Jesus is God

[God's Truth]

Never mind. [FONT="]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 [I]prima facie[/I] demonstrated an inability to properly interpret Scripture. Such is the problem with all non-believers.[/FONT]
[URL="https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/a-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-hebrew-roots-movement/"]
HRM[/URL].

Sigh.

AMR

You can't defend yourself that is why.

 

[God's Truth]

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?

Jesus does reveal things to those whom he chooses to reveal them. What I mean by that is that some things have to be revealed...like Jesus is God, and or Jesus is love.

However, the scriptures plainly say the Spirit of Jesus.
The scriptures also plainly tell us the Lord is the Spirit.
One would have to claim that Jesus is not the Lord in order to say Jesus is not the Spirit. Or, people would have to presume the scriptures are saying the Spirit of Christ is always the other one of the trinity, instead of the one.

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.

The important thing to distinguish is that Jesus says he himself will live in us, and not by some proxy, or in other words, not by some other Spirit.

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.

All humans are flesh and have their own spirit living inside of them.

And it could not be after He was resurrected, because He was raised with a spiritual body.

Again, having a physical body does not mean you do not have a spirit inside you, for without that spirit inside you, your body is dead.

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:

Thanks, glory. I love talking about this, and, the important thing to me to say right now is that I am not saying someone is not saved because they do not have my beliefs, or if they do not see it as I do then they are not saved. I know I call them false doctrines, but I too have had false doctrines after I was saved. I believed in nowadays tongue speaking a while after being saved.

I am not here to condemn anyone. I just want to talk about God and if I could tell someone something that they did not understand before, then I feel that I have brought someone even closer to Jesus and shared with them something that gives them understanding. Satan likes to confuse people. So speaking of things of God to where it is understandable makes me feel like I am an enemy of Satan.

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,​

I do understand why you say there are three Persons and one Spirit; however, I hope that you can see, or understand me that I believe, from the scriptures, there is no way I could believe like that since Jesus says that he himself will live in the saved, and because scriptures say he is the Spirit, and scriptures say there is only one Spirit.

I don't want to come off as disrespectful to you, and I know how hard it is to have someone go against what you believe. I value your friendship and know that having different beliefs could put an end to it, but I also know it doesn't have to be that way, though hard at times.

 

[daqq]

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

Erasmus the confessed humanist boasted those things himself.

 

[Rosenritter]

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)

The term "God" is not a person, it's a title, a position, a role. The question is not "is there one God" but "who is that God?"

God and Jesus are not exclusive, any more than President and and Jefferson.

 

[Rosenritter]

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.

You forgot the other passages that said he was God and Creator of the Old Creation as well.

 

[Rosenritter]

Erasmus the confessed humanist boasted those things himself.

You do realize that "humanist" as used in times past doesn't mean what "humanist" means now days, right? Why would you speak deceptively? Aside from that, your diatribe wasn't trustworthy, being suspiciously flawed in the general sense as well as in specifics. If you have anything of substance, that is relevant, bring it and be prepared to answer and substantiate your claim.

 

[daqq]

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.

It is all meaningless and nothing more than THE LETTER, which kills if you do not have the LOGOS-REASONING-WISDOM OF ELOHIM which is within the letter, runs through the letter, and employs the letter to expound and declare the Father. Those statements I quoted are indeed within those contexts but my reasoning comes from the fact that they are clear emphatic statements which therefore stand alone. One can quote proof texts all day long but without the Logos-Reason-Wisdom of Elohim it is nothing more than the letter which kills; and what Paul says about the letter killing is not just true of the Torah, but all holy and spiritual writings, and no doubt that likewise includes his own writings which are crafty and full of the Wisdom of Elohim, (and anyone who does not have the Logos-Reasoning of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts will end up twisting the words of Paul to their own detriment). Adding more proof texts, as you have done above herein, only accomplishes for you the confusion you need so as to bury and ignore those clear emphatic statements. The answer, as I suggested, is right in front of you: Elohim is not a man, and neither is His Logos-Reasoning-Wisdom-Word, and "all flesh is not the same flesh" as even Paul tells you. From the moment Moses began to write, the Word of the Father became flesh, (μεμβρανας, lambskins, sheepskins), and indeed tabernacled among us in the great congregation: and we have beheld his glory, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched: the Word of Life. But that which we have seen with our eyes and touched with our hands must necessarily contain the letter so as to bring forth the Wisdom and Spirit of Life. Elohim is not a man. No one has seen or beheld Elohim at any time.

 

[daqq]

You do realize that "humanist" as used in times past doesn't mean what "humanist" means now days, right? Why would you speak deceptively? Aside from that, your diatribe wasn't trustworthy, being suspiciously flawed in the general sense as well as in specifics. If you have anything of substance, that is relevant, bring it and be prepared to answer and substantiate your claim.

I see it is a waste of time discussing anything more with you because you are only here to defend your dogma king, make accusations to hide your error, and really care nothing about what really matters: finding, coming to understand, and knowing the truth.

 

[Rosenritter]

It is all meaningless and nothing more than THE LETTER, which kills if you do not have the LOGOS-REASONING-WISDOM OF ELOHIM which is within the letter, runs through the letter, and employs the letter to expound and declare the Father. Those statements I quoted are indeed within those contexts but my reasoning comes from the fact that they are clear emphatic statements which therefore stand alone. One can quote proof texts all day long but without the Logos-Reason-Wisdom of Elohim it is nothing more than the letter which kills; and what Paul says about the letter killing is not just true of the Torah, but all holy and spiritual writings, and no doubt that likewise includes his own writings which are crafty and full of the Wisdom of Elohim, (and anyone who does not have the Logos-Reasoning of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts will end up twisting the words of Paul to their own detriment). Adding more proof texts, as you have done above herein, only accomplishes for you the confusion you need so as to bury and ignore those clear emphatic statements. The answer, as I suggested, is right in front of you: Elohim is not a man, and neither is His Logos-Reasoning-Wisdom-Word, and "all flesh is not the same flesh" as even Paul tells you. From the moment Moses began to write, the Word of the Father became flesh, (μεμβρανας, lambskins, sheepskins), and indeed tabernacled among us in the great congregation: and we have beheld his glory, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched: the Word of Life. But that which we have seen with our eyes and touched with our hands must necessarily contain the letter so as to bring forth the Wisdom and Spirit of Life. Elohim is not a man. No one has seen or beheld Elohim at any time.

[sarcasm] Not even God has seen God ! [/scarcasm]

 

[God's Truth]

The term "God" is not a person, it's a title, a position, a role. The question is not "is there one God" but "who is that God?"

God and Jesus are not exclusive, any more than President and and Jefferson.

What? Of course they are.

 

[daqq]

You do realize that "humanist" as used in times past doesn't mean what "humanist" means now days, right? Why would you speak deceptively? Aside from that, your diatribe wasn't trustworthy, being suspiciously flawed in the general sense as well as in specifics. If you have anything of substance, that is relevant, bring it and be prepared to answer and substantiate your claim.

Moreover, I did not offer any opinion of what "humanist" meant, whether in today's terminology, or in the era in which it was used concerning people such as Erasmus. That is rather your hypocritical projection of yourself onto me; for I have seen other places where you call out people by other names, such as Gnostic, without giving the old-school definition of the term even though it clearly does not mean the same today as what it meant in the era in which it originated. People generally use terms like Gnostic in today's lingo not really even knowing what a true Gnostic was in the old days, such as Marcion the heretic DUALIST who said that the "God of the Old Testament" was evil. You are simply trying to slay the messenger because the message quoted from the scripture refutes your dogma king which you must protect any way you can.

 

[RealityJerk]

Never mind. [FONT="]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 [I]prima facie[/I] demonstrated an inability to properly interpret Scripture. Such is the problem with all non-believers.[/FONT]
[URL="https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/a-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-hebrew-roots-movement/"]
HRM[/URL].

Sigh.

AMR

The real reason why you won't debate me on the issue, is because you know you can't reasonably, defend your position. "Sigh".

 

[God's Truth]

The real reason why you won't debate me on the issue, is because you know you can't reasonably, defend your position. "Sigh".

That is true.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Never mind. [FONT="]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 [I]prima facie[/I] demonstrated an inability to properly interpret Scripture. Such is the problem with all non-believers.[/FONT]
[URL="https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/a-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-hebrew-roots-movement/"]
HRM[/URL].

Sigh.

AMR

Agree.

Thanks for the HRM info.

Hopefully people will take a look and read comments section, too.

 

[Rosenritter]

Moreover, I did not offer any opinion of what "humanist" meant, whether in today's terminology, or in the era in which it was used concerning people such as Erasmus. That is rather your hypocritical projection of yourself onto me; for I have seen other places where you call out people by other names, such as Gnostic, without giving the old-school definition of the term even though it clearly does not mean the same today as what it meant in the era in which it originated. People generally use terms like Gnostic in today's lingo not really even knowing what a true Gnostic was in the old days, such as Marcion the heretic DUALIST who said that the "God of the Old Testament" was evil. You are simply trying to slay the messenger because the message quoted from the scripture refutes your dogma king which you must protect any way you can.

I'm still looking for if you have something relevant. I just sense fighting aura.

 

[RealityJerk]

2Ki_2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.

2Ki_2:15* And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

Luk_1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.


Elisha, asked Elijah, to give him a portion of his spirit. A few verses later, we are told that the spirit of Elijah, rested on Elisha. In the gospel of Luke, we are told that John The Baptist, came in the spirit and power of Elijah. So following the line of reasoning, that I'm encountering on this thread, just a few posts above this one, Elijah is a member of your divine trinity. Did the prophet Elisha, receive the spirit of another prophet? Did he become possessed by the ghost of Elijah? Did John The Baptist, have the spirit and power of another human being? The problem with so called "Christians", is that they read scripture through a modern, western, Christian lens. They fail to factor in, certain biblical, Hebraic concepts. They don't read the scriptures, with a Hebrew understanding, hence they jump to outlandish, skewed conclusions.

The same anointing, divine authority and power that was given to Elijah, was granted to Elisha. Those who are disciples of the Messiah, receive the anointing, the power, that worked through Him. In other words, they live in the spirit and power of Messiah. That doesn't imply that Messiah and YHWH, the heavenly Father, are ontologically, in essence, exactly the same. If that were so, based on the term "Spirit Of Christ", "Spirit Of Messiah", then Elijah is likewise YHWH. And we all know that's not the case.

 

[daqq]

I'm still looking for if you have something relevant. I just sense fighting aura.

Uh, you are the one making accusations. That is your fighting aura, and as I said, it is you projecting yourself onto me, (and no doubt anyone else who can show your errors by way of the scripture). Anyone else who desires to know what we are talking about when it comes to Erasmus being a humanist can find such information plentifully online. You can squeel and poke fun about this being from wikipedia but facts and quotes from such people are facts and quotes at the end of all that is said:

Renaissance Humanism
Paganism and Christianity in the Renaissance
Many humanists were churchmen, most notably Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini), Sixtus IV, and Leo X,^[9][10] and there was often patronage of humanists by senior church figures.^[11] Much humanist effort went into improving the understanding and translations of Biblical and early Christian texts, both before and after the Protestant Reformation, which was greatly influenced by the work of non-Italian, Northern European figures such as Desiderius Erasmus, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, William Grocyn, and Swedish Catholic Archbishop in exile Olaus Magnus.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy describes the rationalism of ancient writings as having tremendous impact on Renaissance scholars:

Here, one felt no weight of the supernatural pressing on the human mind, demanding homage and allegiance. Humanity—with all its distinct capabilities, talents, worries, problems, possibilities—was the center of interest. It has been said that medieval thinkers philosophised on their knees, but, bolstered by the new studies, they dared to stand up and to rise to full stature.^[12]

​

Inevitably, the rediscovery of classical philosophy and science would eventually challenge traditional religious beliefs. In 1417, for example, Poggio Bracciolini discovered the manuscript of Lucretius, De rerum natura, which had been lost for centuries and which contained an explanation of Epicurean doctrine, though at the time this was not commented on much by Renaissance scholars, who confined themselves to remarks about Lucretius's grammar and syntax.^[13] Lorenzo Valla, however, puts a defense of epicureanism in the mouth of one of the interlocutors of one of his dialogues.^[14] Valla's defense, or adaptation, of Epicureanism was later taken up in The Epicurean by Erasmus, the "Prince of humanists:"

If people who live agreeably are Epicureans, none are more truly Epicurean than the righteous and godly. And if it is names that bother us, no one better deserves the name of Epicurean than the revered founder and head of the Christian philosophy Christ, for in Greek epikouros means "helper." He alone, when the law of Nature was all but blotted out by sins, when the law of Moses incited to lists rather than cured them, when Satan ruled in the world unchallenged, brought timely aid to perishing humanity. Completely mistaken, therefore, are those who talk in their foolish fashion about Christ's having been sad and gloomy in character and calling upon us to follow a dismal mode of life. On the contrary, he alone shows the most enjoyable life of all and the one most full of true pleasure.^[15]

​

This passage exemplifies the way in which the humanists saw pagan classical works, such as the philosophy of Epicurus, as being in harmony with their interpretation of Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism

The above clearly shows that people such as Erasmus, who delivered up his own private version of a corrupt Greek N/T text, which then became the so-called Textus Receptus, were infected with Greek and Roman culture and philosophy, (the "humanities" of that era). This is not a true SCRIBE who simply copies the exemplar before him, no, but rather it is an adulterator who feels no shame in changing ancient texts to support his overall opinions about what the scripture should say and mean. That is why the Erasmus text was so well received by the clergy of the time, (humanistic thinking clergy, and yes, I mean the old-school definition).

 

[Rosenritter]

Deleted because of duplicate posting?

 

[Rosenritter]

Uh, you are the one making accusations. That is your fighting aura, and as I said, it is you projecting yourself onto me, (and no doubt anyone else who can show your errors by way of the scripture). Anyone else who desires to know what we are talking about when it comes to Erasmus being a humanist can find such information plentifully online. You can squeel and poke fun about this being from wikipedia but facts and quotes from such people are facts and quotes at the end of all that is said:



The above clearly shows that people such as Erasmus, who delivered up his own private version of a corrupt Greek N/T text, which then became the so-called Textus Receptus, were infected with Greek and Roman culture and philosophy, (the "humanities" of that era). This is not a true SCRIBE who simply copies the exemplar before him, no, but rather it is an adulterator who feels no shame in changing ancient texts to support his overall opinions about what the scripture should say and mean. That is why the Erasmus text was so well received by the clergy of the time, (humanistic thinking clergy, and yes, I mean the old-school definition).

Everything you're presenting is nothing more than opinionated accusation. Besides this, I must wonder if you even know why you are attacking in this direction, considering the King James used the Received Text compiled by Theodore Beza. Regardless, a compilation of the majority manuscripts is hardly prone to your charge of "changing the ancient texts."

Do you have something relevant and substantial, something other than vague angry feelings?

 

[Bright Raven]

They are not different they are the same.

Why do the scriptures differentiate between the three?