Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Is Jesus FULLY God & Praying

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
An incarnation of Jesus may in fact have pre-existed the creation of the world we know, but this text really doesn't do much to support that idea. We are not told anything about what the glory referred to in the text means so we can't say for certain if it refers to a pre-existant Jesus or if it instead refers to the intentions of the Father for the future Jesus/Son that had not yet been born.

Well, We never build a belief or doctrine from "ONE" scripture. Dumb people do that. I see your point. I had with thee before the word might indicate a Father and Son relationship before the world was formed. Jesus said "in my Fathers house" many times which would indicate that is possible where Jesus had always been. I view the comment "Let US make man in OUR image as the Father speaking to the Son by whom and because of made all things. So with some scriptural references added together one could assume that it might be safe to conclude that the son and father had always been.

What I find it hard to fathom is ONE GOD giving himself all things to the ONE GOD. That makes absolutely no sense. Trinity tries to dodge this with......."We believe each person is separate and distinct and God" but each person in the trinity is not triune so they can't be god by definition Trinity gives as God is triune. So still, God gave himself all things that God already owned.

Blessings.

Mike.
 
I know you believe we are just like the father, created in our fathers image. I know you don't think we are part animal. I know you believe we are Spirits that will have an eternal place somewhere (Unless you don't believe in eternal punishment, that would be a whole other topic)
I don't know how you "know" all of this but you have made several large assumptions about what I believe. You really don't know what I believe.

Your problem came calling us gods as in the class of, yet I bet if we break it down without the "god" term we believe the same.
Are you saying that I have said we are some sort of class of gods?
 
I don't know how you "know" all of this but you have made several large assumptions about what I believe. You really don't know what I believe.

I have made assumptions of "What" you believe and that leads to debating things we both agree on which does not make much progression.


Are you saying that I have said we are some sort of class of gods?

Exactly what I am saying. Because if monkey's offspring are Monkey's and Dog's offspring are puppies. What would God's offspring or children be? We are born by the Word of God and each seed produces after it's kind. You don't change spiritual Laws because it throws off what you think "god" means. The spiritual law that God set forth changes us, not the other way around. The problem you have is your concept of a god. The Bible clearly defines god as deity of uncertain affinity. Something immortal ................. Elyohiem is plural god-like goddess-works of god........... Whatever........ Can refer to God the Creator, God the Father in singular sense.

Theos which Jesus called us was in response to them accusing him as making himself out God because they understood if He claims to be the son of God then He himself must Also be God. Jesus literately called them gods in the sense they were also god. Otherwise he would have said something different in response to them going to stone him from being mad about him making himself out to be a God.

By definition, by class, by who our Father is, we are gods. We are not in any other class, or created in the servant class of the angels who also fit the definition. God had actual Children He made in his very image.

Let this mind be in you who was also in Christ Jesus. The mind that we are equal with God. That is only misunderstood if you have a wrong concept of what god is. Theos being a Male noun can have a title associated with it.

It's the same thing Jesus said to turn the other cheek, love your enemies that you be the children of God. That is what someone does who by nature is like the father and as a child of God. If you don't do that and make yourself lower putting others first thinking the same way God would or as the Greek put it think in equal terms as God does, let this mind be in us also that was in Christ Jesus.

So we go to psalm 82. Jesus quoted that.

So you are about to stone me for making myself out to be God. Guess what, your also gods as the scriptures says and the scripture cannot be broken. (In other words you can't change who you are)

Psa 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psa 82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

I am not saying your some sort of class of gods.................... What am saying your just like your father in Heaven in class and expected to walk in the nature by which you are. That would be Like the Father God, Who is God the Father and your god his child.

It's only when we put a religious spin on what god means, we come up with strange understanding of who created us and in what image we were created. For theos "god" is just an immortal being of uncertain affinity unless defined. Jesus defined us as gods, just like the Father but by nature of the Father and not in power.

If we don't like the term god used to define the nature we are, then someone can take that up with Jesus or the Holy Spirit who gave the Word.

Mike.
 
I don't know how you "know" all of this but you have made several large assumptions about what I believe. You really don't know what I believe.

I have made assumptions of "What" you believe and that leads to debating things we both agree on which does not make much progression.
But you are wrong in what you have assumed, or at least, are not completely correct. You shouldn't assume.

Are you saying that I have said we are some sort of class of gods?

Exactly what I am saying.
That's your position, not mine. Do not misrepresent me.
 
That's your position, not mine. Do not misrepresent me

Well, that is the correct explanation, unless your of some of lower species that I am not familiar with, and God lied about each seed produces after it's kind.

Would you be willing to share exactly what type of species you belong to then since you don't agree? A mere mortal who does not live forever (This is the belief there is no eternal punishment or Hell)? Just a flesh man? Something completely different? A human of a fallen nature who has no idea what species they belong to?

What are you?

Blessings.

Mike.
 
That's your position, not mine. Do not misrepresent me

Well, that is the correct explanation, unless your of some of lower species that I am not familiar with, and God lied about each seed produces after it's kind.

Would you be willing to share exactly what type of species you belong to then since you don't agree? A mere mortal who does not live forever (This is the belief there is no eternal punishment or Hell)? Just a flesh man? Something completely different? A human of a fallen nature who has no idea what species they belong to?

What are you?

Blessings.

Mike.
I'm human, just like everyone else. But that is not the topic of this thread.
 
I had with thee before the word might indicate a Father and Son relationship before the world was formed. Jesus said "in my Fathers house" many times which would indicate that is possible where Jesus had always been.


I can see why such a conclusion can be drawn. I can also buy into the idea that Jesus always existed with God in the sense that before the world was created, God had Jesus in mind as the reason for creation. I believe texts like John 1:1-14 may in fact be poetic renderings that declare God's creative intent (LOGOS/message/word) which culminated in Jesus, the Son of God not only existing, but being given a name above all names and becoming worthy of the glory of God.
 
[MENTION=45243]TRUTH over TRADITION[/MENTION] What keeps you from accepting Christ into your heart, because you're obviously interested in it all.
 
I can see why such a conclusion can be drawn. I can also buy into the idea that Jesus always existed with God in the sense that before the world was created, God had Jesus in mind as the reason for creation. I believe texts like John 1:1-14 may in fact be poetic renderings that declare God's creative intent (LOGOS/message/word) which culminated in Jesus, the Son of God not only existing, but being given a name above all names and becoming worthy of the glory of God.

I fully Believe Jesus (God class) Like His father (God class) was and always been with the Father (As far as God revealed so far) I am not so sure about "When" the name above all names came. His Work on Earth? Then exalted?

Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

How Jesus gain in favor with God? It means He was not perfect (understand the word for the rest that read this) Gain in favor as a man? Or prove that He could walk in Flesh? I have questions.

Mike.
 
What about these two verses?

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Note:
1 Tm 3:16 KJV - "God was manifest" is stated as godliness being manifested in other versions

1 Jn 5:7 - "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in other translations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about these two verses?

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Note:
1 Tm 3:16 KJV - "God was manifest" is stated as godliness being manifested in other verstions

1 Jn 5:7 - "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in other translations.
What about them?
 
What about these two verses?

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Note:
1 Tm 3:16 KJV - "God was manifest" is stated as godliness being manifested in other verstions

1 Jn 5:7 - "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in other translations.
What about them?

The KJV seems to have clear evidence of the Divinity of Jesus whereas the other translations seems to not. What is the correct interpretation of these verses?


1 John 5:7-8

KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

NASB
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

NIV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

What the NIV ClaimsFootnotes:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 
What about these two verses?

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Note:
1 Tm 3:16 KJV - "God was manifest" is stated as godliness being manifested in other verstions

1 Jn 5:7 - "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is not in other translations.
What about them?

The KJV seems to have clear evidence of the Divinity of Jesus whereas the other translations seems to not. What is the correct interpretation of these verses?


1 John 5:7-8

KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

NASB
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

NIV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

What the NIV ClaimsFootnotes:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
The correct rendering is likely found in most everything but the KJV. However, there is already a thread discussing this, so let's not do it here.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52701
 
Jesus' function was basically to act as a temple for the living God. Jesus was fully a man. Can we say that? Yes. Otherwise how could we hope to be like him. I would not dispute Jesus was God's way of teaching us, in effect, God's way of communicating with man, but the basic truth of Christianity is Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. To say Jesus was God or he was making himself God or equal to God dismisses what he said about himself with respect to the Father. For instance, the Father is greater than I. A servant can only be like his master, suggesting the Father was his Master, literally his God, as Christ is our Master. Jesus said the Father is the true God. He never made himself the Father. In fact he said he could do nothing on his own, only what he saw he Father doing. To say he was God or making himself God puts us in agreement with the Jews. But the truth wasn't in them.

It's my view that God's name was manifested in the flesh, perhaps the Word 'God' or 'the LORD'. The Father is spirit and no one has seen the Father, only the Son, and Paul said, he was the image of the invisible God. Regarding his name, Jesus, the question is who are you referring to? Remember the Father's name is also Jesus. So when you say Jesus are you referring to the Father or his namesake - one who is named for another, or has the same name as another. Jesus said he was the heir of all things; everything including having the same name.

I believe the Word was 'the LORD', literally speaking. Or maybe I should say spiritually speaking. Or the WORD was 'Jesus', the Father's real name. He was the workman. Is the CC willing to confer personhood on the workman even though he was created? Pr. 8:22 'The LORD created me at the beginning of his work.'

What's the sense of interpreting the Trinity? Isn't the Trinity itself an interpretation? And if you make it doctrine, then there is no possible growth. People do not seek the knowledge of God because apparently everything is already known.

The early church fathers are not our Father. Jesus told us to seek and we should find. The proverbs say the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Read the Scriptures. Understand the teachings of our Lord and Master. Didn't Jesus tell us to call no man on earth your father? Mt. 23:9 So why do you do it?

This doctrine is not equal to the word of God. As one man's interpretation it is OK but it is not the end of all knowledge. We are supposed to read the Bible.

Do not equate the writings of the so called early fathers with the word of God. The word of God is active. Even the writings of the apostles must be seen in the light of God, Jesus Christ. I'm not saying don't read the writings of the apostles; of course not. They are in the book. I'm saying outside the book, be careful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well said brother. Was wondering if anyone has scripture that states WHY the Father is such a mystery. Blessings.
 
Jesus' function was basically to act as a temple for the living God. Jesus was fully a man. Can we say that? Yes. Otherwise how could we hope to be like him. I would not dispute Jesus was God's way of teaching us, in effect, God's way of communicating with man, but the basic truth of Christianity is Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.
We can say those things but to leave it at that is to not present the entire picture we're given in Scripture.

To say Jesus was God or he was making himself God or equal to God dismisses what he said about himself with respect to the Father. For instance, the Father is greater than I. A servant can only be like his master, suggesting the Father was his Master, literally his God, as Christ is our Master. Jesus said the Father is the true God. He never made himself the Father. In fact he said he could do nothing on his own, only what he saw he Father doing. To say he was God or making himself God puts us in agreement with the Jews. But the truth wasn't in them.
As I have maintained through this thread, and will continue to maintain, is that one cannot simply take only verses that show his humanity and ignore those that show his deity. There is absolutely no basis for ignoring either position as presented in Scripture.

It's my view that God's name was manifested in the flesh, perhaps the Word 'God' or 'the LORD'.
How does a "name" manifest in the flesh? What does that even mean?

The Father is spirit and no one has seen the Father, only the Son, and Paul said, he was the image of the invisible God. Regarding his name, Jesus, the question is who are you referring to? Remember the Father's name is also Jesus. So when you say Jesus are you referring to the Father or his namesake - one who is named for another, or has the same name as another. Jesus said he was the heir of all things; everything including having the same name.
This simply cannot be the case. That would make the Father the Son and the Son the Father. But that would ignore the clear teaching of Scripture that the Son isn't, nor ever has been, the Father, and vice versa. It would completely ignore the very use of "Son" and "Father" and really make no sense.

It should also be said that nowhere in the Bible is it even alluded to that the Father's name is Jesus.

I believe the Word was 'the LORD', literally speaking. Or maybe I should say spiritually speaking. Or the WORD was 'Jesus', the Father's real name. He was the workman. Is the CC willing to confer personhood on the workman even though he was created? Pr. 8:22 'The LORD created me at the beginning of his work.'
There is a certain assumption going on here with regards to Pr 8:22. Many assume that it is referring to Jesus but there really is no reason to believe such. Proverbs is simply personifying wisdom and, significantly, is speaks of wisdom as being female, not male.

What's the sense of interpreting the Trinity? Isn't the Trinity itself an interpretation? And if you make it doctrine, then there is no possible growth. People do not seek the knowledge of God because apparently everything is already known.
The Trinity is a doctrine which attempts to best take into account all that the Scriptures say about God. And it does this better than any other position. As for "no possible growth," that is simply false. It doesn't even really make sense.

The early church fathers are not our Father. Jesus told us to seek and we should find. The proverbs say the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Read the Scriptures. Understand the teachings of our Lord and Master. Didn't Jesus tell us to call no man on earth your father? Mt. 23:9 So why do you do it?

This doctrine is not equal to the word of God. As one man's interpretation it is OK but it is not the end of all knowledge. We are supposed to read the Bible.

Do not equate the writings of the so called early fathers with the word of God. The word of God is active. Even the writings of the apostles must be seen in the light of God, Jesus Christ. I'm not saying don't read the writings of the apostles; of course not. They are in the book. I'm saying outside the book, be careful.
Not sure what the early church fathers have to do with anything.
 
How does a "name" manifest in the flesh? What does that even mean?

All men are names manifest in the flesh. Jn. 17:6 'I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world.' Whose name did Jesus manifest? Jesus manifested the LORD's name. Who did the people see? The LORD's name.

'that you may fear the glorious and awful name, the LORD, your God.' Deut. 28:58

Solomon purposed to build a house for the name of the LORD, as the LORD said to David 'your son shall build the house for my name' 1 Kings 5:5

'To build a house for the name of the LORD, the God of Israel' 1 Kings 8:17 1 Kings 8:20 'the name of the LORD, the God of Israel'

He doesn't say build a house for the LORD; he says a house for the name of the LORD.

Jesus gave us words from the Father. Likewise the LORD gave the prophets of old words from the Father. The same relationship is maintained in the old and in the new.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top