Is Jesus FULLY God & Praying

[Free]

Free

You state the Trinity is false but that Jesus is God, just as the Father is God. That is precisely what the Trinity states. Except that it goes further and acknowledges the Scriptural truth that there is only one God; that there only has ever been and only ever will be one God.

Your position is polytheism which goes against Scripture. You say you'll "stick with Scriptures," but you don't.

I have already stated Free that those that believe in One God can not see it. I can refute trinity at every level and every scripture you bring up in a reasonable and clear way with many supporting scriptures.

I don't think that is likely since most of what you have posted supports the Trinity.

That is pointless however because you have your labels such as Polytheism and you don't have the ability to see anything but one God.

Why don't you like the term "polytheism"? It is belief in more than one God, which is what you believe and what the Bible says is error. Your position is completely contradictory, as I will show.

However that does not mean I don't stick with scriptures. I am aware God said there are no other Gods, went on to say he has not known any other or made any other.

You have already contradicted the previously bolded statement. How, on the one hand, can you say that refuting the Trinity "is pointless...because ...don't have the ability to see anything but one God," and on the other hand affirm that the Bible states that "God said there are no other Gods"?

Either you are wrong or what the Scriptures say that God has said is wrong.

This makes sense as Jesus is never listed as creator but by whom all things were made for. Also Jesus does not have a creation date. There is only One God the Father, and Jesus said that many times calling it His Father's house, and I only do what I hear my father say.
However, Jesus was called God by Thomas, God the Father Himself and called God by John. That makes Him God. The Apostles always mentioned God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, not God the father and Saviour in one. The Holy Spirit would not mislead or deceive, if there was just ONE, it would have always been listed as such.

Again, you contradict yourself. After saying that "there is only one God the Father," you state that Jesus is God.

You have a lot of explaining to do.

The Problem with Trinity is in it's actual statement. I believe Jesus is the One and true God, always been here, but here with His father as He stated. Trinity's statement is there is ONE God, and Only one. This Makes for just one, and avoids sounding like Jesus was some demi god or something. However if there is just ONE, then someone is not fully God without the other as it's a triune God. That is the problem and has always been the problem. It can't be explained naturally or scripturally, because it don't make sense. I have read all the reasonings and debates concerning this matter, and the conclusion is that we believe in One God by faith, as a Mystery of the Christian faith.

Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:

It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

This doctrine took centuries to develop, and has had a long road of debate and flame wars.

So someone simple like myself view statements like this.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

We have two thrones, one belongs to Jesus, The other to God the Father. No throne ever mentioned for the other 1/3 part (Holy Spirit) Thrones represent ruling power and all authority and there are only two main ones in Heaven with the 24 elders. The important ones are the ones the Father and Son sit in next to each other.

Now, how many Gods we have here? God is a class of something because Theos is generic unless defined. Two thrones, mean two God's. If their is only ONE made up of 3 then Each would have a throne all fully God but the Holy Spirit got left out somewhere. Oh my.

God gave all things to his son, by whom He made all things. Does God give them to himself being ONE GOD? It makes absolutely no sense. Trinity almost has to make each their Own Separate God to explain some of these things.

If the Son of God had been here from the Start with the Father as He said, and God talking to Him that they create man in their image whom God sent his son in the last days to speak to us which is scripture in Hebrews. Then we have Two theo's A Father and Son, and absolutely Zero scripture contradiction. I don't like things that don't make sense, and I don't like contradictions.

Blessings.
Mike.

But you are contradicting both yourself and Scripture. If God says there are no other Gods, then there are no other Gods. Here you state that "I believe Jesus is the One and true God," but then turn around and say "Two thrones, mean two God's," and "God gave all things to his son." Completely contradictory.

And then, for some reason, you decide to make this argument: "Trinity almost has to make each their Own Separate God to explain some of these things." Not only does the Trinity not do that, that is precisely what you are doing.

Here is a basic definition of the Trinity as found in James R. White's The Forgotten Trinity:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (White, p 26)

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

So far, the doctrine of the Trinity is much more solid and has better explanatory power than your position. I really don't see how you think your position makes any sense, unless I have overlooked something.

 

[Free]

Some more crazy explanation is that God The Word part was praying to the other 1/3 part in heaven though there is just One God. So the Word of God with the Holy Spirit was praying to the last 1/3 part for???? Who knows. Jesus just prayed as an example to us (Not that He prayed for any other reason) sounds the most reasonable.


However, if that is you conclusion then sounds good enough Urk. My Church believes that and many others that the ONE God came down in Flesh. Some trinity Doctrines say that each 1/3 part is a full whole God. I know the Catholic version of it does but their version also says you have to be Catholic to be saved (point 1) but 1+1+1 does not = 1. So math would not be their strongest point.

Again, math has nothing to do with it. However, since you are intent on doing so, at least do it correctly. You keep saying that each is 1/3 and that to make the whole, adding 1+1+1 does not equal one. If you want to say, incorrectly, that each is 1/3 then 1/3+1/3+1/3 does, in fact, equal 1.

But I could also say that since each is truly God, then 1*1*1=1.

However, math should be completely left out of it and let Scripture speak for itself.

 

[Free]

In this thread, I would like to focus specifically on the word 'FULLY'. Fully means entirely or wholly. ALL of you! So if Jesus was fully God, he wouldn't of had to pray to the Father to raise Lazarus. Saying that Jesus is fully God is foolish of us, and I'll tell you why. When a born again Christian receives the Holy Spirit, he's not receiving ALL of the Father, no. He's receiving only a portion. That portion is called the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not FULLY God, but rather he is the WAY to God.

Yes, Jesus is the only way to God the Father, but scripture never says that Jesus is in fact THE God the Father. Jesus is the intercessor BETWEEN God the Father and humanity. Notice I said between stating two different parties, God the Father and humanity. God the Father isn't the intercessor between himself and humanity, no. Jesus has an entirely separate role to play. God the Father is the creator, and Jesus is the intercessor. Creator/Intercessor/Two different roles. When you pray, do you pray to God the Father or Jesus?

Saying that Jesus is fully God (better "truly God), in no way whatsoever means that he is the Father. Jesus is truly God and truly man, the Son of God, which is why he could pray to the Father. Not to mention you must not ignore Phil 2:5-8.

 

[Brother Mike]

Free

It's very clear Brother that by not believing in the Hogwash of JW's or Mormons. I don't have anything for you to grasp or me to explain. It does look like I believe in Trinity if you view some of my statements. I wont' deny that. Part is because I have looked at this for a very long time and conclude Jesus is fully God as there is nothing else to indicate different. Any reference to him being "Begotten" would be him getting a flesh body, not being created new.

but........ Trinity must be defined by a mans doctrine. That I have issues with. Using Doctrine by man to define scriptural truths.

So there be One God, I agree there is one Creator, One Father and no other creator or Father. God said there had been no gods made before or after him. There is none like Him. So, the Son had been here and everything was made for him and through him. Jesus is not the creator, but head of all things His father created.

Trinity can say yes, God made all things for Jesus his other 1/3 part but by definition of the trinity doctrine itself I can't make sense of that. The Father and Son always here, always God. God in the last days spoke to us through His son, not himself or 1/3 part of himself. Jesus is fully God, without the need of the other 2/3rd parts. Trinity covers that also, each part is fully God, that make ONE God. There is no way to possibly explain that though, you can't. So, taking the path of least resistance, Jesus is the Son of God, fully God, always been, is the I am but he is not needed to make a whole God. I find that offensives to Him.

So its' not your fault Free, I am yelling at you saying your wrong. I am saying the way the Doctrine was written by men, and different version at that does not make sense. It would really have helped if God included Trinity or Triune God in the scripture. It would have really helped if there is One God who mediates all in all and not One God and One mediator the Lord Jesus Christ .......... TWO.....

Many scriptures by the Holy Spirit could have been worded a whole lot different to convey this 3-1 God system. So it's the many versions of the Trinity Doctrine I have issues with. One versions says I have to be Catholic. My problem is with the doctrine and the way it is written to get across this ONE God concept yet there are many aspects of this ONE God. My issue is not what you believe or your diligence in the Word. You did not make the Doctrine I fully understand that.

On a "Religious" Aspect. Things that bother peoples religion that effect interpretation. I find it offensive to say that Jesus, my Lord, the King of Kings needs the other 2/3 parts to be considered God. Trinity tired to dodge that by saying each is fully God but there is only "ONE GOD" That means Jesus is just 1/3 a piece of God that is fully God but not God????
That is my problem and I have had many people trying to convey the understanding of that and all have come very short. I found a latter statement that it's something you believe by faith, knowing there is only one God. That beats the picture of the egg.

Mike.

 

[Free]

Free

It's very clear Brother that by not believing in the Hogwash of JW's or Mormons. I don't have anything for you to grasp or me to explain. It does look like I believe in Trinity if you view some of my statements. I wont' deny that. Part is because I have looked at this for a very long time and conclude Jesus is fully God as there is nothing else to indicate different. Any reference to him being "Begotten" would be him getting a flesh body, not being created new.

but........ Trinity must be defined by a mans doctrine. That I have issues with. Using Doctrine by man to define scriptural truths.

So there be One God, I agree there is one Creator, One Father and no other creator or Father. God said there had been no gods made before or after him. There is none like Him. So, the Son had been here and everything was made for him and through him. Jesus is not the creator, but head of all things His father created.

Trinity can say yes, God made all things for Jesus his other 1/3 part but by definition of the trinity doctrine itself I can't make sense of that. The Father and Son always here, always God. God in the last days spoke to us through His son, not himself or 1/3 part of himself. Jesus is fully God, without the need of the other 2/3rd parts. Trinity covers that also, each part is fully God, that make ONE God. There is no way to possibly explain that though, you can't. So, taking the path of least resistance, Jesus is the Son of God, fully God, always been, is the I am but he is not needed to make a whole God. I find that offensives to Him.

So its' not your fault Free, I am yelling at you saying your wrong. I am saying the way the Doctrine was written by men, and different version at that does not make sense. It would really have helped if God included Trinity or Triune God in the scripture. It would have really helped if there is One God who mediates all in all and not One God and One mediator the Lord Jesus Christ .......... TWO.....

Many scriptures by the Holy Spirit could have been worded a whole lot different to convey this 3-1 God system. So it's the many versions of the Trinity Doctrine I have issues with. One versions says I have to be Catholic. My problem is with the doctrine and the way it is written to get across this ONE God concept yet there are many aspects of this ONE God. My issue is not what you believe or your diligence in the Word. You did not make the Doctrine I fully understand that.

On a "Religious" Aspect. Things that bother peoples religion that effect interpretation. I find it offensive to say that Jesus, my Lord, the King of Kings needs the other 2/3 parts to be considered God. Trinity tired to dodge that by saying each is fully God but there is only "ONE GOD" That means Jesus is just 1/3 a piece of God that is fully God but not God????
That is my problem and I have had many people trying to convey the understanding of that and all have come very short. I found a latter statement that it's something you believe by faith, knowing there is only one God. That beats the picture of the egg.

Mike.

Firstly, having stated several times already, leave math out of it. Stay strictly to what the Bible says.

Secondly, is there something wrong with the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity that I gave? What do you disagree with?

Thirdly, you have not explained your contradictory position. You say that there is only one God, that God says there are no other Gods, yet you claim there are two.

 

[Brother Mike]

Secondly, is there something wrong with the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity that I gave? What do you disagree with?

Thirdly, you have not explained your contradictory position. You say that there is only one God, that God says there are no other Gods, yet you claim there are two.

I understand. It's not against there is One God concept. God said there are no other Gods. I read that a bit different however.

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal.

This understanding makes Jesus a Divine Person, Equal with the other persons, Father and Holy Spirit. In respect to function each person plays a very important role. So Jesus saying my Father is greater Is a statement I don't see as proving Jesus was claiming to be lesser because without Him, we would be lost. However, I do see the statement as a Son who honors His Father.

It's the 3 Divine persons, or some say 3, each one God makes One God. We already admit we have 3 different persons, that all have different functions. How do we come up with just One God though? That is the part that don't make sense by Trinity's Definition. It's like saying John, Susan, Mary and Steve make up the A-team. Each is a person with a function that make up what is known as the A-team.

So God or the term God is no longer a person but a team being made of 3 different Divine persons. If the bible clearly defined "God" meaning Team then I am sold. However, the bible uses the Term god in a generic way and not team. So, something must be wrong with they way the Trinity Doctrine is conceived (Being different versions pointing to One God) Or I just don't get it.

God being only One who created all things. No other maker or creator mentioned, no other gods created. devils are refered to as gods (False god's) Jesus called us gods, Satan is called god. So I have to understand that there is only ONE Father, One creator who nobody else would have that Role. Jesus is the Son by whom all things were created, His role, but no creator. That is scripture and I can give 4 verses. The Holy Spirit belongs to God, because every single scripture God takes ownership of Him. Not that He is God, or that He is his own person but belongs to God. That is also scripture in many places.
In fact the Holy Spirit does not even speak on His own, if He was God he would, but He only speaks of what He hears. So I have to leave him out of this "GOD" Equation anyway.

Israel defined God as one with many different things God was to them. The healer, the provider, the protector and so on. They did not factor in Jesus but knew God has a Spirit that came on them. As believers in Jesus we factor in that God sent his son in the last days to speak to us. A divine person, yes, but not needed to make up a god, unless God is a Team concept and not a person concept.

I would need to see God defined as a team concept in the Word. If I missed that then show me because I still don't get it when looking at scriptures. If it is a Team concept then it makes more sense.

Blessings.
Mike.

 

[Guest]

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

I agree with this.

Saying that Jesus is fully God (better "truly God), in no way whatsoever means that he is the Father. Jesus is truly God and truly man, the Son of God, which is why he could pray to the Father. Not to mention you must not ignore Phil 2:5-8.

How did I ignore scripture. Did I not respond in post#18. Since God clearly thinks and speaks things into existence, why not the son? Scripture clearly states that God lowered himself to a servant among men.

 

[Brother Mike]

How did I ignore scripture. Did I not respond in post#18. Since God clearly thinks and speaks things into existence, why not the son? Scripture clearly states that God lowered himself to a servant among men.

Sounds good, but for me personally if God "Speaks" his son into existence as He did when the Word became flesh begotten by the Word spoken then that makes Jesus a created being outside of Mary Getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit through the spoken Word. I have issues with God "Speaking" Jesus into existence Aside when He was born of flesh. I see it more of Jesus always being here and I couple conversations with His Father, Let us make man in OUR image and again during the tower of Babel makes me think the Son has always been here.

Your right, What God does speak, will come to pass. He told of Jesus and Jesus came by that Spoken Word. I don't believe though Jesus personally was created by a Spoken word but was just spoken for Him to come in the flesh for us. Just my thoughts.

Mike.

 

[Free]

Saying that Jesus is fully God (better "truly God), in no way whatsoever means that he is the Father. Jesus is truly God and truly man, the Son of God, which is why he could pray to the Father. Not to mention you must not ignore Phil 2:5-8.

How did I ignore scripture. Did I not respond in post#18. Since God clearly thinks and speaks things into existence, why not the son? Scripture clearly states that God lowered himself to a servant among men.

Ah, I hadn't read that post. So you have changed your understanding a bit since your first post?

Oops, didn't quite read thoroughly enough here (mind is somewhere else today). My point still stands. Phil 2 shows that Jesus is God who became man, in perfect agreement with John 1:1-3,14. Jesus is truly God, so he is therefore not created. If he is created, as you say, then he cannot be God.

 

[Guest]

I don't believe though Jesus personally was created by a Spoken word but was just spoken for Him to come in the flesh for us. Just my thoughts.

Because you're not thinking of the Father as a person, maybe. I dunno. A person who happens to dwell in the spirit realm, spoke the word into existence. Focus on person. [MENTION=142]Free[/MENTION], yeah I was hoping to challenge others and open my mind up a bit more to the possibility. Is the word manifested different from the word created? Interesting.

 

[Brother Mike]

Is the word manifested different from the word created? Interesting.

Good question. If we remove any thought about a Trinity Doctrine and we just understand the Word as we normally would. That might help, instead of taking one scripture and making it something it's not.
Every other time I read God declared, or God said, it would mean it is coming to pass in the future at some point. We see that over and over.

Joh 1:14 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.

Here we see the Word was made flesh. The Word became something just like all the other times God had spoken. In this case the Word Begotten Jesus, born from Mary. What God said came to pass.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This tells us that Jesus is not the literal Word or part of God that is the Word, but it was something God hath declared that came to pass and the Word was made flesh, who came from Mary.

We need more evidence though because I don't like making a doctrine on just two scriptures.

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

So you can see that just reading it as we normally would without a trinity doctrine, it was something like everything else God said would come to pass and promised. It takes doctrine to add the spin to things and get us off consistent translation.

Mike.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't believe though Jesus personally was created by a Spoken word but was just spoken for Him to come in the flesh for us. Just my thoughts.

Because you're not thinking of the Father as a person, maybe. I dunno. A person who happens to dwell in the spirit realm, spoke the word into existence. Focus on person. [MENTION=142]Free[/MENTION], yeah I was hoping to challenge others and open my mind up a bit more to the possibility. Is the word manifested different from the word created? Interesting.

basic philosophic error. God is a male and thus must have a personhood to have a gender. this doesn't mean that god is human or the reverse.

 

[Guest]

God is a male and thus must have a personhood to have a gender. this doesn't mean that god is human or the reverse.

Male? Why put a gender on a spirit, spirit realm. Why not say the personhood is just simply, 'deity'.

 

[jasoncran]

God is a male and thus must have a personhood to have a gender. this doesn't mean that god is human or the reverse.

Male? Why put a gender on a spirit, spirit realm. Why not say the personhood is just simply, 'deity'.

well ask god that when met HIM. God refers to himself as a he. its for communication to men so that we can understand how he acts. unless you want to argue that God the father is really god the mother.

 

[farouk]

The Lord Jesus, the dependent Son, obedient unto death, is fully God 'the Word became 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 1.14). 'In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Colossians 2.9). 'Unto the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Hebrews 1.8).

Blessings.

 

[Guest]

God is a male and thus must have a personhood to have a gender. this doesn't mean that god is human or the reverse.

Male? Why put a gender on a spirit, spirit realm. Why not say the personhood is just simply, 'deity'.

well ask god that when met HIM. God refers to himself as a he. its for communication to men so that we can understand how he acts. unless you want to argue that God the father is really god the mother.

What about God's communication to born again christian women.

 

[Guest]

We should stay on topic. haha, sorry. totopic

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

The Bible does not define what god means..............

This point deserves more attention. In order to best discuss topics like this one, we must have a thorough and exhaustive definition of the most pivotal terms so that all parties can be one the same page. When we use the term 'God", what is it that we are refering to? Is it a class of beings made up of YHWH, Yeshua, and their Holy Breath? Does God simply refer to the creator aspect of the being(s)? Or does it mean something else entirely?

The sinlessly perfect being that has always existed, is unlimitedly all powerful, immortal, and is the sovereign creator of all that is would be the definition I'd venture to say fits most Trinitarian ideas about what being God means. They'd then assert that this being co-exists with Itself in 3 forms including the form of The Father, the Son, and the Special Set Apart Breath (Holy Spirit). This descripture runs into a couple problems righ out of the gate though. First, there is the issue of when did the Father become the Father and whose Father did He become? When did the Son become the Son, and who was He before He became a Son? Etc, etc....

 

[Brother Mike]

The sinlessly perfect being that has always existed, is unlimitedly all powerful, immortal, and is the sovereign creator of all that is would be the definition I'd venture to say fits most Trinitarian ideas about what being God means.

Like you, I examine the Word. I want to know what the Word says and If I don't agree with you I at least want to understand that your making sense by what you see. In other words, the way you put it together, would it be possible in a common sense way to be true?

The Word God came from where? Possibly Germany but when believers hear it then it gets it's own definition not based on anything the scripture says about it. The issue I have with Trinity is that you need a Creed or Doctrine that has phrases that are not mentioned in Scripture anywhere. So why put any stock in something that is not even a creed or referenced in the Word of God? My guess it's this word "god" and it has a religious meaning that gets embedded to mean things it does not.

Mike.

 

[reba]

What about God's communication to born again christian women.

God is thee number one man in my life