R
rrowell
Guest
But you did not answer my question, who do you believe is in the Godhead?
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!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The Trinity
- Thread starter joethemechanic
- Start date
But you did not answer my question, who do you believe is in the Godhead?
O
Osgiliath
Guest
It's good to see an honest, unbiased analysis of Scripture. Good job Randy.
1 Corinthians 11:3 says "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God (the Father)."
Paul is applying in this verse the principle he lays down in Romans:
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God head (Greek: deity); so that they are without excuse."
Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 11 is that the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Notice now verse 12. For as the woman is of the man even so is the man by the woman: but ALL THINGS OF GOD.
Every man ever born excepting Adam, came through a woman. Applying the Romans 1:10 principle, in the beginning, God (the Father has no beginning) the Father created Christ and through Christ created the rest of creation. And how does this fit with scripture? Very well indeed. Notice Colossians:
Colossians 1:15-17 "Who (Christ) is the image (not God, but the image) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him (Christ) were ALL things created that are in heaven and that are in earth; visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers: ALL THINGS were created by Him and for Him: And He is BEFORE ALL THINGS and BY HIM all things consist."
This, of course, agrees with the Revelation:
Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."
And, agrees with John:
John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made."
Christ is the Father's instrument for all the rest of His creation: "By Him all things consist...that in all things He [Christ under His Father] might have preeminence."
Here is more Scripture:
Genesis 41:40 "Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: ONLY IN THE THRONE will I be greater than thou."
It is "only in the throne" that the Father is greater than Christ. On this earth Christ is "the almighty God, and the everlasting Father." But He Himself tells us that His Father has retained the "POWER OF THE THRONE" to Himself.
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Nowhere in all of scripture, does Christ ever claim to be without a beginning. To the contrary He confesses that He is the beginning of God's creation, that His Father is greater than He, and that His Father is His God:
Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."
John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not."
Ephesians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is ABOVE ALL [Christ included], and through all, and in you all."
1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
Put all these verses together with 1 Corinthians 8 and the evidence is overwhelming that God created Christ to be the channel for His creation, just as Christ created Adam to typify the Father and Eve to typify Christ, the channel for all who would come after Adam:
1 Corinthians 11:8 "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman OF the man."
1 Corinthians 11:9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
The whole point of this discussion is that we must understand the order that God has placed in His creation as stated in the beginning of this chapter:
1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ IS GOD (the Father)."
B
BornAgain
Guest
That sounds really nice. It would even be better if you would provide scripture to support your statements...thanks.
I am still waiting for where it states Jesus "always was".
Jesus called the Father the One true God. If Jesus always was and always was God how then does that believe in One God for Jesus stated "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit"?
If Jesus always was and always was God how then did he become the Son?
R.
B
BornAgain
Guest
Mark 1:24 (KJV)
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
the Holy One of God.—King James Version adds: "Let us alone," which is a common cry today among those in error. They do not want their error exposed, so they preach the doctrine, "Let us alone." The demons and evil spirits seemed to understand that Jesus came into the world to overthrow and destroy them and to consign them to torment. He came to overthrow the devil, to "destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:8.
He came to overthrow and consign to ruin all his servants and subjects, so they begged Jesus to let them alone, and asked what they had to do with him. "Art thou come to destroy us" or "to torment us before the time?" Matt 8:29. And then he said "I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." What prompted the demons to testify that Jesus was the Son of God, or the Holy One of God, we do not understand. They always were ready to bear this testimony, possibly with the view to appease his wrath and to cause him to deal kindly with them.
You presume that "YHWH is the Name of the Father, not His Son." Your premise presumes the truth of the very thing you conclude. Hence it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Your reasoning here is not at all sound. Please follow along:Asyncritus said:
JLB stated: "17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. Deuteronomy 10:17
These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful." Revelation 17:14"
You replied with: "Why do you think Jesus is NOT described as GOD OF GODS, as YHWH is clearly described in Deut 10.17?" and "Incidentally, King of kings is a title, not restricted to Jesus or YHWH."
You only had addressed "King of kings," not "Lord of lords."
Looking at things more closely, we do not necessarily find that "Lord of lords is equivalent to King of kings," as you suggest, or at least, not in the manner that you would have us believe. We find the following in Scripture:
1. Deut 10:17 clearly states that YHWH is "God of gods and Lord of lords."
2. "God of gods" is used only six times, only of YHWH, and only in the OT.
3. "King of kings" is used six times in Scripture--three times in the OT, none of which are in reference to God, and three times in the NT, all of which are used of God and Jesus.
4. "Lord of lords" is used only of God--two times in the OT and three times in the NT.
5. It is significant then that in all three times "Lord of lords" is used in the NT, it is used in conjunction with "King of kings":
1Ti_6:15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (NKJV)
Rev_17:14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful." (NKJV)
Rev_19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (NKJV)
We can see that "King of kings" has a significantly stronger meaning in the NT as it refers only to God and Jesus, and only in conjunction with "Lord of lords," which is only ever used of God.
We can conclude then that since "Lord of lords" is used only of God in the OT and used once of God in the NT, that it's application also to Jesus carries significant weight so as to show that he is God. And such a conclusion is consistent with what the rest of the NT reveals about Jesus.
We've been through this so many times and you are not seeing what is plainly written. Firstly, what you are saying is that since Paul states "there is but one God, the Father," that therefore Jesus, being the "one Lord," cannot be God. But in so doing, you must also logically conclude that God the Father cannot therefore also be Lord. Yet there are several verses I gave above that state he is in fact Lord. This contradiction is yet another error in your reasoning.Asyncritus said:
Secondly, you are ignoring the immediate context. If Paul's statement that "one God, the Father, of whom are all things" speaks to God being the eternal Creator, then again, you must logically conclude that "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" speaks to Jesus also being eternal and present at the time of creation. Jesus could not therefore have been created, or else what Paul said here would be in contradiction, an error.
But what we do in fact find is that it is in perfect agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-18, among other passages.
Again, you are basing this on a fallacious argument, which I have shown above. And I must mention again that "God of gods" is not at all used in the NT in reference to the Father, so it isn't surprising that we don't see it used of Jesus.Asyncritus said:
I'm not so sure I'm the one that needs to take notice.Asyncritus said:
Of course. And yet "Lord" is also the NT equivalent of YHWH, and is translated many times as such, even in passages that quote the OT usage of YHWH but apply the passages to Jesus. It really shouldn't surprise me anymore just how often anti-trinitarians stick to just one meaning of a word--the one that suits their position--but it still does.Asyncritus said:
Then I must ask: what is the reason, since there isn't one that I can see?Asyncritus said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I have shown it many times in this thread, including in the above response to Asyncritus--John 1:1-3; John 8:58; Col 1:15-16; 1 Cor 8:6. It really cannot be any clearer as there simply is no other conclusion that can be drawn from any one of these passages, never mind all of them together.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
Can't anybody fix this wretched formatting problem?
I'm havng the greatest difficulty reading what you say Free. As a mod, please have a word in the right ear (and the left too, if that'll help!)
I'm havng the greatest difficulty reading what you say Free. As a mod, please have a word in the right ear (and the left too, if that'll help!)
A
Asyncritus
Guest
It's post #586 that's the problem.
But can't the people who do the skin fix the problem more permanently and get it back to what it used to be?
But can't the people who do the skin fix the problem more permanently and get it back to what it used to be?
Sigh.
As I state Is Jesus God?
YES, He is all that the Father is BUT not because He always was. The FULLNESS was pleased to dwell IN Him. Which is part of the scripture you state.
NO, He has always been the Son. Which is part of the scripture you state. "Firstborn of every creature" A beginning before all things visible and invisible. FIRST
Jesus never dies. Jesus lives, as He taught, by the living Father just as we live by Him.
You can't hold to ONE God by stating Jesus always was. Jesus has His own spirit as a Son. Jesus is not the FULLNESS of The DIETY that dwells in Him. Jesus stated openly the FATHER was HIS GOD. The Father was in Him. Do I need to post that? Are you stating Jesus was in error by stating He received authority, the Father was greater, the Father was His God and OUR God?
That which was created by Gods command and at His Will was done through His Firstborn. Who we now know as Jesus "Christ the Lord"
I asked how does the theology that states "Jesus always was" hold to One God.
You can't show scripture that states always was because that would be in error.
Randy
I'm not sure what the problem is then. The formatting is the same as every other post in this thread.
I do find your position interesting Randy, and I'm giving it thought, but to me there are some logical issues (I suppose all positions have them due to the nature of what is being discussed).
To me either someone is or isn't God. There cannot logically be a yes and no answer. The very definition of God, as given in Scripture, includes the idea that he has always existed. For another to be called God, they must necessarily have all the qualities and characteristics of God, which includes having always existed. They are either truly and fully God, or they are not as I just don't see how anyone could be said to be God in one way but not another. That goes against the very nature and definition of God.
As for "firstborn," more than once I have shown that there is a perfectly legitimate biblical definition which has nothing to do with "being born" or "coming into existence."
No, there is no error in what Jesus said. It is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity and the answer is found in Phil 2:5-8, an absolutely key verse in understanding the relationship of the Father and the Son, both prior to the Son's incarnation and after.Randy said:
And, yes, I can hold to one God and believe that Jesus has always existed. I have said many times on these forums that the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that Scriptures reveal about God, about the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
So what Scripture reveals is that the Son has always existed, in one form or another, and is shown to be God, yet he clearly is not the Father. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is shown to be distinct from the Father and the Son, yet is spoken of so as to be God. And there is definitely only one God.
These are the things we must wrestle with. We cannot neglect the deity of Christ in favor of his humanity, as some are doing, any more than we can neglect his humanity in favor of his deity, as some throughout history have done. Jesus is truly God and truly man, and we must make sense of both. We must make sense of it all, to a point of course, realizing that God is infinite and we are not, so we must also leave room for mystery.
You stated: 'I am still waiting for where it states Jesus "always was".'Randy said:
I replied by giving you passages that clearly imply that Jesus always was.
R
rrowell
Guest
If the book of John does not clear this up, then I don't know what will, look at John 1:1 first:
John 1:1 (KJV)
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Now look at verse 14, same Chapter:
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.
and he always was, and always will be "God", he became "Son of God" and/or "Son of man" when he was made flesh (it was then he was Begotten) :
Revelation 1:8 (KJV)
8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
If this is not enough proof, then proof is not required as it will not overcome denial.
No that doesn't clear it up for "Jesus as always was". Paul defined Jesus the same (image of the invisible God) as in the exact representation of God's being but showed "The Fullness was pleased to dwell in Him" and "Firstborn of all creation" (not a being who always was) which is consistent with a Jesus who views the Father as His God and One who is greater then Him. Its also consistent with a Son who was given glory as we see the Father glorifying the Son. Jesus "received" from the Father. Its also consistent with Jesus having His own spirit (not Devine as that would be two Gods) and receiving the fullness of the deity (elevating Jesus to One who shares the fullness of the Fathers Deity) I assume from the moment Jesus was the Fullness was given so that even though Jesus has His own spirit there never was a moment Jesus existed apart from the fullness of the Diety. Jesus testified who gave Him that gift. (The Father in Him) and He gave us a like gift (He in us) though the Holy Spirit was promised beforehand by God. That shows the Father defined who Jesus is. (His God). God is Spirit. God is One. God didn't redeem us by Himself. God reconciled the world to Him through His Son. A Son who was without sin. Jesus is worthy to "receive" glory and honor and power.
So we will have to disagree on a Jesus "who always was" but not on a Jesus who is all that the Father is. (God)
Is Jesus God?
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
He never dies.
Randy
A
Asyncritus
Guest
On my machine the text you have written comes out as a long thin vertical strip - sometimes single words wide, and others with the words in a vertical, single letter arrangement.
Doesn't happen all the time, but too often to suit me.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
I simply don't have a clue about your 'big difference'.
I said, and I stand by it, that Jesus is NEVER called God of Gods, anywhere in scripture, capital letters or not.
There is a very simple reason for that - and it is that He is not God. He is the Son of God. And that fact alone finishes all this argument.
No, you're wrong . This is the Father, YHWH talking, not Jesus.
The Jews made serious errors, but never this one. Can't you see the singular, personal pronouns? Why are they singular? Because they refer to the one God.
Same chapter:
11 ¶ Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
What else could He say to remove this stumbling block from before your eyes? How else could He have said it? I simply don't know.
So also are a few other people:
Matthew 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Matthew 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Matthew 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Note, that He does not say ME in th following passage:
Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
Note that He disagrees with you and says MY GOD:
Peter and David disagree with you:
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. [Clearly, they are not the same - person or anything else]
Martha disagrees with you:
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
Augustus is called lord:
Acts 25.25 But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him.
26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.
And Paul:
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
2 Corinthians 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,
Ephesians 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The scriptures could go on, but I doubt if it will make the slightest difference to you.
Just BTW, do you have any comment on the real meaning of any of the above passages?
God was in Christ. He (Jesus) said so. But then He overturned your applecart completely, thus:
Jn 17.21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
If God was in Jesus, and Jesus was in God, then any literal understanding of that is up every gum tree going. It was plainly a figurative statement.
But when we add the fact that the disciples were to be one in God and in Jesus, and that God was to be in them, then your argument which is entirely literally based, falls flat on its face.
I'm sure you can see that, unless of course, you want to make us part of the trinity as well. Do you?
Again, I will show you from the clearest indisputable scripture there is.
Oh dear. Wrong again. There is clearly a textual problem there, because John, inspired as he is, clearly says the Hebrew really means:
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
The RSV says:
Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.
What have you to say to that?
Yes, with understanding too. What about yourself?
You don't understand, do you. But have a look a few paras above, and you will gain a clear understanding of what it means that God was manifest in the flesh.
That word 'manifested' again upsets your applecart, because if the trinity was what you think it is, it would simply say: God was in the flesh.
And before you go rushing off to Jn 1, remember that it doesn't say the Jesus became flesh. It says that the Word became flesh.
Just as a matter of interest, do you know that the Word is also a title of the scriptures?
Did you know that 'the beginning' refers mainly to the beginning of Christ's ministry? How do I know?
John says so.
Knowing full well that people like you might come along and make a mess of his intentions, he elucidates the matter clearly for us.
Whether you believe him or not is up to you, but it seems perfectly clear to me that 1 Jn 1.1 is written with direct reference to Jn 1.1, and if so, then a shift in your paradigm is called for.
1 Jn 1.1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Which beginning was that? Let Mark 1 tell you:
1 ¶ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
So Jn 1 may not be Gen 1 after all. Do you see the point? It may well be the beginning of the gospel of the Lord Jesus. But I have little hope that you will be able to grasp that elementary point.
You know, all these sayings about Jesus being Almighty God make me wince.
That great title which belongs to the Father alone, is being applied to His Son. It must grieve both of them to hear you say so - because Jesus came here, and lives now, for only one purpose: to glorify God in everything he does and says.
Do you know, Jesus NEVER claims to be the Almighty? Just as He NEVER claims to be God of Gods?
Why doesn't He do so? It's a most important doctrine, if it is true, and we would expect to hear about it somewhere in the gospels, out of His own mouth. But we don't.
Why did it take 400-odd years for the trinitarians to make such a mighty deduction or worse, mistake?
Because it is untrue. How do I know?
Isaiah and many others say so. Go argue with them:
Isaiah 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Well Hallelujah! We agree on something - I think...
Please. This is untrue. Here's an example, as I can't be bothered to go digging them all up again:
Dan 4.19 Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.
Genesis 23:6 Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.
Genesis 23:11 Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee: bury thy dead.
Genesis 23:15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead.
We've been over this ground before, so I won't do so again. Just look it up on the thread.
The Pharisees etc were looking for a good excuse to kill Him - and thought they had found it. Just as they erred with their fictitious account of His comment about the temple building, they do so now.
Isn't it striking that at His trial for blasphemy, this so-called claim to be YHWH is never mentioned? Why is that, do you think?
They all must have known about it, if that was true - but they don't mention it at all.
Why don't they? Because Jesus shot them down in flames just a bit later:
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
He is accused before the High Priest, and what do they say?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[Note, not: Are you YHWH?] Why not? because he knew full well that Jesus had never said anything of the kind. Pity you can't follow that example at least.
[...]
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
They accuse Him before Pilate - and what do they say? That He made Himself YHWH? Not at all. Here's their accusation:
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
As shown above, He did nothing of the kind.
But now I think about it, you haven't answered my question: Why is Jesus NEVER described as God of gods?
R
rrowell
Guest
Was Timothy Paul's Son?
2 Timothy 1:2 (KJV)
2. To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Did it ever cross your mind that Jesus before and after made flesh was like a son to God in a way Timothy was like a son to Paul?
A
Asyncritus
Guest
I thought that was clear enough?
There is One God, the Father.
Second to Him is His Son, Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the power of God, personified sometimes, and sometimes not.
Clear enough ?
A
Asyncritus
Guest
Wayseer:
QUESTIONS WAITING FOR AN ANSWER
1 But now I think about it, you haven't answered my question: Why is Jesus NEVER described as God of gods?
2 So just how many members of the trinity are there really, in your considered opinion?
3 Have you ever noticed that Jesus NEVER sanctifies the Father, NEVER sends Him anywhere, and is NEVER the Father of the Father?
Why is that, do you think?
QUESTIONS WAITING FOR AN ANSWER
1 But now I think about it, you haven't answered my question: Why is Jesus NEVER described as God of gods?
2 So just how many members of the trinity are there really, in your considered opinion?
3 Have you ever noticed that Jesus NEVER sanctifies the Father, NEVER sends Him anywhere, and is NEVER the Father of the Father?
Why is that, do you think?