Jesus is God

[freelight]

'We are the offspring of Deity'

'We are the offspring of Deity'

If Jesus was not God, then he was a blasphemer and based on what else he has said, he's replacing the actual God with himself in the future.

2nd draft:

If Jesus was not God, then he's replacing God in the future. That, and it makes him somewhat of a blasphemer and/or imposter in the meantime until he completes his overthrow.

Jesus never claimed to be the Most High God, an attribution only reserved for the Universal Father, neither is he ever taking God's place, EXCEPT as his anointed respresentative, envoy, messenger.

Furthermore, on a pure spiritual metaphysical level,...we are all the offsprings, individual expressions of 'God' - "have I not said you are elohim, and sons of the most high?"

 

[freelight]

I accept scripture.
"with his own blood".

I accept different ways to interpret/translate a passage, noting your particular doctrinal bias in 'interpreting'

 

[Bright Raven]

I accept different ways to interpret/translate a passage, noting your particular doctrinal bias in 'interpreting'

What different interpretations?

 

[freelight]

God is Spirit

God is Spirit

What different interpretations?

Quote Response:

Acts 20:28b

Be shepherds of the Church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (NIV)

1. There are some Greek manuscripts that read “the church of the Lord” instead of “the church of God.” Many Trinitarian scholars believe that “Lord” is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read “Lord” are the original ones, then the “problem” is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that “the church of God” is the correct reading.

2. Both the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood.” God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ.

3. The text note at the bottom of the very Trinitarian NIV Study Bible gets the meaning of the verse correct: “his own blood. Lit. ‘the blood of his own one,’ a term of endearment (such as ‘his own dear one’) referring to His own Son.”

- Source

Again,....God who is Spirit is incorporeal. Nowhere in scripture does God have blood. Only by trinitarian gymnastics or some 'incarnational theology' (Christology spin) can one assume 'God' has blood in the process of becoming a human, etc. The passage at best is a nuance of Jesus blood being God's blood by 'relational union' of God and his Son, so any provision of atonement or dispensation of grace thru any element of Christ (soul and body), could also be said to be Gods. One can see this thru a traditional Unitarian view or a Trinitarian one. It is far from being any special 'proof text' for the Trinity.

'God' is essentially Spirit, no matter what assumed form or body he may take on, since 'God' anyways is the source of all substance and form.

 

[keypurr]

I think Keypurr doesn't believe Isaiah, that the LORD created the heavens and the earth by Himself. He thinks that it means that the LORD created a spirit son to create the heavens and the earth by that guy's own self.

You have no idea what Keypurr thinks.

You are sinking in the half truths you have been taught.

The express image son is not Jesus, it is the firstborn of all creation, a creature not God. God used this spirit son to create all things. This son is second in command in heaven, Lord of all creation, made so by his God. This spirit is the logos that went into Jesus at his anointing. Jesus became the Christ when the logos went in him.

Do your own study and see what is in the scriptures.

The spirit son is the firstborn of all creatures (Col 1:15) If he is said to be a creature he is NOT God. Go argue with Paul. Tell him he is wrong.

 

[patrick jane]

You have no idea what Keypurr thinks.

You are sinking in the half truths you have been taught.

The express image son is not Jesus, it is the firstborn of all creation, a creature not God. God used this spirit son to create all things. This son is second in command in heaven, Lord of all creation, made so by his God. This spirit is the logos that went into Jesus at his anointing. Jesus became the Christ when the logos went in him.

Do your own study and see what is in the scriptures.

The spirit son is the firstborn of all creatures (Col 1:15) If he is said to be a creature he is NOT God. Go argue with Paul. Tell him he is wrong.

Colossians 1:15 doesn't say creature. You're thinking of KJV

 

[keypurr]

Acts 20:28 AENT
Take great care of yourselves, and of all the flock over which the Ruach haKodesh established you as overseers for, that you feed the assembly of Mashiyach, which he has acquired by his blood.


The KJV is in great error in this verse.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

If Jesus was not God, then he's replacing God in the future. That, and it makes him somewhat of a blasphemer and/or imposter in the meantime until he completes his overthrow.

No.

God was IN Him.

You need a revelation of their union, only completed at jesus resurrection.

LA

 

[keypurr]

Colossians 1:15 doesn't say creature. You're thinking of KJV

(ISV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

(NAS77) And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

(NASB) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

(NET.) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,

(NIrV) Christ is the exact likeness of God, who can't be seen. He is first, and he is over all of creation.

(NIV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(NKJV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(NRSV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

(NRSVA) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

(TNIV) The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(YLT) who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,


THE FIRST BORN OF CREATION IS A CREATURE, NOT GOD.[/B]

 

[Bright Raven]

Keypurr, How many time do you need to be told that that verse is positional in nature.

Christ is the firstborn over all creation or of every created being. What does this mean? Some false teachers suggest that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is a created being, that He is the first person whom God ever made. Some of them are even willing to go so far as to admit that He is the greatest creature ever to come from the hand of God. But nothing could be more directly contrary to the Word of God.
The expression first born in scripture has at least three different meanings in scripture. In Luke 2:7, it is used in a literal sense, where Mary brought forth her firstborn Son. There it means that Jesus was the first child to whom she gave birth. In Exodus 4:33 on the other hand, it is used in a figurative sense. "Israel my Son, even my firstborn." In that verse there is no thought of an actual birth having taken place, but the Lord is using the word to describe the distinctive place which the nation of Israel had in His plans and purposes. Finally, in Psalm 89:27, the word "firstborn" is used to designate a place of superiority, of supremacy. of uniqueness. There, God says that He will make David His firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. David was actually the last born son of jesse according to the flesh. But God determined to give him a place of unique supremacy, primacy and sovereignty.
Is that not the thought of Colossians 1:15 - the firstborn over all creation? The Lord Jesus Christ is God's unique Son. In one sense all believers are sons of God, but the Lord Jesus Christ is God's Son in a way that is not true of any other. He existed before all creation and occupies a position of supremacy over it. His is the rank of eminence and dominion. The expression first born over all creation has nothing to do with birth here. It simply means that He is God's Son by an eternal relationship. It is a title of priority of position and not simply one of time. (The Believer's Bible Commentary)

 

[freelight]

well for Heaven's sake.......

well for Heaven's sake.......

You have no idea what Keypurr thinks.

You are sinking in the half truths you have been taught.

The express image son is not Jesus, it is the firstborn of all creation, a creature not God. God used this spirit son to create all things. This son is second in command in heaven, Lord of all creation, made so by his God. This spirit is the logos that went into Jesus at his anointing. Jesus became the Christ when the logos went in him.

Do your own study and see what is in the scriptures.

The spirit son is the firstborn of all creatures (Col 1:15) If he is said to be a creature he is NOT God. Go argue with Paul. Tell him he is wrong.

And the circular debate just keeps going

As I've shared before,...what does it matter if Jesus is the firstborn Creation (call him a 'creature' if you like), or 'whatever', since it is STILL, the Universal Father-God, that is Creating THRU his word, the Father-God acting THRU His Messiah-Son. All else is but a relational-construct or conceptual model with which to contextualize the Creator and His work of creation/salvation....toss in any 'nuance' that floats your boat.

No Trinitarian has yet to PROVE that their preferred 'view' or 'model' is any 'better' or more 'correct' than a traditional monotheistic Unitarian one. It simply indicates a later Christological DOCTRINE that was made 'orthodox' by the 'church-state' in the 4th century, and became a 'creed' ever since.

As far as 'Christology' goes, there are many other possible views to adopt, that do not dishonor Deity or the 'Christ', they are just different ways to look at 'Yeshua'

 

[freelight]

No.

God was IN Him.

Is there anywhere where God is not?

 

[freelight]

No.

God was IN Him.

What some need to see is that this is ALL Jesus ever claimed anyways, and always referred to 'God' his 'Father' as a personality quite 'different' and 'distinct' from his own personality, naturally

The OMNIPRESENCE of Spirit includes all, as well as encompassing all, so Jesus knew 'God' as SPIRIT. - hence the Father was able to indwell him, as well as be outside of him.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Is there anywhere where God is not?

So if the Bible says God was IN Christ, then it means God is everywhere and IN everyone, according to Freelight.

Silly talk from the mystics manual.

LA

 

[freelight]

So if the Bible says God was IN Christ, then it means God is everywhere and IN everyone, according to Freelight.

Silly talk from the mystics manual.

LA

Mystics rock - understanding the inner dynamics of subjective spiritual experience and communion.

But to address the above, not necessarily....since I was just expanding one's attention to the reality of God's omnipresence anyways, whether we were discussing 'God' indwelling Jesus or not. The fact of God being in Jesus is its own individual case, I never denied that did I

 

[Nihilo]

No Trinitarian has yet to PROVE that their preferred 'view' or 'model' is any 'better' or more 'correct' than a traditional monotheistic Unitarian one. It simply indicates a later Christological DOCTRINE that was made 'orthodox' by the 'church-state' in the 4th century, and became a 'creed' ever since.

Matthew 28:19 (KJV) 2nd Corinthians 13:14 (KJV) 1st Peter 1:2 (KJV) were written well before the close of the first century. As was the didache.

There. I have now PROVEN that the Trinity is "'better'" or "more 'correct.'" I haven't proven that it's true, but that's not the bar you set; you asked for proof that the Trinity is "more 'correct,'" and that I have done.

What did I win?

 

[freelight]

Matt. 28:19

Matt. 28:19

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)

Sorry, those passages do not 'prove' a Trinity exists as defined by the RCC. But lets start with Matt. 28:19, a baptismal formula inserted in the Great Commision found only in that book alone. Jesus is unlikely to have said that, it probably being a 'liturgical insertion' added later by scribes in keeping with church tradition. There is also suppport the original reading was "Go ye and make diciples of all nations IN MY NAME".....minus any trinitarian baptismal formula. See Brother Kels commentary here.

Even if this is an authentic original script, it does little to prove a Trinity beyond some conceptual relation of the entities mentioned (just like your other passages listed). It still holds that the Father Alone is 'God' who works thru the agency of his Son in the Spirit's power....there being one name we are immersed into....and that name is Yeshua (Jesus), not a trinity. (Jesus name of course has within it all the powers of salvation so it includes all aspects and agencies of YHWH). Note the record in Acts always has baptism done in the name of Jesus.

More evidence below (shared for encyclopedic knowledge references) -

 

[keypurr]

And the circular debate just keeps going

As I've shared before,...what does it matter if Jesus is the firstborn Creation (call him a 'creature' if you like), or 'whatever', since it is STILL, the Universal Father-God, that is Creating THRU his word, the Father-God acting THRU His Messiah-Son. All else is but a relational-construct or conceptual model with which to contextualize the Creator and His work of creation/salvation....toss in any 'nuance' that floats your boat.

No Trinitarian has yet to PROVE that their preferred 'view' or 'model' is any 'better' or more 'correct' than a traditional monotheistic Unitarian one. It simply indicates a later Christological DOCTRINE that was made 'orthodox' by the 'church-state' in the 4th century, and became a 'creed' ever since.

As far as 'Christology' goes, there are many other possible views to adopt, that do not dishonor Deity or the 'Christ', they are just different ways to look at 'Yeshua'

IT matters that he was firstborn of all creatures my friend for God created all things through him.

Jesus is not the son that created or is Father, for that son is a spirit not a man.
I see the logos as that spirit son.

 

[keypurr]

So if the Bible says God was IN Christ, then it means God is everywhere and IN everyone, according to Freelight.

Silly talk from the mystics manual.

LA

You need to understand how god was in Jesus. The logos was sent to dwell in the body prepared for it. The logos is a form of God, yet not God for it is a creation. The EXPRESS image son is the logos and he had glory with the Father before God sent him to us.

 

[steko]

IT matters that he was firstborn of all creatures my friend for God created all things through him.

Jesus is not the son that created or is Father, for that son is a spirit not a man.
I see the logos as that spirit son.

You need to understand how god was in Jesus. The logos was sent to dwell in the body prepared for it. The logos is a form of God, yet not God for it is a creation. The EXPRESS image son is the logos and he had glory with the Father before God sent him to us.

Stale crackers.