Is Jesus considered to be God?

[follower of Christ]

Again, Y..
You either CAN prove your case or you CANNOT.
Nothing youve provided yet even remotely negates John 1 and what it Clearly states about Jesus Christ and His BEING God.

Im not interested in googling anything for your amusement.
Present your case or please just admit that you dont have one.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Apparently REAL bible scholars agree that Jesus is the Word and that the Word IS God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
(John 1:1-4 MKJV)

The Word was WITH God and the word WAS God.
The Trinity as far as the Father and the Son are absolutely and conclusively proven by this one tiny verse.

Was God - In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was “with God.†Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that “he was God.†There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because:
Albert Barnes


And the Word was God - Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.
Adam Clarke


and the word was God;
not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, Joh_1:6 and which shows, that the word "God", is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Gen_28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos,
John Gill

.

 

[Yahoshea]

So now that we have ESTABLISHED that this IS about Jesus and that the WORD became flesh, we return right back to the beginning part of the passage where this WORD is WITH GOD and IS God...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
WHO is it that is WITH God there friend ?
Whomever it is speaking of IS God.
Unless God is a schizophrenic this passage IS about someone who is literally WITH GOD and IS God both at the same time.


OK, lets assume that everything you say about John 1 is true. What fruit does that doctrine bear for me?
surely a truth that you are so adamant about should do something to make me more like Christ or build hope in my heart or make Christ more of a viable example.
Please tell me how?

 

[Solo]

Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, and those that deny this truth have the spirit of antichrist leading them.

 

[follower of Christ]

OK, lets assume that everything you say about John 1 is true.

Certainly not going to assume that John is a flaming liar or was trying to mislead anyone.
Anyone here assert otherwise ?

What fruit does that doctrine bear for me?

Uh....what is it that you are looking for ?
You sound as tho you need some extra benefit from truth or something in order to just believe it.

surely a truth that you are so adamant about should do something to make me more like Christ or build hope in my heart or make Christ more of a viable example.
Please tell me how?

Uh....yeah.

Truth is truth is truth.
Either one accepts truth or they do not.
I'll leave the games to you.

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, and those that deny this truth have the spirit of antichrist leading them.

Couldnt agree more, tho Im trying to watch my words carefully here.

 

[Free]

Joh 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
Why did Christ need to be given anything? Isn't he co-equal? He should have had it already.

A common argument of those who deny the deity of Jesus. However, as I have pointed out many times, the doctrine of the Trinity takes these into account while the argument given ignores many other passages of Scripture.

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Could Jesus have done anything else but keep the commandments? How did Jesus keep the commandments as a God or as a man? If he is asking us to keep the commandments in the same way, do we need to be Gods too? (unless, of course, the significance is that he kept them as a man)

As has been pointed out before, you are trying to split the Incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms both the true humanness of Jesus and his deity, both of which are clearly found in Scripture.

]Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Why does Jesus need anyone else to glorify him. He is God he could have glorified himself.
Why did Jesus need to have authority? As a God should he not already have that authority?
Why did Jesus not send the father to earth. They are co-equal are they not. Why does one have more authority then another?

Firstly, on the topic of "glorifying," here are two very relevant passages, one of which is in the very context of the verses you gave:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Two points to be made on the above verses: 1) Jesus shared in the glory of the Father, which would contradict Isa. 48:11 if Jesus wasn't also God, and 2) Jesus shared in that glory before the world began. Jesus existed prior to the creation of the world, sharing in the glory of the Father since he is also God.

I can't count how many times in debates on the Trinity I've had to point out where passages cited against the Trinity stop short of clarifying verses.

Secondly, as to your other objections, I'll deal with them below with Phil. 2:5-8.

Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Why did the helper have to come from the father? Could not the co-equal son send it?

Jesus did say he would send the Holy Spirit.

BTW I posted many scripture showing Jesus as human. You did not deal with any of them.

There is no real point to responding to such verses since, again, the doctrine of the Trinity upholds the humanness of Jesus.


Here is a key passage:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This passage supports the concept I mentioned earlier called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality.

Some important points to make about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1-3.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself--not only was it he who did the emptying, he emptied himself of something. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this contrasts with his being in the "form of God." This is what John 1:14 is speaking of.
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

As you can see, this supports everything that I have stated thus far, including the accepted interpretations of John 1:1-3 and 14 and John 17:5, among other passages. Your position that Jesus was only a man cannot account for anything that is said in this passage. This passages clearly shows that Jesus pre-exsited with the Father.

 

[Solo]

Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, and those that deny this truth have the spirit of antichrist leading them.

Couldnt agree more, tho Im trying to watch my words carefully here.

Thanks for the unity of the Word of God. It is only by the Word of God that we can know anything, and that as the Holy Spirit gives us the interpretation. Those who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and walk therein can know and understand the Truth. The Word of God does not pull any punches, and is used as the weapon of offense against the wiles of the enemy. Those who have a humble spirit can and will come to know Jesus Christ as their savior, and they will know Him for who he is. Until He becomes their Lord and Savior, they are none of His.

God bless you,
Solo

 

[follower of Christ]

As has been pointed out before, you are trying to split the Incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms both the true humanness of Jesus and his deity, both of which are clearly found in Scripture.

Absolutely.
Tho we may not understand it fully, Jesus IS fully man and IS fully God.
Scripture proves both very plainly.
.

 

[Yahoshea]

Here is a key passage:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This passage supports the concept I mentioned earlier called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality.

Some important points to make about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1-3.
OR
JESUS WAS IN THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF GOD CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD LIKE ADAM
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]."
OR
AS A HUMANHE DID NOT SEEK EQUALITY WITH GOD AS ADAM DID. AS THE SECOND ADAM HE DID NOT FALL BECAUSE OF SATANS "YOU SHALL BE LIKE GOD".
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself--not only was it he who did the emptying, he emptied himself of something. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind.
OR
AS THE CONTEXT CLEARLY SHOWS IT IS ABOUT ATTITUDE.JESUS DID NOT CONSIDER HIS OWN NEEDS OR DESIRES. JESUS GAVE UP HIS DESIRES EVEN UNTO DEATH. HE DID NOT WANT TO DIE "LET THIS CUP PASS FROM ME" HE GAVE UP THE ATTITUDES THAT WOULD SAY HE DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this contrasts with his being in the "form of God." This is what John 1:14 is speaking of.
OR
AGAIN A DIRECT TIE IN WITH GENESIS.
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

As you can see, this supports everything that I have stated thus far, including the accepted interpretations of John 1:1-3 and 14 and John 17:5, among other passages. Your position that Jesus was only a man cannot account for anything that is said in this passage. This passages clearly shows that Jesus pre-exsited with the Father.[/quote]

I have posted several times about Phil. The problem us that many Trinitarians and it appears you too have a wrong understanding of this portion of scripture based on a preconceived idea of doctrine. This verse has nothing to do with the Godhead or about the pre-existent Christ. These verses are direct comparison between the first and the second Adam. Between Jesus and Adam. Between the motives and actions of Adam as compared to the motives and actions of Christ.
Allow me to set the stage for understanding the fall.
Gen 1, God creates man in His image and likeness and gives man dominion and authority to rule over the Earth.
At the end of the sixth day God finishes His creating process and says it is “goodâ€. The literal meaning of “good†is functional. God created a functional world in which everything worked properly including man. There was no dysfunction in this world. Adam knew no dysfunction.
Gen 3
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

A literal Mechanical translation of verse 5 is this –

Given that “Elohiym [Powers] is knowing that in the day you eat from him then your eyes will be opened up and you will exist like Elohiym [Powers] knowing function and dysfunction

God knows what function and dysfunction is. Knowing function (good) and dysfunction (evil) makes you like God. You then begin making choices for yourself as to which of them you will choose. Before the fall man depended completely on God for direction and leadership. He did not equate himself equal with God in the decisions for his own life.
The temptation of Satan was for Adam and eve to equate themselves with God by knowing function AND DYSFUNCTION. This was the fall. Man took God off the thrown and replaced God with themselves. Adam used his free will and position as a son of God to meet his own needs. Adam had dominion over the Earth and everything in it. He used that dominion to serve himself and look out for his own personal interest. The fall resulted in Adam losing that position of dominion.

Now to Phil 4. Notice the context is set from the very beginning. It is not about proof of divinity or pre-existance for Jesus but rather about the attitude Christ had. Here the context is set of comparing the first and second Adam. I am deleting the verse separations since they were not in the originals. I am also replacing the term “form†with the literal meaning of the word “outward appearanceâ€.
3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the external appearance of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the external appearance of a bond-servant, and being made in likeness of men being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross

Jesus was a son of God. Created in the image (outward appearance) of God. Jesus appeared as a God to the people because He functioned as God to them. The people marveled at Him because He spoke with authority unlike the leaders of Israel. He performed miracles as no other had done.
Because Jesus never sought to meet his own needs, but always trusted God, He never lost His position of dominion over the Earth. He did not use his freedom to supply His own needs or desires. Not even his legitimate needs. Example – In the desert he was starving and had the power to turn the stones into bread. This was a legitimate need yet he would not go beyond God’s will. At other times (when it was God’s will) he did exercise dominion over God’s creation. When He was to enter the temple to preach, Peter pointed out that they had no Temple tax. Jesus told him to catch a fish and in that fishes mouth would be a coin for the tax. Jesus used the authority that God gave him to have dominion. Jesus took on the appearance of a bond servant to the people and did not use His position to exalt himself or meet his own needs.
9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
13for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
14Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
15so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
16holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.
17But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.
18You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.

Adam equated himself equal with God. He sought to be equal with God. Jesus did not.
Mankind lost their position in God’s creation and Jesus never having given up his human position of dominion could have lorded over man, but instead became a servant to them. Jesus is a king and ruler over God’s creation because He never gave up that position.
This entire section of verse is pointing out the attitude of Christ. It tells us to have the same attitude in us. This is the context. How can we have the attitude of being God? If this section of verse proves that Christ is God then that is merely an attitude because we are asked to have the same attitude.

 

[Yahoshea]

As has been pointed out before, you are trying to split the Incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms both the true humanness of Jesus and his deity, both of which are clearly found in Scripture.

Absolutely.
Tho we may not understand it fully, Jesus IS fully man and IS fully God.
Scripture proves both very plainly.
.

FREE AND FOLLOWER ---
this statement carries no weight since it brings into the conversation terms that are not in scripture and that carriy a doctrinal bias.
You attempt to use one of the supposed proofs of the trinity to prove the trinity. this is circular reasoning. you cannot logically prove the trinity by assuming the incarnation. the incarnation is at the crux of the debate. It is introducing facts not in evidence. No court in the land would let you get away with that. you must first prove the incarnation before you can use it to support the trinity.
Incarnation is a made up non biblical word so splitting it should be no problem. It is like me saying that you are splitting up the bezelbob. bezelbob is a made up non biblical word.

I can hear it coming --- like a wind from a sewage plant. It could be..... Maybe ..... might be ..... YES IT'S A MYSTERY. LOL

Well folks thanks for the entertainment. You gave me a few good laughs I am out of here for the night.

 

[follower of Christ]

Here is a key passage:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Actually that particular passage is debated as to its precise meaning.
Other versions render it quite differently.

(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.

(KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

(MKJV) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(WNT) Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

(YLT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,

These show that Jesus did not think that it was 'robbery' to BE equal with God.

The WNT does an even better job (I believe) of showing that He IS equal with God, and in context made himself of no reputation of His own free will.

So we cannot make doctrine based on this small verse because not even the scholars are 100% positive if it is saying what YOUR version says or what one of these others are saying.

What we DO know is that John 1 absolutely and conclusively PROVES that Jesus is the Word and the Word IS God.



.

 

[follower of Christ]

FREE AND FOLLOWER ---
this statement carries no weight since it brings into the conversation terms that are not in scripture and that carriy a doctrinal bias.

Sorry friend but the WORD 'trinity' doesnt have to be in the texts for the CONCEPT WE call trinity to be therein.

You attempt to use one of the supposed proofs of the trinity to prove the trinity.

And youve done the same.

this is circular reasoning.

Ah...the last ditch plea for help from one who has become desperate.
When all else fails, call the whole thing 'circular' ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

you cannot logically prove the trinity by assuming the incarnation. the incarnation is at the crux of the debate. It is introducing facts not in evidence. No court in the land would let you get away with that. you must first prove the incarnation before you can use it to support the trinity.

Again.
Jesus is the Word and the Word IS God :eyebrow

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

Incarnation is a made up non biblical word so splitting it should be no problem.

You can split the words friend...WE'll stick to Gods plain word

 

[follower of Christ]

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God -
f we take these words as they stand here, their meaning is, that, as he was from the beginning in the same infinite glory with the Father, to appear in time - during his humiliation, as God and equal with the Father, was no encroachment on the Divine prerogative; for, as he had an equality of nature, he had an equality of rights.

But the word ????????, which we translate robbery, has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, coveted, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated:

Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God but made himself of no reputation, etc.
However the word be translated, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord. Though he was from eternity in the form of God - possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete. On this account I prefer this sense of the word ????????before that given in our text, which does not agree so well with the other expressions in the context. In this sense the word is used by Heliodorus, in his Ethiopics, lib. vii. cap. 19, etc., which passage Whitby has produced, and on which he has given a considerable paraphrase. The reader who wishes to examine this subject more particularly, may have recourse to Heliodorus as above, or to the notes of Dr. Whitby on the passage.
Adam Clarke

 

[Yahoshea]

As has been pointed out before, you are trying to split the Incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms both the true humanness of Jesus and his deity, both of which are clearly found in Scripture.

Absolutely.
Tho we may not understand it fully, Jesus IS fully man and IS fully God.
Scripture proves both very plainly.
.

sorry missed this post.
You admit you do not understand it fully. Jesus as our example is at stake concerning how he did what he did. Are you saying that you do not understand clearly how christ was an example for us?
You do not understand fully how Christ overcame temptation?
You do not understand how Christ was resurected from the Dead?
How did Christ do miracles? Was it the deity in him or the humanity in him that performed the miracles? If you say the deity, then we can never preform a miracle because we do not have the same deity (dual-nature) in us.
Just exactly what parts of Christ actions can we follow and what parts can we not? How do you know? Is it reduced to supposition and guesswork? In 40 years of study I have discovered no key that tells me that Christ did this as God and that as man.

If I follow your doctrine then following Christ as our example is full of guesswork and suppositions.
Did Christ dual nature have any effect on his resurrection?
If christ dual nature had any effect on his right to be raised from the dead, how is that a hope for me that I will be raised?

As you admitted -- You do not understand it fully. Yet you insist it is true. how do you know?
There is a current ad on TV about some new drug. In the ad the announcer says "it is believed that this drug works by....." they do not know how it works but want us to take it. there reasoning is that they see the results, but they most likely will not see the side effects.
Your stand is much like this.
You do not know how it works but you want me to believe it. Believe what? You do not even know.
I ask to at least see the results (fruits) and I am accused of playing a game.
I point out the side effects and you downgrade or ignore them.

And then you claim your arguments are conclusive?

IMO you are ticked at me because I post to reality. not intellectual head knowledge but real honest working gospel that actually changes lives.
I post looking for fruit and you reply - "truth is truth is truth."
In the case of scripture truth is tested by fruit.
A fig tree is a fig tree is a fig tree but if it produces no fruit it is cut down and thrown in the fire.
Truth that produces no fruit is simple philosophy. It has a form of godliness but denies the power therein.
If it does not produce something in the human heart or change the character of a man it is the fruitless fig tree.

 

[Yahoshea]

Here is a key passage:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Actually that particular passage is debated as to its precise meaning.
Other versions render it quite differently.

(EMTV) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

ISV) In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.

(KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

(MKJV) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(WNT) Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

(YLT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,

These show that Jesus did not think that it was 'robbery' to BE equal with God.

The WNT does an even better job (I believe) of showing that He IS equal with God, and in context made himself of no reputation of His own free will.

So we cannot make doctrine based on this small verse because not even the scholars are 100% positive if it is saying what YOUR version says or what one of these others are saying.

What we DO know is that John 1 absolutely and conclusively PROVES that Jesus is the Word and the Word IS God.



.

thank you for admitting that is section of verse is not conclusive. I appreciate your honesty.

 

[follower of Christ]

sorry missed this post.
You admit you do not understand it fully.

Please dont even go to a place where YOU claim to comprehend it all friend.
I'll have to break out in hysterical laughter if you do.

Just as with the predestination issue there ISNT enough data available to FULLY comprehend the concept we call Trinity.
Sorry.

 

[follower of Christ]

thank you for admitting that is section of verse is not conclusive. I appreciate your honesty.

Huh.
How you concluded what you did from what I actually SAID is beyond me.
The ONLY thing that I did actually say is that this verse youre basing doctrine on CANNOT be used for doctrine on its own because we arent absolutely certain as to the INTENT.
The accepted renderings are completely contradictory and at least one of them is wrong.

Getting it ?

/

 

[follower of Christ]

You do not understand fully how Christ overcame temptation?
You do not understand how Christ was resurected from the Dead?
How did Christ do miracles? Was it the deity in him or the humanity in him that performed the miracles? If you say the deity, then we can never preform a miracle because we do not have the same deity (dual-nature) in us.

Firstly gent WE humans are incapable of performing miracles (ie breaking the natural laws God set into place).
With technology we can simulate things a bit, but in and of ourselves it is impossible.
The SPIRIT within us....ie GOD...CAN perform miracles thru us.