Soooo, What's the Difference?

[Asyncritus]

This is why only the doctrine of the Trinity makes sense--Jesus clearly claims equality with God but he is not the Father.

So we progress.

He is not the Father. Full marks.

Now as to the question of 'equality'.

Perhaps I can ask you for your understanding of what 'equality' means, because we may be talking about different things here.

Here are all the occurrences of isos in the NT.

Mt 20:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal <2470> unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

[means on a par with us with regard to pay]

Mr 14:56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not <2470> together.
Mr 14:59 But neither so did <2470> their witness agree together <2470>

[meaning, disagreed, did not tally]

.
Lu 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much <2470> again.

[meaning equal amounts]

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal <2470> with God.

[this one is problematic, simply because in Jewish culture, a son was never equal to or greater than his father, as in

Mt 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mr 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Lu 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

Therefore, this 'equality' is something else.

Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like <2470> gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

[meaning of equal value and power?]

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal <2470> with God:

[We're back to John 5.18, and my New Exposition of Philippians 2].

Re 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal <2470>.

[meaning in dimensions].

So from that survey, NT equality means, or refers to:

1 worth with regards to pay

2 amounts

3 agreeing, or tallying

4 2 problematic verses

of equal value or power

6 dimensions.

So given all that, how do you see 'equality'?

 

[Asyncritus]

But you didn't comment on the hierarchical structure exhibited here:

1 Cor 11.3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I see here, as in a vast number of other places, a hierarchy, with God at the top, Christ second, man third, and woman fourth.

Is that how you see it?

 

[Free]

So given all that, how do you see 'equality'?

In every way the Father is God, so is the Son; the Father is God in nature, the Son is God in nature.

 

[Asyncritus]

In every way the Father is God, so is the Son; the Father is God in nature, the Son is God in nature.

Do bear with me Free, I'm not trying to be irritating, but I thought Paul said:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

A man cannot be God, and God cannot be man.

Square the circle?

 

[Free]

Do bear with me Free, I'm not trying to be irritating, but I thought Paul said:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

A man cannot be God, and God cannot be man.

Square the circle?

This is the problem with discussions such as these. Inevitably, if not right from the start, passages of Scripture get posted which appear to support one's position. The problem is, taken out of context from the entirety of Scripture, they may not be saying what, at first glance, they appear to be saying.

As a case in point, I could post Scripture where Paul elsewhere clearly indicates that Jesus is God. Taken out of context of the entirety of Scripture, this could be used for one to support the idea that Jesus is only divine.

What we must search for then, is a unifying doctrine that neither denies the humanity of Christ nor his deity. But what you are doing Asyncritus, is sacrificing those passages which clearly indicate the Sons equality with the Father, at the feet of those which clearly show his humanity. You are so focused on the humanness of Jesus, that you are ignoring his divinity, and therefore must either continue to ignore the relevant passages, or completely change their meaning, as you have no unifying theology of Christ.

To go off topic for a moment, this is why the doctrine of the Trinity is the superior understanding of God. It neither denies Christ's deity nor his humanity, nor does it deny the distinctness between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but rather it attempts to reconcile all that the Scriptures reveal about God.

So, to go back on topic, this is why, as I have argued in years past on these forums, and I think mcgyver made the same point, when you remove the deity of Christ, you remove the most central doctrine in distinguishing true Christianity from false. I have had people in the past who couldn't and wouldn't state whether or not JW's and Mormonism were false beliefs because both clearly believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet, not only do both of those belief systems have irreconcilably different views of Christ from orthodox Christianity, but they stand opposed to each other in that regard as well. Clearly, out of these three belief systems, only one at most can be true, and that one that is true not only believes that Jesus is the Son of God, but that he is also in very nature God.

 

[childeye]

It makes sense then, that our Lord would have something about Him that is absolutely unique, by which we may know the true and living Christ.

So then, what is the one, absolutely unique thing about Jesus of Nazareth that confirms Him as Christ alone? Something to which no other human being in history can lay a verifiable claim?

[/QUOTE]
The Jews were a chosen people. The only people in the world who have both an ethnicity and a religion that are one and the same. They say they exist for one purpose, to bring forth the Christ, the True Image of the One True God. They prophesied his rejection by the people that were to bring him forth, but that in doing so he would become a light to the World.

He was a peacable and loving man who died on a cross in submission to His enemies, convicted for simply saying the Truth. Then he forgave the ones who treated him with brutal visciousness and wanton malice saying, forgive them Father for they know not what they do. No other person in history ever did all of this.

 

[Asyncritus]

There are 36 references in the gospels where Jesus is described as the Son of God. I won't post them all.

There are 58 references in the gospels where He is called Son of Man.

It is perfectly obvious that the explanation of these 2 facts is simply that A. God was His Father, (hence Son of God) - and that B. Mary was His mother - (hence Son of Man).

Where is the problem?

I think you are focussing on part A to the exclusion of part B, and that focus needs re-adjusting,because you now have a one-eyed view of the matter. That's useful for microscopes, but not scripture!

The apostles are equally emphatic after His ascension that He is the Son of Man, even in the Book of Revelation:

Ac 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Re 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Re 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Those last 2 references are particularly important, because this is God writing about Jesus, not merely the apostles (as ch 1 states).

The emphasis that you are placing on His 'being God' is completely ruinous to His sacrifice. Since God cannot sin and cannot even be tempted with evil, then Jesus could not sin and could not even be tempted with evil.

Which is manifestly untrue, and wrecks any idea that He 'conquered sin'. There was no contest, and His sacrifice was no sacrifice at all.

That is the reason for John's very grave statements:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Surely you can see that?

 

[Free]

There are 36 references in the gospels where Jesus is described as the Son of God. I won't post them all.

There are 58 references in the gospels where He is called Son of Man.

It is perfectly obvious that the explanation of these 2 facts is simply that A. God was His Father, (hence Son of God) - and that B. Mary was His mother - (hence Son of Man).

Where is the problem?

I never said there was a problem. What you must now explain is the significance of Mary being his mother and God being his Father.

I think you are focussing on part A to the exclusion of part B, and that focus needs re-adjusting,because you now have a one-eyed view of the matter. That's useful for microscopes, but not scripture!

Nice try but I have done no such thing. I have never denied that Jesus is both man and God. It is you that denies he is God. It is you that is distorting and ignoring Scriptures which prove your theology to be in error. Do not try and turn that around on me. It is clear to any who read this thread or one of the others we've discussed this in, that I am merely responding to your error that Jesus isn't God.

Having said that, it would seem as though you are implying that my continued arguments that Jesus is God means that I am focusing on Jesus being the Son of God. Is that what you mean?

The apostles are equally emphatic after His ascension that He is the Son of Man, even in the Book of Revelation:

Ac 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Re 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Re 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Those last 2 references are particularly important, because this is God writing about Jesus, not merely the apostles (as ch 1 states).

The emphasis that you are placing on His 'being God' is completely ruinous to His sacrifice. Since God cannot sin and cannot even be tempted with evil, then Jesus could not sin and could not even be tempted with evil.

Which is manifestly untrue, and wrecks any idea that He 'conquered sin'. There was no contest, and His sacrifice was no sacrifice at all.

That is the reason for John's very grave statements:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Surely you can see that?

See what?

 

[Asyncritus]

I never said there was a problem. What you must now explain is the significance of Mary being his mother and God being his Father.

The significance is simply that He inherited qualities from both parents, as we all do.

Nice try but I have done no such thing. I have never denied that Jesus is both man and God.

I am struggling to come to terms with your understanding. To put it plainly, I do not see how a being could possibly be able to sin and not be able to sin AT THE SAME TIME.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER IN MY OPINION.

It is you that denies he is God. It is you that is distorting and ignoring Scriptures which prove your theology to be in error.

Can we avoid these ad hominems please? That way only lies abuse and other unpleasantnesses, which are not necessary, and completely un-enlightening. Which will generate heat rather than light.

To the best of my knowledge, I never distort scripture. I could equally accuse you of doing that too. I refuse to do so, because I believe you are an honest man seeking to understand what is at the very least a difficult subject from your point of view.

If you can't see the contradiction in terms that you have to resolve, I would be very surprised, given the level of comprehension and intelligence you have so far displayed.

But the problem won't go away.

At every step of the way in the temptations in the wilderness, the contradiction in your theology is plainly displayed.

Could he have made bread from the stones?

Yes/ No

Could He have leapt off the pinnacle of the temple?

Yes/ No

Could He have bowed down and worshipped the devil?

Yes/ No

On the cross, could He have come down?

Yes/ No

So there you have it. Could you copy and paste that section in your response, and highlight your choice? Shouldn't be too difficult.

I still haven't seen your response to John's very grave statements, except to say that he was responding to gnosticism. That is not a convincing reply, as even the guys on your side must recognise.

Having said that, it would seem as though you are implying that my continued arguments that Jesus is God means that I am focusing on Jesus being the Son of God. Is that what you mean?

You are in fact, deleting 'the Son of' in your thinking. Not allowed.

See what?

That if he came in the flesh, then He most certainly could have sinned.

If He didn't come in the flesh, then He most certainly couldn't.

So which was it?

 

[Asyncritus]

At every step of the way in the temptations in the wilderness, the contradiction in your theology is plainly displayed.

Could he have made bread from the stones?

Yes/ No

Could He have leapt off the pinnacle of the temple?

Yes/ No

Could He have bowed down and worshipped the devil?

Yes/ No

On the cross, could He have come down?

Yes/ No

So there you have it. Could you copy and paste that section in your response, and highlight your choice? Shouldn't be too difficult.

Free?

 

[Free]

Free?

Sorry. I've been busy as of late. I actually just returned from giving a niece driving lessons. She's had her learner's permit for a week. Fun but a little scary.

And I apologize for some of my previous comments. Patience is not a virtue I possess in great quantity and I get exasperated when I find I have to respond to arguments which have been dealt with several times already (not necessarily in this thread, and perhaps not with you).

At every step of the way in the temptations in the wilderness, the contradiction in your theology is plainly displayed.

Could he have made bread from the stones?

Yes/ No

Could He have leapt off the pinnacle of the temple?

Yes/ No

Could He have bowed down and worshipped the devil?

Yes/ No

On the cross, could He have come down?

Yes/ No

So there you have it. Could you copy and paste that section in your response, and highlight your choice? Shouldn't be too difficult.

Again, such arguments do not prove anything, especially since they are taken out of context of the entirety of Scripture, as discussed below.

The significance is simply that He inherited qualities from both parents, as we all do.

Correct. So just what did he inherit from the Father and what did he inherit from Mary?

I am struggling to come to terms with your understanding. To put it plainly, I do not see how a being could possibly be able to sin and not be able to sin AT THE SAME TIME.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER IN MY OPINION.

The crux of the matter is not whether Jesus could have sinned or not. The issue is that the Bible clearly states Jesus is God and it clearly states that he is man. And it is that which we must make sense of.

To say that Jesus is God so he wasn't able to sin or that he is man so he was able to sin, is to split the mystery, and that is where your error is. Let me ask you this: if Scripture clearly states that Jesus is God and it clearly states that Jesus is human, why would you default to Jesus being only a man in the face of such a paradox?

You will notice that I do not argue that Jesus could not have sinned, and I do not do so because the question is unanswerable. You are ignoring the statements in Scripture that Jesus is God based solely on a handful of passages which present us with paradoxes, at which point you jettison the Scriptures which states he is God, with no basis for doing so. Paradoxes can have the appearance of contradictions but are not necessarily so. In cases such as these, we are simply presented with statements which present us with difficulties beyond our understanding. They may appear contradictory but that need not be the case.

I still haven't seen your response to John's very grave statements, except to say that he was responding to gnosticism. That is not a convincing reply, as even the guys on your side must recognise.

I really don't see how these support your position or undermine mine. Most everything I have read on those verses suggest that John was addressing Gnosticism, which clearly could be the case.

You are in fact, deleting 'the Son of' in your thinking. Not allowed.

I have done no such thing. That Jesus is the Son of God is indisputable. What I am arguing is that he is very much God in direct response to your denial of that fact. That is why my focus is where it is. And I have even argued, and will continue to argue, that Jesus's being called "the Son of God" implies that he is God in nature, equal to the Father.

 

[mcgyver]

The significance is simply that He inherited qualities from both parents, as we all do.

I am struggling to come to terms with your understanding. To put it plainly, I do not see how a being could possibly be able to sin and not be able to sin AT THE SAME TIME.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS MATTER IN MY OPINION.

Can we avoid these ad hominems please? That way only lies abuse and other unpleasantnesses, which are not necessary, and completely un-enlightening. Which will generate heat rather than light.

To the best of my knowledge, I never distort scripture. I could equally accuse you of doing that too. I refuse to do so, because I believe you are an honest man seeking to understand what is at the very least a difficult subject from your point of view.

If you can't see the contradiction in terms that you have to resolve, I would be very surprised, given the level of comprehension and intelligence you have so far displayed.

But the problem won't go away.

At every step of the way in the temptations in the wilderness, the contradiction in your theology is plainly displayed.

Could he have made bread from the stones?

Yes/ No

Could He have leapt off the pinnacle of the temple?

Yes/ No

Could He have bowed down and worshipped the devil?

Yes/ No

On the cross, could He have come down?

Yes/ No

So there you have it. Could you copy and paste that section in your response, and highlight your choice? Shouldn't be too difficult.

I still haven't seen your response to John's very grave statements, except to say that he was responding to gnosticism. That is not a convincing reply, as even the guys on your side must recognise.

You are in fact, deleting 'the Son of' in your thinking. Not allowed.

That if he came in the flesh, then He most certainly could have sinned.

If He didn't come in the flesh, then He most certainly couldn't.

So which was it?

Instead of re-inventing the wheel as it were, here's a link to CARM that briefly explains the two natures of Christ.

Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Hopefully the link will work!

If not, google "Hypostatic Union" and you can look there....

 

[Asyncritus]

I think I'm going to give up at this point.

There are no sensible answers to be had to what is an extremely basic, simple and logical question.

If you guys don't want to face the facts, then that's your decision, but you'll have to answer for it at some point in time.

 

[mcgyver]

I think I'm going to give up at this point.

There are no sensible answers to be had to what is an extremely basic, simple and logical question.

If you guys don't want to face the facts, then that's your decision, but you'll have to answer for it at some point in time.

Well of course, that is your choice...

I titled this thread (sooo, What's the Difference) for a specific purpose: To define the true Christ from the false Christ...The Christ of the bible vs the Christ of men's invention.

There are watermarks in the paper, the certificate of authenticity if you will, that we may know the true from the false.

After all, faith is only effective if the object of one's faith is true.

The COA, the "watermark" that identifies the true Christ is something that has never (nor will ever) be repeated in history...and that is the dual nature of Jesus Christ. Only He, and He alone, can rightfully claim the title of both God and Man.

This is the key and the definitive proof that the Jesus that one worships is the "true" Jesus.

The Jesus of your invention is no different from the Jesus of the Mormons, the Jesus of the Way International, or the Jesus of the gnostics...for every one of them proclaims the same Jesus as you...that He is only the "Son of God"...and only a man.

Friend, you've carefully constructed an aberrant theology in which you completely overlook or attempt to explain away the OT prophets and the NT witness attesting to the deity of Christ.

When (in various places) you've been shown that Christ was worshiped, that He did things reserved only to God, that He claimed equality with God, your only answer is "no he didn't".

Even when Titus proclaims (quite definitively):

but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

To Titus, a true son in our common faith:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

and: looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Clearly and plainly stating that Jesus Christ is both our God and Savior, you've got to reach for some other explanation.

Look, and I'm going to say it...you've started your own religion...and although it may bear a superficial resemblance to Christianity, it is in fact not Christianity, but a heretical off-shoot which has been condemned throughout the ages, starting with the Apostle John.

So yeah, maybe it is time you give up...give up the false teaching that you've so willingly and totally embraced, and know the true and living Christ.

 

[Free]

I think I'm going to give up at this point.

There are no sensible answers to be had to what is an extremely basic, simple and logical question.

If you guys don't want to face the facts, then that's your decision, but you'll have to answer for it at some point in time.

Then I'll take that as you don't have any answers to my questions.

Your question is basically similar to "Can God make a rock so big taht he cannot lift it?" This doesn't present a problem as to an answer, but is a logical problem with the question, based on certain assumptions.

I have given you the only answer there is: it is unanswerable. You want to willfully and continually ignore the clear passages in Scripture which state that Jesus is God, in favor of your own interpretation, and that based essentially on one verse. It is in fact you who is ignoring the facts by ignoring many passages in Scripture or reinterpreting them to fit your theology rather than letting them speak for themselves.

I would like to know on what basis you think one verse can nullify the rest.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, I asked this question in another thread...but since it died a natural death after a number of pages, I thought I'd ask it again.

This is primarily for those who hold that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God in the flesh...and I'm curious as to opinions concerning the following:

The Mormons will tell you in half-a-heartbeat that Jesus is the Son of God, and that they believe in Jesus for salvation....

BUT...In Mormon theology Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and just one of an uncountable number of "spirit children" of Elohim...who lives near a star called Kolob.

Are they saved?

The JW's will also tell you that Jesus is the Son of God...but in their theology Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and was raised as a "spirit creature.

Are they also saved?

Why or why not...considering they both proclaim Jesus as the Son of God?

I think the key issue is that Jesus is the only begotton Son of God and that he came in the flesh. This is the test that is given by the Holy Spirit when we are told to try (or test) the spirits. Do they acknowledge (or blur) the fact that He came in the flesh?

When some come and say, "Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and was raised as a 'spirit creature'," they essentially deny the doctrine of Christ --> that he came in the flesh, was tempted (like as we) and died. If a spirit creature came, could he be tempted? Could the one who is the Logos of God and who was with God at the beginning be made to suffer and die? The problem isn't that they deny that Jesus was one with God - even the demons believe that -- but rather that they make little of the fact that the came in the flesh.

Jesus is the Only Begotten 'Son of God': True.
Jesus is the 'Son of man': Also True.​

He is the only one who when tempted did not sin. This is what made him capable of paying the price for our sin: The fact that he came in the flesh, was our kindred redeemer (emphasis on kindred), and took our place to suffer the curse: "Ye shall surely die.". If he didn't die? How then could he have paid the price? The wages of sin is death. Our death, not his. He took our place and saved us by fulling the just requirements of God.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Promise made to the seed of the woman.

 

[Asyncritus]

Only He, and He alone, can rightfully claim the title of both God and Man.

He never did, Mac, and worse, you know it.

He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be the Son of Man.

Many, many times over and over again.

You, on the other hand, cannot show a single place where He says 'I am God'. If you can, you're not using the same Bible that I am.

But show us, show us all, where Jesus says 'I am God'.

We're waiting anxiously to hear.

The Jesus of your invention

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that.

"...that He is only the "Son of God"...and only a man."

Only! Only!! Only the Son of God!!!!

Wowee! I thought better of you Mac. Really I did!

Friend, you've carefully constructed an aberrant theology in which you completely overlook or attempt to explain away the OT prophets and the NT witness attesting to the deity of Christ.

The OT prophets spoke of the coming of the 'seed of the woman', the One who would be 'My Son'; the one who God would MAKE HIS FIRSTBORN; The One who would sit on God's right hand! The One who God calls MANY MANY times My Servant.

I could go on, but that's enough to put any case that that Holy One was God Himself completely out of court. He was never God's equal, and will never be.

You've been shown enough scriptures that demonstrate that at the end of the Millennium Christ Himself will be subject to 'Him that did put all things under Him':

27 For he (God) has put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he said all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.(So God is not under Jesus)

28 And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

You have never been able to answer the most serious question of all: whether Christ could sin or not. Free's miserable response is: it's unanswerable.

Why is it unanswerable? Because it completely ruins any idea that Jesus was God, because God cannot sin, or even be tempted with evil.

But since you all cling desperately to the idea that He was God, then you are speared by the horns of the dilemma that you're on. He could sin if He was a man, and He couldn't sin because He was God.

Never the twain shall meet, and your theology crashes into ruin under the weight of this terrible burden.

All of this 'evidence' you now adduce is trifling by comparison with that one problem.

As Sparrow says: did He come in the flesh, or not? If He did, then He could sin. It's as simple as that, and not of my making. John did it to you all.

Unless and until you can resolve that in your own minds, you ought not to be able to sleep at night.

But it's your decision, and I don't envy your position. I for one couldn't bear it.

 

[Sparkey]

Is it okay to admit that we don't truly understand (yet)? Speaking for myself only, I don't think it is yet time to stand and declare, "I see even as I am seen! Listen to me."

Yes, it is good to know the truth, to prove it and keep it fast. We know that Jesus is the Son of God. We know that he came in the flesh. Some may have greater understanding than I do but I'm certain that it was the Prayer of Jesus that we become able to join together in truth and worship God while showing our love for each other in such a way that those who see our love will know that we follow after Him.

Jesus said that he would not share Passover Supper again until His return to share it with us. What's keeping him? I fear that I am (at least in part). At the Last Supper he spoke kindly to the man who would betray him. Judas was seated at his right hand (a place of honor) -- and was given the sop (the choicemeats from the shared meal). Jesus certainly understood and had even remarked about "one seated with us" who would betray. It was then, after Judas departed to do what he was to do, that Jesus said, "I give you a new command."

We are to love each other just like he loves us.

(Jhn 13:34-35 KJV) - "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Has his command become "old hat" to us or are we still charged to zealously love each other in real and moving manner? The fact that God loves us, each one -- is shown by the life and acts of our Lord, who commanded (not suggested) that we love in the same manner that he loves. Oh, I wish I could hear this new commandment well. This is the only way to understand more of the nature of God and who our Christ is -- by doing as he did. I believe that God does want to show us who Jesus is exactly -- but that He wants us to learn this experientially and have more than mere book or language knowledge.

I do trust God to do what He said He would do (and I know we all do) -- to bring us together in the unity of the Faith. I don't know how He can do it. But it could be argued that only God can do this. Only God can bring His children (and all our differences) together into His family. One may be honored to be allowed to contribute and perhaps the Holy Spirit will choose some of us here for a small part but in the end all will know that it is Jesus who is in us that causes us to love each other as we see him in the eyes of our brothers and sisters.

 

[Free]

He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be the Son of Man.

Many, many times over and over again.

No one is denying this. Please read my post and answer my question on this.

The OT prophets spoke of the coming of the 'seed of the woman', the One who would be 'My Son'; the one who God would MAKE HIS FIRSTBORN; The One who would sit on God's right hand! The One who God calls MANY MANY times My Servant.

I could go on, but that's enough to put any case that that Holy One was God Himself completely out of court. He was never God's equal, and will never be.

Again, taking things out of context. As has been pointed out to you before, the OT, along with the NT, makes a strong case for the deity of Christ.

You have never been able to answer the most serious question of all: whether Christ could sin or not. Free's miserable response is: it's unanswerable.

Why is it unanswerable? Because it completely ruins any idea that Jesus was God, because God cannot sin, or even be tempted with evil.

No, it does not. Again, you are ignoring the abundance of evidence against your position. As I stated earlier, the problem is with the assumptions behind your question and ignoring the clear statements in Scripture about the nature of Christ. I have simply presented what Scripture states.

You are clearly favoring interpretations of Scripture which fit your theology and ignoring others which prove it to be wrong. You are putting your own meaning into the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.

But since you all cling desperately to the idea that He was God, then you are speared by the horns of the dilemma that you're on. He could sin if He was a man, and He couldn't sin because He was God.

Never the twain shall meet, and your theology crashes into ruin under the weight of this terrible burden.

No, it does not crash at all.

As Sparrow says: did He come in the flesh, or not? If He did, then He could sin. It's as simple as that, and not of my making. John did it to you all.

It is hardly that simple.

Unless and until you can resolve that in your own minds, you ought not to be able to sleep at night.

But it's your decision, and I don't envy your position. I for one couldn't bear it.

I sleep fine. That you couldn't bear it is clear. You keep misusing and reinterpreting Scripture to avoid it at all costs. You've made your bed.

 

[Sparkey]

As Sparrow says: did He come in the flesh, or not? If He did, then He could sin. It's as simple as that, and not of my making. John did it to you all.

It is hardly that simple.

Ahhh.. guys? I didn't say that. Those are word that did not come from me.

What I said is the incontrovertible truth: I am no expert. The Bible states that the fact that Jesus came in the flesh is the fulcrum upon which we can test the spirits:

(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
1John 4:1-3