Who will answer my questions?
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
God is immortal. Humans are mortal.
Are you saying Jesus was mortal and immortal at the same time?
That seems like a contradiction.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Yes, Jesus Christ the son of God represented God, but is not God, he is the son of God
Yes, Galatians is saying that a mediator is not a mediator if only one party is involved, there has to be two parties for a mediator to be a mediator between two. God is one of the two and mankind is the other of the two
The one mediator that God selected because He could trust him to properly and accurately represent God and mankind is the Man Christ Jesus.
The what Christ Jesus?
who does scripture say is the one mediator?
a. the God Christ Jesus
b. the fully God/fully man Christ Jesus
c. the seoond person of the Holy Trinity Christ Jesus
d. the Godman Christ Jesus
e. the God and man Christ Jesus
f. the perfect mediator because Jesus Christ was God and man Christ Jesus
g. the man Christ Jesus
"g" is the correct answer if you believe I Timothy 2:5
Do you believe that scripture? or did God err?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Before you fall off your high horse, you might want to consider post 143
glorydaz
Well-known member
Galatians says God is one. Not God's representative is one.
Which makes Jesus the perfect mediator. He was with God and WAS GOD in the beginning. John 1:1
He became flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14 Making Him the perfect Mediator (God in the beginning become flesh/man)
That isn't what Scripture says....it's what YOU say.
GOD (Mediator) man
We see God our Saviour, and Jesus Christ who gave Himself a ransom for all. Think about it.
1 Tim. 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
I do believe scripture. You have erred in your interpretation.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Mortal speaks of dying physically.
The Word (God) became flesh in order to live among us and die (physically) upon the cross as a man. Clearly, God was able to do just that. He then returned to His former glory...from "before the world was."
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
oatmeal
Well-known member
I agree, God is one.
In the context, God is talking about the need for a mediator, it is not about whether God is three or one or if you include Moses and all the other humans that God refers to as God, the maybe thousands of people that God refers to as Gods.
God is very plain, we need a mediator between God and us. In order for there to be a mediator, a go between, there has to be two parties to have a go between. There are two parties. God is one and mankind is the other.
Are you suggesting that God was wrong to select the man Christ Jesus, that is, that the man Christ Jesus is not qualified to properly and accurately represent both God and man? What are you disputing?
One great error in learning is assuming we have the truth instead of looking for the truth. If we assume we have, we put blinders on ourselves and will not look at all the evidence. We do not search scripture because we have the answers but to find the answers.
I do not believe what I believe to a pain in the neck or to draw attention to myself
I was a defender of the trinity, but then learned a few scriptures that clarified for me that Jesus is a man, not God. I Timothy 2:4 being the turning point for me.
The traditional interpretations of John 1:1,14 do not fit with I Timothy 2:5 and other similar verses. No amount of tradition is more powerful than scripture believed.
John 1:1 has not been rightly divided for centuries
Of course the common interpretation is that it about Jesus being with God in existence and being God. I won't refute that that is the common interpretation.
However, based on a closer examination of the words used and their meanings as well as other passages I believe there is a far better and accurate way to look at John 1:1 that is by letting it speak for itself.
Of course, you might say, as others have, that since John 1:1 has been used to support the trinity for centuries, it must be true.
Well, there a plenty of examples of traditional doctrines that can be shown to be contrary to scripture.
One example is the information that Jesus taught his eventual death and resurrection as given in Matthew 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Jesus Christ was as clear as can be that he would be interred for a total of three days and three nights.
Why does tradition ignore the clear and plain words of Jesus Christ?
Who counts three days and three nights between Good Friday and Sunday morning, the assumed timing of those two events?
Let us count them. FriDAY, SaturDAY, SunDAy, that is three days and that is a stretch because Friday and Sunday would only be part days if tradition is right. Now, Friday night and Saturday night. That is only two nights, where is the third night?
Tradition has misinterpreted scripture, traditionalists have ignored Jesus Christ's clear plain words for centuries to the tune of way over a thousand years.
Granted, the scriptural use of the day could mean only a short time a part of a day a full day even times much longer, but when scripture speaks of day and night it means a twenty four hour period of time.
Jesus Christ is Matthew 12:40 is even more specific than simply stating three days and nights.
He does not say three days and nights, he said three days and three nights. He specifically and repeats three referring to days and three referring to nights.
There is no excuse for not believing three 24 hour periods of time.
I do not wish to expound the obvious solution though one verse is the basic verse people misunderstood, but because there are many other details that could be brought up.
Another example of tradition ignoring scripture and thus teaching error instead of scripture is regarding Noah and the ark.
By how many animals did they go into the ark?
Genesis 7:9
There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
The animals went in two by two
But how many animals does tradition say were in the ark of each species? They read Genesis 7:9 and conclude that Noah took only two of each species, one male and one female of each.
But is that what scriptures tell us?
No, it is not.
God told Noah the following in Genesis 7:2-3 how many pairs of clean animals and how many pairs of the unclean animals and how many pairs of the fowls of the air.
Let read it for what it says in Genesis 7:2-3
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
How many of each specie do you read that God commanded Noah to take on the ark with him?
why was I taught only two of each species?
How many were you taught of each species?
For that matter, who is it that does not read Matthew 12:40 for what is says?
Why read that verse at all? If they want to ignore that verse why not ignore all of scripture? that would more honest. Unfortunately that is what traditionalists do, they ignore scripture all the time even to the point of not reading verses pertaining to the identity of Jesus Christ.
Since tradition has erred so obviously on the obvious truths in Matthew 12:40 and Genesis 7 why should I assume that tradition is right about anything?
Shall I go on?
everready
New member
John 3:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
everready
Post #143 is wrong too.
This post is correct.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Yes, but where does that passage say that "Jesus is God"?
What does the Greek word "logos" mean?
It means message or a communication, not emphasizing the words or method used but the thought or intent behind the message.
Now go back and rethink that passage with that in mind.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Of course it is.
He quoted scripture who is going to argue with that?
However, he fails to show why and how that passage supports his conclusion.
Failure to rightly divide that passage has made for centuries of error and misunderstanding.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Show me how
Show me how I erred
After all scripture is profitable for doctrine and reproof and correction.
Use scripture to show me your doctrine, then reprove and correct me.
Will you please, to teach me the doctrine, show me "trinity, triune, three Gods in one, Godman, full God/fully man..." from scripture
When you show me that the all wise God uses those phrases to describe himself then your doctrine will have some scriptural validity, but you cannot.
Why didn't God in all his wisdom and fearlessness use those terms to describe himself?
"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'" (Mark 15:34)
The Father separated himself from Jesus, which is spiritual death. Only spiritual death separates a person from God.
However, Jesus' spiritual death could not stand because Jesus had not sinned. That would have been a miscarriage of justice.
The penalty for sin is spiritual death, separation from the Father. But Jesus Christ is our Mediator.
Since Jesus died spiritually his death can be applied to us and we can be forgiven.
oatmeal
Well-known member
why haven't you shown me "trinity, three Gods in one, fully God and fully man, Godman, ..." from scripture?
What is the problem?
Why the delay?
Show me how I argued with scripture
Show me where "Jesus is God" is found in that passage!
You cannot, unless you ignore it
Why can't you show me what seems so obvious to you?
If indeed Jesus as the word of God is God, then why not translate John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
according to your doctrine
In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and the Jesus was Jesus?
Wow, is that the point of John 1:1?
do you know what the definition of the Greek word logos is?
Why do you ignore that meaning when you read John 1:1 and for that matter the rest of the places where the word logos is used?
Since you cannot show me those terms,it is you that is ignoring, adding to and twisting scripture to accomplish an unscriptural end.
Your pathetic lack of scripture to show your doctrine tells me you have no ability to answer my questions.
But you have demonstrated your wellhoned ability to demean those who disagree with you.
Are you going to start posting, "Crucify him"
That would be your next step
KingdomRose
New member
This is pretty easy to answer by anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures and understands how the Hebrew Scriptures were translated and how the name of God was removed from English versions and replaced with "Lord" instead (usually shown in all upper-case letters). Everywhere "LORD" appears in that passage, the name of God has been replaced. In the Hebrew, the letters "YHWH" are there, which the King James Version translated as "Jehovah" (see Psalm 83:18, KJV). It actually appears 7,000 times in the original Hebrew.
So..."who is 'the LORD'?" It is the Father and Most High---Jehovah. Jehovah is said to bruise the suffering servant---the Messiah---because He allowed him to die at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans.
Yes, there are two distinct parties. Jehovah and the Messiah, and the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53 couldn't be referring to the nation of Israel as the suffering servant, because it is Israel's sins that the servant is dying for. It says that there was no deception found in his mouth, nor no violence in him. That does not mean Israel because the Scriptures show plainly that the nation was FULL of violence and deception. (Jeremiah 5:27; 6:7; 9:6,8; Ezekiel 7:23; Hosea 4:2 ....to name just a few references.)
KingdomRose
New member
What does that answer? Are you showing that Moses claimed to be God by saying "Here I am"?
KingdomRose
New member
So you have taken it upon yourself to judge Oatmeal? Only God can judge (or the one whom He gave the power to judge, Jesus). You have been asked simple questions that could be answered very quickly, yet you flounder around and either refuse to answer (why?) or else you do not know the answers. You are sinister and sly. I feel very badly for the two men you have snared into having Bible discussions with you.
KingdomRose
New member
That is because they don't know their hand from their elbow. Yet they chatter on like magpies as if they are the authorities on everything.