spirit. So since there is only one Spirit, how can we say there are three different Spirits?

Do you have a verse for that? :think:

I have many. Here are some to consider:

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,

I get your point, but I don't see any of those verses saying "Jesus is Spirit". You can possibly infer that from those verses, but they don't say it, right?

And, yes, the ONE Spirit Paul speaks of is the Holy Spirit. So, when Christ dwells in us, it's through the Holy Spirit, and when God dwells in us, it's through the Holy Spirit. The Father dwells in the Son and the Son dwells in the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from them to dwell in us.

If we were to say Jesus is Spirit or spirit, it could not be after He took on flesh, because spirits don't have flesh and blood. And it could not be after He was resurrected, because He was raised with a spiritual body.

At least that's how I see it. It's a worthy discussion....unlike some of the others we've been having on this thread. :chuckle:


PS...I expect context could tell us a lot. We see here the Father granting, His Spirit strengthening, and Christ dwelling in our hearts. Looks like ONE SPIRIT. :think:

Eph. 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,​

Eph. 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,​

 

[RealityJerk]

The heavenly Father, is "true God". The non-contingent deity and absolute source of all, including His Son. "True" in the sense of source or origin. The true tabernacle is in heaven, the earthly one is an image of the original, "true" tabernacle. Being an image or copy, doesn't imply that the image is false or illegitimate. The earthly tabernacle, temple, was completely legitimate and holy. But it wasn't the "true" tabernacle or source. The heavenly Father, is the eternal, absolute, non-contingent source and that makes Him, unique and superior in the hierarchy of being or life. Ontologically, the heavenly Father is unique and above all, existence, including the Son.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Eternal Subordination of the Son Errors

Eternal Subordination of the Son Errors

Ontologically, the heavenly Father is unique and above all, existence, including the Son.

No.

The quoted statement above is the error of those claiming the eternal subordination of the Son. For some background, see:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/


These are the proper understandings:

(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;

(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;

(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;

(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;

(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;

(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;

(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;

(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;

(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;

(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the maranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;

(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and

(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.

AMR

 

[RealityJerk]

No.

The quoted statement above is the error of those claiming the eternal subordination of the Son. For some background, see:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/


These are the proper understandings:

(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;

(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;

(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the

timeofthe Son's earthly ministry;

(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;

(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;

(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;

(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;

(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordinationproponentthatthe Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;

(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;

(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, suchasthemaranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;

(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and

(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.

AMR

Reason as you may. YHWH the Alohim of Israel, isn't a trinity of co-equal, co-eternal entities or "persons". Yeshua the Messiah, will deliver the Kingdom to His Father, where it belongs, after this age is over. In this age, the Messiah has complete authority, given to Him by His Father, who is the true Alohim or infinite, non-contingent reality. Christian Trinitarianism has no support in the Hebrew scriptures or the gospel of Messiah.

Torah and Messiah's interpretation or teaching of it, is the only authority. The 12 apostles, were given authority to teach Messiah's gospel, not anyone else. Sheol/Paul, isn't one of the 12, so citing his letters, doesn't prove anything. Yeshua came for His people, the remnant of Israel. All who reject Torah, have no light in them:

Isa 8:20* To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.*

The Torah or divine law, divine instruction, personally handed to Moses on Mount Horeb, by the angel of the covenant / Messiah before his incarnation, that law will be kept by every genuine disciple of Messiah / every Israelite disciple of Messiah must keep His commandments. He is our shepherd, if you want to follow the fallen shepherds or Nephilim, go right ahead. All of your lawless, antisemitic, mystical, pagan gobbledygook, isn't going to alter, much less nullify YHWH's law. And it sure won't save you from annihilation. If you are truly a disciple of Messiah, then you must align yourself with YHWH's will, and His will is His Torah. There's no Trinity, much less any divine requirement for "Trinity belief" in Torah. That's an arbitrary, gentile imposition, demand, upon the children of Israel.


Rev_12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev_22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Do his mitzvoth/commandments. Those that do it. Walk The Way / Ha Derech. The called out, from the nations. The Qahal. Not the "Church" / Circus, but Israel restored. Those who will reign over the nations, as members of Messiah's royal family. Those who seek the Kingdom first, and its righteousness, empowered by their God given faith/emuna/faithfulness. Not playing cards below deck, but lifting the sails of the ship, for YHWH to fill them with His Eternal Spirit & Power. So you can remain asleep on the hammock, thinking you're "saved" and in the promised land, but you're actually in the wilderness. To cross the Jordan, you must WALK, and follow Joshua/Yeshua. You must fight.

Our rest is not here, in this age, it is in the age to come. No carpeted fox holes here. The trenches are dirty and cold. This is a battlefield, and you're right smack in the center of it. This life is a spiritual battle, for your very existence. There's no rest here, just a long march to Zion. Speculate all you want about YHWH's essence, none of that is going to help you when you're dead. What did you do? That's all, not your presumptuous speculations and descriptions of YHWH's infinite nature. All of your mystical claptrap creeds and confessions amount to nothing.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Christian Trinitarianism has no support in the Hebrew scriptures or the gospel of Messiah.

Never mind. [FONT=&quot]I have failed to do my own homework about your views before engaging you at any level. Fool me once, shame on me. Sigh. I do not make it a practice to discuss Scripture with those that deny the Triune Godhead. By denying the Trinity, these persons have prima facie demonstrated an inability to properly interpret Scripture. Such is the problem with all non-believers.[/FONT]

HRM.

Sigh.

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

No, the mediator must be God. God is in a position to reach down to man. Man is not in a position to reach up to God. God can become a man, but man cannot become God. It is within the power of God and his right and perogative to become man, it is blasphemous and outside the power of a man to become God.

God raised up a man in his own image (Gods Son)and declarded Him to be God of the new creation.

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.