Eventide
Member
Yes, but you don't believe the word of God.. that's obvious.
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Yes, but you don't believe the word of God.. that's obvious.
W
Who Says
Guest
I don't think that you are stupid at all...in fact I am impressed by your reasoning and desire to know the deeper things of God. Were it not so, I wouldn't take the time to open dialogue with you.
I do however think that you are mistaken in your conclusions in reference to the deity of Jesus Christ...and that is a big stumbling block.
As harsh as it may sound, the scripture demands that we do not have fellowship with those who call themselves Christians, yet deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John names such as speaking in the spirit of antichrist...another Christ, a false Christ.
This separation is borne out in no less than the person of the Apostle John...let me explain this quickly.
In Ephesus there lived a fellow named Cerinthus who was a contemporary of John. Cerinthus preached the very same things that I've seen here on this board...that Jesus was a man who lived a perfect life, had a special relationship with God, etc., but was not God incarnate in the flesh.
Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History Recounts the following story:
The Apostle John went to a public bath house in Ephesus, and upon seeing Cerinthus inside refused even to enter the building. "Let us flee" he said, "...because Cerinthus the enemy of truth is within."
As I said...sounds harsh...yet the deity of Christ is central the the Gospel.
God incarnate...the only way one can realistically deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ is to radically re-define not only Greek meaning in the manuscripts, but also the English translations...to radically re-define the person of messiah...to throw out both Jewish and early church history...to in essence re-interpret the entire counsel of God. To pass over and ignore the wealth of both OT and NT scripture that testify to the depth of God for His creation: That He would put on flesh and suffer for us, that we might be redeemed to Him.
For there could be no other way....hope you understand that I'm not trying to be harsh, but simply to state the facts, as it were....
I hope you won't find fault with me that I see as the very place where men become lost being that men proceed to venture into all their many words due to their speculating beyond what the scriptures simply tell us.
W
Who Says
Guest
And you are absolutely sure you do?
I believe God's Word but not the words of men's speculation beyond God's Word.
Further I think it is sad that so many of you always try to turn the conversation toward making others have to defend their integrity.
But one of the points of this discussion is precisely to show that Scripture tells us that Jesus is in fact God. This is not speculating.
mcgyver
Member
No...I believe you to be a man of integrity...a man of a "good heart"...I simply think that in this one area (for whatever reason) you are in serious error, and was trying to shed some light as to why you've received some of the answers you've received.
Personally, I enjoy our conversations...and I hope that at the very least you'll re-examine your position per the deity of Christ.
I assure you that some of what you've posted has caused me to go back to the word of God that I may give proper apology (defense) of my beliefs.
W
Who Says
Guest
It is not speculating if you can show me where the reliable closer to original untampered with text of God's word says such a thing.
But things like that "I AM" in John are totally manufatured by men's wisdom and has no real credible proof to support it.
I know you can argue different. But I do not care to argue. One can argue a dog was originally meant to be called a duck and a duck a dog if they like to argue.
"In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God, the Same(Word) was in the beginning with God,all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made...He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him NOT...and it appears from your writings that you agree with the world that knew Him not.
Do you have a scriptural reason why you do not believe that Jesus Christ was actually God?
Eventide
Member
Not a shred of doubt in my mind...
OHHH.. so you are the standard for what is correct and what's been tampered with, right.. I always get a laugh out of those who try to tell me what's right in God's word and what isn't.. as if they're the standard of the truth and are able to make that call.. it's basically exalting yourself above God's word and correcting HIM when He speaks in simplicity and in truth.. and of course many people are beyond correction.. even with respect to the word of God.
No, it's a simple and extremely serious matter of DENYING the TRUTH.. period..
If you want to go that route, the logical conclusion is that we can question all of it, including your belief that Jesus isn't God. It all becomes mere speculation.
And you say that we are speculating? Where is proof that "things like that 'I AM' in John are totally manufatured by men's wisdom and has no real credible proof to support it?"Who Says said:
No one has made an argument even remotely similar to there having been such a change in meanings of words that a dog is actually a duck and vice versa. We are using acceptable meanings of words, within the context they were written.
W
Who Says
Guest
Amen.
The one unique Son who is unique because he is the only direct Son of God was WITH God in the beginning when God decided to create the heavens and the earth and all things in them.
Therefore there never was nor ever will be another uniquely direct Son of God. All other sons are sons of that one unique Son.
That is not difficult to understand.
What is a Son but a torch lit by the light of his Father?
Jesus is "uniquely" the Son of God.
Lit by his Father, his light is pure light as his Father's light is pure.
And Jesus has no lack of that light and therefore the fullness of it.
John 1: 4 “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;”
What is a Son but a torch lit by the light of his Father?
And I suppose I should add that as no man has seen God at any time and we are all sons of the one unique Son that well explains why Jesus is the complete Word of God to us. We have no word of his Father (our GrandFather) but through Jesus who is our father and also that one unique Son of his Father.
It is not difficult to understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with what you said and also this, and the Word WAS God. You remind me of the Fonz on Happy Days trying to say love with out saying love...just take that final plunge and quote the bible back to yourself..."AND THE WORD WAS GOD", you will feel so much better afterwards.
mcgyver
Member
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the gospels, and the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John (specifically) were in circulation within a generation of Christ. Although there may be some argument as to the dating of the gospels, there is no controversy as to the dating of the Epistles...and there were still folks alive during the time who had heard Christ speak, who remembered what happened...who remembered His claims and His actions when these documents were being circulated.
The early church did not operate in a vacuum...and if these were not in line with the words and actions of Christ...someone would have popped up and said: "Hey, I was there and that ain't what happened"
There's really no middle ground when it comes to the inspiration of the scriptures...either it is, or it is not. We can't say "these words are true, and those words aren't true"; otherwise we need to just reject the whole thing out of hand because we can't trust it. ;)
W
Who Says
Guest
And I suppose I should add that as no man has seen God at any time and we are all sons of the one unique Son that well explains why Jesus is the complete Word of God to us. We have no word of his Father (our GrandFather) but through Jesus who is our father and also that one unique Son of his Father.
It is not difficult to understand.
mcgyver
Member
Well, in the entire body of "Holy Writ" there is never a mention of God as our "grandfather", only as "the Father".
That one tickled me!
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
No grandchildren here.
If the first part of John 1 isn't difficult to understand, then please address the following, which I posted in the thread on the Trinity and you didn't address there:
I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation. This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.
John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture.His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable. John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.
The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:
P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.
This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.
This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)
All I ask is that since you claim it is easy to understand, then please show me where either the Greek is wrong, or my reasoning of verse 3 is wrong, or both.
W
Who Says
Guest
Well, in the entire body of "Holy Writ" there is never a mention of God as our "grandfather", only as "the Father".
That one tickled me!
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
No grandchildren here.
There is not even a word for grandfather in the hebrew language of that time. But to translate their perspective to our perspective we must see that they saw the progression of the fathers leading to the day of their birth as all thier fathers. And we describe that same thing as father, grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather and so forth.
Amusing, isn't it.
So lets stop the foolish arguing, look at what is, and accept it as it is.
It is stupid to hate one another calling some antichrist over something so simple.
mcgyver
Member
There is not even a word for grandfather in the hebrew language of that time. But to translate their perspective to our perspective we must see that they saw the progression of the fathers leading to the day of their birth as all thier fathers. And we describe that same thing as father, grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather and so forth.
Amusing, isn't it.
So lets stop the foolish arguing, look at what is, and accept it as it is.
It is stupid to hate one another calling some antichrist over something so simple.
Yep...but the gospels were written in Greek...which does in fact have a word for "Grandfather"...not found in the bible btw. ;)
I for one don't hate you or anyone else...but if in fact denying the deity of Christ is in fact antichrist, then I propose that the argument is neither foolish nor insignificant...but is in reality central to worship of the "right" Jesus.
W
Who Says
Guest
I propose that denying the love and the holiness of Christ is antichrist.
I propose that whether you say he was God in the flesh or the Son of God in the flesh means nothing if you exhibit to the world that you are imitating (following) the example of who he is and then represent him as condoning things that viloate love and are by nature unholy, such as hasty condemnations of others.
Let us not forget that all those Christ condemned were religious leaders. And his condemnation was only concerning their ill treatment of the flock they were responsible to care for.
mcgyver
Member
No argument here..."Ya gotta walk the talk" for sure....
But yet, there have been a lot of "good", "loving" men who were not Christian.
When one considers the dire warnings given in scripture...well...making sure that we are following the Jesus of the bible becomes of prime importance.
Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’