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!

Scripture stating that Christ and God are NOT the 'same'.

I

Imagican

Guest
Asked by a 'fellow member' of the forums to start this thread, I would like to offer scripture that 'explains' the differences between God and His Son. NO, not differences between Father and Son. But scripture that PLAINLY shows the 'difference' between' Son and God. For God IS THE FATHER and Christ IS the Son. This is what I will offer from almost EVERY book in the NT. Are you ready?
 
Let us start at the 'beginning' then. As good a place as any. The book of Matthew. Well, let's see.......how about the FIRST verse:

Matthew 1:1

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Let me go ahead and get this out of the way for it has been a 'stumbling block' to many for FAR too long. Having the name Emanuel does not mean God in the flesh. It means what is stated, "God WITH us". Now, what does this mean EXACTLY? As we progress, I believe that it will become MORE and MORE obvious. But to state MY case up front; I believe that Christ was/is EXACTLY who He stated that He was/IS. And I also believe that Christ was/IS EXACTLY who His Father, our God, stated that He was/IS.

Matthew 1:23

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Now, since Christ states later that what He offered was NOT His own, but given Him of the Father it becomes perfectly clear that 'as God's representative', Christ WAS in essence God WITH us. For what He offered was offered FROM God NOT simply through the mouth of Christ. The Word IS the Word of God, offered us through His Son and His prophets. As this continues, I hope that at least some will see the 'reasoning' behind this understanding.

I offered the 'first' scripture to 'show' that Christ, in the flesh, had an earthly lineage.

Let us move on.

Matthew 2:6

6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

God referred to as 'a Governor'. That's strange.

Matthew 2:15

15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Clearly a reference to Christ AS the Son of God.

Gets 'deeper' now.

Matthew 3:17

17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now, let us determine 'Who's' voice it was that was heard. I can think of ONLY one that would claim that Jesus Christ WAS His Son. God. And exactly WHAT did this voice of God state? "This IS my beloved SON, in whom 'I' am well pleased". Nothing here to indicate that Christ was ANYTHING other than what is stated. And what is that? Christ IS the Son of God. PERIOD. No mystery here. And WHY do you think that this 'happened'? It could have happened a 'billion' different ways and been described a billion different ways. Yet, we have what we have and it IS stated exactly as it is. NO indication here that Christ is ANYTHING other than what is stated, "THE SON OF GOD". Any questions so far?

Matthew 4:1

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Firstly, this sounds almost like an earlier story about a man named Job. Like this was a sort of ritual or 'test' if you will. For look at how it is worded, " to be tempted of the devil". Written as if both Satan AND God were 'awaiting' the outcome. Like NEITHER could have had 'complete' confidence of the 'outcome'. Comparable to, let's say, a boxing match or something similar.

Now, HOW does it say that Christ GOT to the wilderness. PLAINLY it states that Jesus was 'led up of the Spirit'. Hmmmm, from a 'trinitarian' point of view, wouldn't this be simply a 'waste of words'? For IF Jesus were God Himself, why would it need be said that He was 'led up OF THE SPIRIT? Quite interesting isn't it? Why would the Spirit NEED to 'lead' Jesus ANYWHERE were He INDEED God Himself?

Now this is REAL deep:

Matthew 4:3

3And when the tempter, (everybody agree that this WAS Satan?), came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Now, this PURELY shows that Satan knew WHO Christ WAS: 'If thou BE the Son of God', does it NOT? And Satan OBVIOUSLY knew, BEFORE we are offered such knowledge, that the Son of God came WITH POWER given Him BY GOD AS God's Son.

Many have claimed that Christ's offering in the next verse we encounter was Him stating that He WAS God. Hardly. But let's start at the beginning:

Matthew 4:6

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Obviously here we see Satan tempting Christ to 'prove WHO He IS'; 'If thou be the Son of God'. A clear indication ONCE again that Satan was WELL aware of 'who' Jesus WAS. And then it gets 'deeper' still: for it is written, 'He shall give his angels charge concerning thee', Is there ANY doubt WHO the 'He' IS? Now PLEASE explain to me WHY this would be SO. Why would it be stated that "He" would charge HIS angels concerning Christ if Christ were INDEED God Himself? And WHY would God need angels to 'protect' Himself to start with? It seems very strange that God Himself would NEED ANY type of 'protection' from ANYTHING. Yet we have the words right here.

Let me ask this, is there any among us that believes Satan to be 'without knowledge'. From my understanding of the Word, Satan was the most ACCOMPLISHED of angels 'before' the FALL. So, with this in mind, are there ANY out there that believes himself to be 'brighter' than Satan? I am not asking anyone if they believe Satan was 'foolish' and 'full of pride', for that is irrelevant to this study. But is there any among you that denies the 'ability' of Satan or his power? But, in order to 'accept' a 'trinity', that Christ WAS God, then one must believe that here Satan was tempting God in the flesh and that God in the flesh needed protection from His angels. NOT LIKELY. Either scenario.

Matthew 4:7

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Many seem to have a proble discerning what is stated here, for many will say that this is Christ stating that 'He IS God'. Hardly, my friends. For what we have here is Christ DEFENDING His purpose USING the Word of God. And what Word is this, straight from the mouth of a prophet who brought us these VERY words in the OT. But, the easiest part that SHOWS without a doubt that Christ is NOT referring to Himself is to NOTE WHO was being tempted here. Christ was asked by Satan to prove 'who' He was by 'jumping' off a pinacle so that God's ANGELS would protect Him, thus PROVING that He was indeed the Son of God. Christ was NOT referring to Satan tempting HIM, but defending the 'truth' by telling Satan that HE, Christ would NOT tempt God to 'prove ANYTHING to Satan'. Christ was NOT telling SATAN not to tempt HIM, but telling Satan that HE, Christ would NOT tempt God by following what Satan suggested. Christ here was simply offering obedience to God and stating the scripture to 'back it up'. That the command was NOT to tempt God and that HE, Christ, wouldn't do so to satisfy Satan.


I'll stop for now and allow what has been offered so far to be discussed. Please guys, let's do this in an 'adult' fashion and at least 'pretend' that it is worthy of such behavior. We can start by agreeing to disagree at times but doing so in a respectful and curtious manner befitting of a group that claims to be 'one with our Savior'.

Comments and questions are welcome of course, but let's keep it on topic for this one is going to be a long one at that.
 
It seems that this post is directed at trinitarians. Trinitarians do NOT deny that Jesus is the Son of God...your post indicates that you misunderstand this. God, the Son, is a more accurate representation...both.

The Scriptures you posted do show that Jesus was the Son of God, I agree. I also agree that they show that Jesus is distinctively the Son, and in the case of the first verse that He was also God....with us.

Trinitarians admittedly do not have a full understanding of God...how can any man...but are unwilling to ignore those verses that show Jesus was/is God, and that speak of an eternal covenant, and of eternal salvation. So, though it remains unclear to all of us, both are Scriptural, and to choose only one is to ignore parts of Scripture.

To be fair, I think the beginning post should have listed all the Scriptures that show Jesus is God...or at least the ones you would suppose a trinitarian would use...and then show how Jesus is not God. And then, show how he is only the Son.


Okay, your first verse...

Matthew 1:23

Imagican wrote:
Now, since Christ states later that what He offered was NOT His own, but given Him of the Father it becomes perfectly clear that 'as God's representative', Christ WAS in essence God WITH us. For what He offered was offered FROM God NOT simply through the mouth of Christ. The Word IS the Word of God, offered us through His Son and His prophets. As this continues, I hope that at least some will see the 'reasoning' behind this understanding.

I offered the 'first' scripture to 'show' that Christ, in the flesh, had an earthly lineage.

Yes, Christ had an earthly lineage...

Hebrews 5:5

God appointed His Son to be High Priest and Saviour, as shown in the Scriptures
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

Christ was God with us in the flesh, and had a lineage, AND as these verses show, He was also without lineage...he authored our eternal salvation. He did not have infirmities as earthly priests, and was not in need of forgiveness Himself...His sacrifice was purely for us. The fact that HE was God, the Son, is the reason He could do that.

Hebrews 7:11
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Aaron's order wasn't good enough, and Christ's order being without lineage from the start, was needed...due to not having infirimity...because it would be eternal blood being shed. That is why He came in the flesh, because the veil is in the flesh, and it is through the flesh of Christ we are able to come.

Hebrews 7:14-17
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


Again both, but one is far more evident...He was made (HIGH PRIEST) after the order of His deity, not after His flesh which was out of Judah, not Aaron.

Hebrews 9:11-15
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
fulfill the promise of the new covenant
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Because of His order of priesthood through His deity, and His perfect condition, that is being without spot, our redemption is eternal. Now, those who are called may receive part of this eternal inheritance...which belonged to Christ alone because of his deity.

Hebrews 10:5-7
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Christ came in the body that was prepared for Him, and submitted to the Father for the purpose of being the Lamb. This was a covenant between them. While here, the Holy Spirit guided Him because He was submitted, and the will of the Father was accomplished by His sacrifice, and then He was raised. The three, working together in a distinctive manner, to save man. Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant. ALSO...

Hebrews 9:25-28
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

He is the eternal covenant, and eternal salvation

Hebrews 10:19-22
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

It is only by His flesh that we enter...the flesh that was the New Covenant. Christ did not need to enter by this veil, because He was/is God, THAT is how we are able to follow Him, through the veil, being sprinkled in our hearts with His blood, and washed with pure water.


Now, going back to Hebrews 1...

Hebrews 1:1-14
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
who is superior to the angels, as shown by seven passages of Scripture
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

He is appointed heir of all things because He is God, the Son, the Word by whom all was made...John 1

He is made more than the angels by inheritance...this refers to status/title...be evidence of His inheritance being by what He is made. This is my Son, today I have begotten thee...This speaks to Christ's incarnation, not His eternalness, through Judah, not Malchisedek. Verse 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? This continues with Christ being deity as the Father, and higher than the angels...certainly not an angel, because the passage also says that He is the express image of the Father...deity. He was begotten eternally, because we know that God is eternal...Christ being is Son is also eternally begotten...this verse speaks to Christ's status very clearly when read in context with this passage, and the rest of Hebrews. The next verses in the passage make it clear to us....This is the Father speaking to the Son...The Father, who's will the Son has eternally covenanted together with to submit to Him in the flesh, for the purpose of sacrifice...

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

We see here that Christ is God, and the Father is the One who acknowledges this.
 
lovely,

That WAS my plan. I simply started at the beginning of Matthew and was working my way through it. If I 'missed' a verse that indicates Jesus IS God, it was an 'honest mistake' for that is EXACTLY what I hope to address in this thread. I did offer the scripture concerning Emanuel and explained to the 'best of my ability' what it means to 'me'.

I will go back and re-examine what you indicate I 'may have missed' and WILL post it. I am NOT trying to 'avoid' a single word of the Word in this thread. I assure you that I have read EACH and EVERY word contained within the Bible DOZENS OF times, MOST, HUNDREDS and MANY hundreds AND hundreds of times. Not bragging I assure you, just letting you know that I have examined the Word and THIS has been 'what' has brought me to 'my' understanding. NOT ONLY the words in the Bible, but, through the guidance that I have 'begged' for and been offered as well.


MEC
 
Imagican,


Imagican wrote:
I will go back and re-examine what you indicate I 'may have missed' and WILL post it. I am NOT trying to 'avoid' a single word of the Word in this thread. I assure you that I have read EACH and EVERY word contained within the Bible DOZENS OF times, MOST, HUNDREDS and MANY hundreds AND hundreds of times. Not bragging I assure you, just letting you know that I have examined the Word and THIS has been 'what' has brought me to 'my' understanding. NOT ONLY the words in the Bible, but, through the guidance that I have 'begged' for and been offered as well.

I apologize. I re-read the paragraph of my post that you were reponding too, and my words were very revealing of my own arrogance in my heart, and my defensive attitude about this topic lately...which actually works against learning from the Spirit, imo. I do not want to minimize your study, or examination at all, and I am looking forward to your response. It is obvious that I do not agree, but I am also constantly revisiting this topic, and I want to put my full trust in the Truth of the Word, and the teaching of the Spirit, and not in my own understanding. Again, I am sorry for my tone, and I thank you for revealing my heart in such a humble manner.
 
Imagican said:
Let us start at the 'beginning' then. As good a place as any. The book of Matthew. Well, let's see.......how about the FIRST verse:

Matthew 1:1

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Let me go ahead and get this out of the way for it has been a 'stumbling block' to many for FAR too long. Having the name Emanuel does not mean God in the flesh. It means what is stated, "God WITH us". Now, what does this mean EXACTLY? As we progress, I believe that it will become MORE and MORE obvious. But to state MY case up front; I believe that Christ was/is EXACTLY who He stated that He was/IS. And I also believe that Christ was/IS EXACTLY who His Father, our God, stated that He was/IS.

Matthew 1:23

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Now, since Christ states later that what He offered was NOT His own, but given Him of the Father it becomes perfectly clear that 'as God's representative', Christ WAS in essence God WITH us. For what He offered was offered FROM God NOT simply through the mouth of Christ. The Word IS the Word of God, offered us through His Son and His prophets. As this continues, I hope that at least some will see the 'reasoning' behind this understanding.

I offered the 'first' scripture to 'show' that Christ, in the flesh, had an earthly lineage.

Let us move on.

Matthew 2:6

6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

God referred to as 'a Governor'. That's strange.

Matthew 2:15

15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Clearly a reference to Christ AS the Son of God.

Gets 'deeper' now.

Matthew 3:17

17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now, let us determine 'Who's' voice it was that was heard. I can think of ONLY one that would claim that Jesus Christ WAS His Son. God. And exactly WHAT did this voice of God state? "This IS my beloved SON, in whom 'I' am well pleased". Nothing here to indicate that Christ was ANYTHING other than what is stated. And what is that? Christ IS the Son of God. PERIOD. No mystery here. And WHY do you think that this 'happened'? It could have happened a 'billion' different ways and been described a billion different ways. Yet, we have what we have and it IS stated exactly as it is. NO indication here that Christ is ANYTHING other than what is stated, "THE SON OF GOD". Any questions so far?

Matthew 4:1

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Firstly, this sounds almost like an earlier story about a man named Job. Like this was a sort of ritual or 'test' if you will. For look at how it is worded, " to be tempted of the devil". Written as if both Satan AND God were 'awaiting' the outcome. Like NEITHER could have had 'complete' confidence of the 'outcome'. Comparable to, let's say, a boxing match or something similar.

Now, HOW does it say that Christ GOT to the wilderness. PLAINLY it states that Jesus was 'led up of the Spirit'. Hmmmm, from a 'trinitarian' point of view, wouldn't this be simply a 'waste of words'? For IF Jesus were God Himself, why would it need be said that He was 'led up OF THE SPIRIT? Quite interesting isn't it? Why would the Spirit NEED to 'lead' Jesus ANYWHERE were He INDEED God Himself?

Now this is REAL deep:

Matthew 4:3

3And when the tempter, (everybody agree that this WAS Satan?), came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Now, this PURELY shows that Satan knew WHO Christ WAS: 'If thou BE the Son of God', does it NOT? And Satan OBVIOUSLY knew, BEFORE we are offered such knowledge, that the Son of God came WITH POWER given Him BY GOD AS God's Son.

Many have claimed that Christ's offering in the next verse we encounter was Him stating that He WAS God. Hardly. But let's start at the beginning:

Matthew 4:6

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Obviously here we see Satan tempting Christ to 'prove WHO He IS'; 'If thou be the Son of God'. A clear indication ONCE again that Satan was WELL aware of 'who' Jesus WAS. And then it gets 'deeper' still: for it is written, 'He shall give his angels charge concerning thee', Is there ANY doubt WHO the 'He' IS? Now PLEASE explain to me WHY this would be SO. Why would it be stated that "He" would charge HIS angels concerning Christ if Christ were INDEED God Himself? And WHY would God need angels to 'protect' Himself to start with? It seems very strange that God Himself would NEED ANY type of 'protection' from ANYTHING. Yet we have the words right here.


Mec
First of all I agree with 98% of what you have said. I agree with you that Jesus is the Son Of God. All trinitarians believe this. The reason God would need angles to protect him is simple really. He gave himself over in his humanity. He was totally dependent on the Father. Did Jesus as God need angels to protect him? No of course not. Angeles are what HE choose to use.
I don't know about you, but I too have prayed and recieved Angelic protection.



[quote:66d48]Let me ask this, is there any among us that believes Satan to be 'without knowledge'. From my understanding of the Word, Satan was the most ACCOMPLISHED of angels 'before' the FALL. So, with this in mind, are there ANY out there that believes himself to be 'brighter' than Satan? I am not asking anyone if they believe Satan was 'foolish' and 'full of pride', for that is irrelevant to this study. But is there any among you that denies the 'ability' of Satan or his power? But, in order to 'accept' a 'trinity', that Christ WAS God, then one must believe that here Satan was tempting God in the flesh and that God in the flesh needed protection from His angels. NOT LIKELY. Either scenario.

Mec
I agree with you here to except that Indeed Satan was Tempting God in his humanity. (human form) How cool is that God would call on Angeles to protect him from another angel. What a slap in the face to Satan himself. LoL


Matthew 4:7

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Mec
For the most part I agree with you also in this. The word Lord used here is Kurious which means master according to the way I understand Greek. Now in saying this I will also add that while taking my Greek class It was said that Jews (Matthew) would never use the word Lord unless they were refering to God himself. So it is interesting that Matthew did use this word lord (master) (small caps) here. What it tells me and I am speculating is that while Mattew was writing his Gospel it was well past the time of Jesus (GOD) RESURECTION and thus what he was saying or thinking or reminicing'' Thou shall not temp the LORD (LARGE CAPS) thy GOD. Either way this one verse is not going to determin the outcome of this debate.



Many seem to have a proble discerning what is stated here, for many will say that this is Christ stating that 'He IS God'. Hardly, my friends. For what we have here is Christ DEFENDING His purpose USING the Word of God. And what Word is this, straight from the mouth of a prophet who brought us these VERY words in the OT. But, the easiest part that SHOWS without a doubt that Christ is NOT referring to Himself is to NOTE WHO was being tempted here. Christ was asked by Satan to prove 'who' He was by 'jumping' off a pinacle so that God's ANGELS would protect Him, thus PROVING that He was indeed the Son of God. Christ was NOT referring to Satan tempting HIM, but defending the 'truth' by telling Satan that HE, Christ would NOT tempt God to 'prove ANYTHING to Satan'. Christ was NOT telling SATAN not to tempt HIM, but telling Satan that HE, Christ would NOT tempt God by following what Satan suggested. Christ here was simply offering obedience to God and stating the scripture to 'back it up'. That the command was NOT to tempt God and that HE, Christ, wouldn't do so to satisfy Satan.

Mec
Again, I almost agree with you. Let me show you how I see it.
“The Father will provide for Me, and the Father will protect Me, but I’m not going to test Him in order to satisfy you or anyone else. Scripture says, Satan, that I am not to test God.â€Â
Don’t take Scripture out of context. Don’t test God.

If you lie on the freeway saying, “I’m going to prove right now that God is with me and that He will keep me,†He’ll keep you, all rightâ€â€in heaven!
Don’t tempt the Lord. Don’t say, “I wonder how far I can go and not get hurt. I wonder how much I can be like the world without really being in the world.†Don’t jump off the temple to prove your spirituality, your liberty, or your maturity. Jesus said, “I’m not going to give in to this temptation. I know My Father is with Me. I know He will protect Me. I don’t have to prove it.â€Â



I'll stop for now and allow what has been offered so far to be discussed. Please guys, let's do this in an 'adult' fashion and at least 'pretend' that it is worthy of such behavior. We can start by agreeing to disagree at times but doing so in a respectful and curtious manner befitting of a group that claims to be 'one with our Savior'.

Comments and questions are welcome of course, but let's keep it on topic for this one is going to be a long one at that.[/quote:66d48]


Mec
Surprisingly I do agree with most of what you have said so far.

Mec
How do you interpret John 20:28,29

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!â€Â
29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they wo did not see, and yet believed.â€Â
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 20:28-29). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Thanks Jg
 
Lovely,

I wasn't trying to 'correct' you. I was simply offering that I haven't reached that point yet. But I am thrilled that The Spirit IS alive and well in your 'walk'. That should be encouraging to ALL.

j,

Thanks for your input. Don't be 'surprised' my friend, for MOST of what I have to offer is UNDENIABLE to ANY that are 'truly' led by 'The Spirit'. About the ONLY major difference that one will be able to find in the understanding that I offer and what 'they' believe is concerning 'trinity'. Pay attention, and even though you will probably continue to disagree, perhaps, but I'm quite sure that you will find that I have MUCH to offer that WILL bring about a 'bit' of inspiration as well as understanding. While I am UNABLE to 'claim' the understanding as 'my own', I can't help but get excited when I am able to offer what HAS been given to me SO 'freely'.

Just a couple of comments and in a little while I'll move on to another five or six chapters. At this pace it will only take a few days to zip through Matthew. This may seem a 'silly' way to tackle the issue, but I think that it is EXTREMELY important to try to 'take it ALL in, rather than, pick and choose. And PLEASE, lovely, j, anyone, if I happen to miss something concerning this issue, (I will attempt to offer ANYTHING relevant that is 'apparent' REGARDLESS of 'my take on it'. To include those statements that ARE used by 'trinitarians' for 'proof' of this doctrine, as well as those that, I believe, state OUTRIGHT, Jesus is NOT God Himself.

Thanks again guys, and gals, for dealing with this in a peaceful and respectful manner. We should ALL be here to LEARN as MUCH as we can. Certainly we should offer our understanding to each other, but what's MOST important is to LEARN from 'each other'. For that is TRULY what the body WAS designed for. Each with their own 'gifts' to be SHARED for the 'edification of ALL'.

MEC.
 
Lovely
I don't know how I missed your Post. Its great. I was saving Hebrews for the kudegra. Good job
Blessings to you
Jg
 
Howdy,

I would like to start with a pretty important understanding. I believe that all, or at least MOST understand already, that God IS our Father in heaven. Not ONLY is God the Father of Christ, but OUR Father ALSO. Not ONLY our 'CREATOR' but LITERALLY, OUR Father.

Matthew 5:34,35

34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Interesting, Christ PLAINLY states that heaven IS God's throne. And, we KNOW that God IS the Father. Then it goes on to say 'the city of the great King'. Note that this is in a capital K. Now, I am NOT sure 'how' it was discerned to use capitals in the 'translation' of the Greek. I have been led to understand that there were NO capital letters in the Greek. So HOW the translators decided to use capitals is mostly a 'mystery' to me. But let's just assume that there is a 'reason' for the capital K here. Wow, if we were to jump ahead and read in Revelation 'who' will BE the King of this earth in the future and WHERE His kindom will be located, we find that Christ WILL be the King of this earth and that His kindom WILL be located in the NEW Jerusalem. I'm NOT going to INSIST that this is the PERFECT interpretation of this scripture, only that it is what I believe.

So, if we were to 'agree' that this IS what is being stated here, we see a DEFINITE distinction between God/The Father and Christ/The Son. A distinction in that One WILL be the King of heaven, whilst the Other, the King of Jerusalem. At the SAME TIME. If this IS true, REGARDLESS of the teaching of 'trinity', this WOULD make TWO distinct God's if Christ IS indeed God Himself.

Let's move on.

Two references here that I believe are important.

Matthew 5:45,48

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This in line with my first comment. God IS OUR Father. And the next, WOW, interesting; 'Be ye therefore PERFECT'. Is this POSSIBLE? Many DON'T believe that it is. Why? They believe that this is suggesting that we could be PERFECT. Guys and Gals, WE CAN. NO, not perfect as Christ WAS perfect in His obedience to the Father, but PERFECT IN UNDERSTANDING. Huh? YES, PERFECT in the understanding of WHAT is being offered throughout this ENTIRE chapter. And WHAT is being offered? LOVE folks. We CAN be PERFECT in our understanding of LOVE. This is EXACTLY what is being referred to here. If any doubt what I have offered, I can show you other scripture that PLAINLY states the SAME thing with MORE emphasis on the ACTUAL 'meaning' behind the statement. Just a little side thought. And I DO believe it pertinent to this study for WE HAVE THE PERFECT 'Example' of this PERFECT understanding. Our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Another IMPORTANT issue regarding 'where' we are at in the Bible. If you will note as you read through this part of Matthew, you will see that Christ is 'sort of' RE-introducing those that He speaks to, to the Father/GOD. Now, my understanding concerning this concept and the 'way' in which is done by Christ is this: If Christ were not ONLY the Son of God, but God Himself, WHY did He NOT come right out and say and PROVE to those that were following Him that THIS IS THE CASE. I am WELL aware of the importance of faith, but if Christ were simply 'teaching the truth', WHY hide from His followers that HE WAS GOD IN THE FLESH? If this were TRULY the case, there is NO doubt that He could have PROVEN this claim to ANY that heard Him make it. If not with outright miracles, but by simply allowing The Spirit to MOVE those and convict those that Christ TOLD that HE WAS GOD. Boy, wouldn't this have cleared up a BUNCH of contraversy concerning His Deity?

Notice that He CONTANTLY refers to 'your Father', 'thy Father' etc.... Who we KNOW IS GOD. And, here we come to some 'meat':

Matthew 6:9

9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

HERE is a 'perfect' example of Christ offering that He is MUCH like us. That God IS His Father as well as OURS. For are there ANY among those that are reading this that are UNAWARE that; NOT only is Chirst offering HOW we should pray, but offers THIS prayer HIMSELF, TO THE FATHER. For what He IS doing in this example IS praying to His Father who IS ours also. And HOW does Christ pray? His WORDS; "OUR Father, (Mine AND Yours)....." Is this not OBVIOUS in it's intent. Christ IS offering THE example of HOW we ARE to pray by DEMONSTRATING it in a prayer that HE offers to The Father, (who we KNOW IS GOD). I don't know how to emphasize this enough.

Matthew 6:24

Boy, we need to SERIOUSLY consider this one:

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Christ is NOT YET, the King of this earth. He IS the Head of The Church, (the body of believers), but NOT YET OUR KING. So, are we 'truly' able to serve TWO masters RIGHT NOW? For if we place Christ in the 'position' of God Himself, and worship Him AS God, have we NOT 'created' TWO masters? And what does He offer here? This CANNOT be done 'righteously'.

Now, many have a 'misunderstanding' concerning 'worship'. We, (humans), worship that which we adore. And what we adore is WHAT we LOVE. Regardless of whether it be physical OR material, we worship THAT which we adore. Money, (which we see IS possible in this VERY passage), possesions, ideas, people, standing, etc........... WhatEVER it is that we LOVE IS what we WORSHIP. Some insist that this is NOT so. They are MISTAKEN and without understanding in 'what it is to 'worship'.

Now, is this WRONG. It CERTAINLY CAN be. If we place ANYTHING 'before' God in our 'worship' of it, IT IS WRONG. If we put ANYTHING that we worship BEFORE our neighbors, IT IS WRONG. So, if we 'make' Christ into God and He is NOT, we have placed 'someone' BEFORE God Himself. For if Christ is NOT God, and we worship Him AS such, then we have done NOTHING short of 'creating' a 'false God' and committed Spiritual adultery concerning WHAT WE HAVE BEEN COMMANDED TO DO. Please note that I offer 'IF'. We haven't traveled down this road in this thread yet to make a 'determination of 'whether Christ IS GOD or not', but we will, hang in there. For now, just try to understand 'what' I am offering. NO, not asking that you accept that Christ is NOT God, simply understand that 'IF' He is NOT God, what the implications are concerning worshiping ANYTHING or ANYONE AS God, If it or they are NOT.

Matthew 6:26,30

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Compare these two verses of scripture and see if you can discern their IMPORTANCE as they relate to this topic...................... These two verses PROVE that The Father IS God. NO, not God The Father. One could certainly 'say' this, but it's NOT said. What is said is that the Father IS God.

Now, at this point there has been ABSOLUTELY NO inference that Jesus Christ IS God. EVERY bit of indication is that Jesus Christ IS exactly who HE stated that HE IS, Who John the Baptist said He is, And who God said He is; The Son of God, the ONLY begotten of the Father.

Matthew 7:28,29

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Here we go. Now THIS IS what I'm talking about.

First, note that it says 'at HIS DOCTRINE'. This is PRETTY important. For God has NO doctrine. Doctrine is what has been 'given' to us. It BECOMES our doctrine. Now, for this to 'state' the people were astonished a HIS DOCTRINE', is a PRIME indication that what Christ offered WAS NOT OFFERED to the poeple FROM God, but 'given' to them by ONE who 'themselves' had been 'given' it. It does NOT state that what Christ offered was EVEN considered to be 'given' to them 'by God', but HIS REPRESENTATIVE.

And NEXT we see EXACTLY what I am talking about. God Does NOT have authority, God IS The Authority. But LOOK at what is stated here, "as one having authority". Can you SEE it? AS one HAVING authority. For Christ to HAVE instead of BE authority, He COULD NOT BE GOD. For, for Christ to 'have' authority, it HAD TO BE GIVEN HIM. Otherwise He would BE AUTHORITY. Probably trivial to some but of EMENSE IMPORTANCE when making an effort to discern WHO Christ WAS/IS.

I'm going to stop here and allow comments. I am NOT 'telling' ANYONE that they MUST accept what I have offered here. I am simply offering 'what' I understand and 'how' I understand it. I am QUITE sure that there WILL PROBABLY be MUCH disagreement with what has been offered. Not a problem. But PLEASE, without simply trying to discredit my words through argument, read what I have offered with an open mind and an open heart and maybe even a 'bit of prayer for guidance' and SEE if much of what I have offered is NOT the 'truth'.

MEC
 
Hello Jg
I am really looking forward to your reply. Answer soon.
Oscar
 
Back
Top