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!

  • Are you receiving an "error" mesage when posting?

    Chances are it went through, so check before douible posting.

    We hope to have the situtaion resolved soon, and Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US!

  • 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/

  • Ever read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • 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

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

The Diety of Christ/Jesus is God: An Approach for Skeptics

mutzrein said:
Catholic Crusader said:
I don't want to derail this thread. But I think I am fair in assuming that you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys. And, again, I think it is safe to assume that you are of the school of thought that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation. Am I right so far?

Calling me a hypocrite on the basis of something I DID NOT SAY is not the same as assuming I belong to a particular school of thought. As a matter of fact I know of no-one else on this forum who belongs to the same 'school of thought' as me. But that is not the point.

So I offer you this opportunity to show me where I said what you allege or retract it.

Here:
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31423&p=365531#p365531
....you said this about the Pope and Billy Graham:
mutzrein said:
I guess BOTH of them must be wandering around in the wilderness then. :-?

I consider that evidence enough that you deny Papal Infallibility.

And for someone who was quick to insult Catholics here:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16973&p=365529#p365529
mutzrein said:
I've heard it said that God loves the sinner but not the sin.
I wonder if He makes any distinction regarding Catholics?

..... you are in no position to start demanding retractions.

Now I ask again:
1) Do you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys.
2) Do you believe that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation
 
CC

You stated that I claim that it is impossible for the Pope to be led of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture.

So I ask you. Please show me where. Don't show me threads that you want to interpret as the basis for your assumptions.

These have nothing to do with the infallibility or otherwise of any man.

Regarding my quip about Billy Graham and the Pope wandering around the desert. Good grief man, you know that that was a light hearted response to the previous person who quoted quail and manna. In fact you were the one who posted the picture and started out by making jokes of it weren’t you.

And as for the second one. Where is the insult? You even responded with a LOL on that one too. Perhaps you don’t mind laughing at my comment until you somehow assume that it is meant to be insulting. Where did that come from?

You asked what I meant so I told you. “If God is no respecter of persons, should we be.â€Â. I think Vic responded and agreed – or did he disagree. It matters not. I like Vic. But just so you understand me. I don’t like OR dislike Catholics. I don’t like OR dislike protestants. I don’t like OR dislike folk from any other denominational stream. And since I believe that God does not look at denominational ‘labels’ in determining those he likes and dislikes why should we be a respecter of persons?

I will say this though. One of my brothers in-law is Catholic. I like him. And one of my sisters in-law is protestant. I like her. And it has got nothing to do with their theology.
 
mutzrein said:
.....And as for the second one. Where is the insult? You even responded with a LOL on that one too.....

That is my way of avoiding an argument.

Now I ask a third time:
1) Do you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys.
2) Do you believe that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation
 
Catholic Crusader said:
mutzrein said:
.....And as for the second one. Where is the insult? You even responded with a LOL on that one too.....

That is my way of avoiding an argument.

Now I ask a third time:
1) Do you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys.
2) Do you believe that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation

It seems you are avoiding more than an argument. It was you who accused me of stating something I didn't and then of hypocrisy into the bargain. And ever since I have asked you to show me where I have said what you have accused me of, you have been wanting to turn the attention away from your own accusation by accusing me.

I have nothing further to say to you in this matter unless you are able to deal with the matter of your initial accusation toward me. If, as you contend I said what you said I did, and which led you to accuse me of being a hypocrite, show me. Otherwise your accusation is turned upon itself.
 
mutzrein said:
Catholic Crusader said:
.....Now I ask a third time:
1) Do you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys.
2) Do you believe that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation
It seems you are avoiding more than an argument. It was you who accused me of stating something I didn't and then of hypocrisy into the bargain. And ever since I have asked you to show me where I have said what you have accused me of, you have been wanting to turn the attention away from your own accusation by accusing me.

I have nothing further to say to you in this matter unless you are able to deal with the matter of your initial accusation toward me. If, as you contend I said what you said I did, and which led you to accuse me of being a hypocrite, show me. Otherwise your accusation is turned upon itself.

And that is why my question continues to go unanswered. Because as soon as it is answered it will confirm what I originally said.
 
Paul W. said:
Imagican wrote:

I have never read this word, 'exinanition' in The Word.


By "The Word" do you mean scripture or the paraphrase version of scripture? "Exinanition" will not be found in either; I am just curious which one it is to which you are refering.

Paul,

My statements will be in bold.


What I mean is what I stated. I find it very amusing that such words would be 'created' to discribe such SIMPLE things that have ALREADY been 'put into words'. It seems as though when we attempt to ADD or ENHANCE scripture that we are then attempting to PLACE our emphasis on issues that may truly NEED no emphasis or 'other words' to describe things DIFFERENTLY than what has been offered by those that we KNOW 'walked with Christ'.





Imagican wrote:

[quote:69874]And it may well be this insistence that EVERYTHING must be explained in a 'man-made' understanding that causes the 'tension' to which you refered.




Actually, I was not trying to explain anything the bible does not say.

(Exinanition)


(n.) An emptying; an enfeebling; exhaustion; humiliation. -1913 Webster's Dictionary

"Exinanition" is just a word which happens to apply to what is discussed in Philippians 2:7-8, and is used in theological circles; just as the "humiliation of Jesus" is used. I do not know if you will find the word "humiliation" in the bible but the term is used extensively to describe what Jesus endured his last two days leading up to and including his death on the cross of Calvary; and it most definitely applies to the condescension of God to the level of man for our edification and His glory.

Do you TRULY belive that Christ WAS humiliated other than the OUTWARD appearance and how WE would interpret such treatment? In other words, you have already offered that you UNDERSTAND that Christ GAVE His LIFE willingly. If this is TRUTH, then do you TRULY believe that He could have BEEN humiliated? (It seems UTTERLY logical that IF He did what He did WILLINGLY that the emotions that WE would FEEL over such TREATMENT would NOT have applied to Christ. ESPECIALLY if Christ WERE God HIMSELF).

I personally prefer the "exinanition" of Jesus to the "humiliation" of Jesus because Christ went to the cross of his own volition. He said no less than five times in the tenth chapter of John that He laid down his life for his sheep. He said repeatedly no one took his life from him. Exinanition is the willing "emptying of oneself" as opposed to humiliation which carries with it the connotation of something which is done to a person.


As far as the "tension" goes, I am not even certain what it is to which you are referring. I do not recall saying anything about tension.

Paul W. wrote:
I see some people here seem to get very tense about the concept of Jesus being God.







Imagican wrote:

The word itself sounds like some 'philosophical attempt' to label God in 'man-made terms'.




I can see where you might think this, but I assure you it is not a philosophical term at all. I will concede that it is a bit archaic. People do not use it as much these days. Extensive vocabulary has fairly much gone the way of the dodo bird in America. All you hear these days is:

It was like... and I was like... and she was like... and they were like...

And:


My bad!

And:

I don't pop it like that!


And...Well, you get the picture. :D

Yes I certainly DO, but you have offered a word that is NOT scriptural and then attempt to offer justification of it's use according to Webster's Dictionary. And then even admit that it's archaic and at the same time NOT offered in The Bible, (scipture), yet when I offer that it sounds a bit 'philosophical in nature', you indicate that you DON'T understand what I mean.

How about THIS: WHO's writtings did you READ that offered you their INTERPRETATION of events in which they USED this 'word'? Were they apostles or just those that attempted to attack the issue from some Greek, Roman or Egyptian philosophical approach?

That's what I was refering to. For it is clear that if we read the offerings of L Ron or the like, we find that these are perfectly capable of offering NEW ideas and words to discribe their ideas that have NO bearing on 'truth' or wisdom other than which pertains to 'the world'.




You are correct, however, when you say, "to label God in 'man-made terms.'" This scripture is speaking of God when it speaks of Christ.

Wow. And you would offer that 'scripture itself' bears out the statement offered above?






Imagican wrote:

Isn't the offerings of God through His Son ENOUGH.


I say, "YES!"







Imagican wrote:

Christ Himself offered that the words that He spoke were NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY the Father.


Yes. He did.

Here is what he said:

"Because I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me, Himself gave me a command what to say and in what words to speak." -John 12:49


He also said:

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The things that I tell you all I do not speak on my own authority: but the Father dwelling within me carries on His own work." -John 14:10

And the Word also states that WE too CAN be ONE with Christ. But what I would then ask is; Would that MAKE us Christ as WELL? Christ IS able to DWELL in my heart. But would that MAKE me Christ as well?

What I see offered PERFECTLY clearly in the words of Christ concerning the Father DWELLING IN Him is NO different than what I have offered. And to further BACK the reality of what I have offered: Christ states HOW MANY TIMES that He IS the Son of God. Verses the inuendo that many would take and RUN with that only is able to INDICATE that He IS God in such a vague way that it would CONTRADICT all other statements that He made to the contrary.

The Father is 'GREATER' than I. Those that I have already offered concerning WHERE Christ RECEIVED the Words that He offered US. Father fogive them for they KNOW not what they DO.......Hmmmmmmm........and this was God speaking to HImself? Wow. I guess if I were to accept what is offered by those that would INSIST that Jesus WAS God, then at one point I would have to believe He was some kind of 'split personality'. Unable to 'make up His mind' as to HIS true idenity.







Imagican wrote:

Now, should I believe what Christ stated or what philosophers have devised in an attempt to offer what was NEVER stated by Christ or HIs apostles?


I believe Christ. No mention was made, however, of philosophers, except by you. I did not mention any philosophers, nor do I take the ideas of philosophers over scripture.

No, when you introduce words such as 'trinity' or 'exinanition', or others that offer NOTHING other than 'man-made' attempts at labeling God or His Son in ways that were NEVER offered in scripture, then I ASSUME that you have introduced the philosophical teachings of those that INTRODUCED you to such teachings.








Imagican wrote:

Ah Paul, and here may be your BIGGEST error. For God stated in His commandments that 'thou shall NOT KILL'. Yet we have the clear evidence that God Himself has COMMANDED that the Hebrews/Jews, (the very people to which this commandment was GIVEN), have been ALSO commanded TO KILL.

What is MORE important than something APPEARING to bear witness, is the witness of the Holy Spirit ITSELF. For one is clearly able to discern on their own what they CHOOSE to 'see' in the Word, WITHOUT the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Respectfully, Imagician, I do not even know what you mean by these two paragraphs. I see no connection between them and the rest of the conversation. Could you possibly express these thoughts differently so I might be able to understand you purpose for commenting on this commandment?

Ok, let me explain: You said that ALL you NEEDED was to SEE something written ONCE in scripture to BELIEVE what it SAYS. I simply offered that the Jews were commanded NOT to 'murder' , (is how you offer it was ACTUALLY offered to the Hebrews/Jews), yet these same people were SENT by God into a land that was NOT their own, but GIVEN them BY God and then commanded to KILL all the inhabitants of this land.

Now, if I were to ACCEPT it being written that I CANNOT murder, then, how is it even possible to understand HOW it was NOT unrighteous to KILL in the NAME of God and His command? The logic of stating that IF it is written ONCE then that is ENOUGH for acceptance and adherance, then that forces one to negate ANYTHING else that 'seems' to contradict it.

It takes a bit more than a line of scripture to MAKE a doctrine. When we consider the entirety of the writtern Word, it becomes apparent that there is a 'lack' of correct guidance in a 'belief' that Jesus IS God. A 'part' of God there is NO doubt. But when the apostle Paul states that God IS THE God and Father of Jesus Christ, this is a PURE statement that negates even the possibility of Christ BEING God Himself. For HOW is one to BE that which IS HIS? If God IS the God of Christ as well as OUR God, then HOW do you suppose that He could actually BE God? If Christ prayed TO the Father, then HOw do you propose that He can do so without PRAYING to HIMSELF?









Imagican wrote:

It CANNOT be both ways. Either Christ IS God. Or He is 'something' OTHER THAN God.


I agree with you wholeheartedly in this, Imagician.
I say Jesus Christ is God; just as Holy Scripture reveals.

Yet scripture states:

1 Peter:2:

[20] Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

a statement that offers TWO indications that Christ was NOT God Himself but was 'ordained by God', and 'manifest' BY God.







Imagican wrote:

I offered the words of JOHN himself STATING that NO MAN has EVER SEEN God. Now, from YOUR perspective, which is it? Is this the 'saying it ONCE' that is able to discern the complete truth of Christ=God? Obviously for YOU it is NOT.



Actually, I addressed this point in a prior post. If you are interested in looking for it, it should be about two or three of my posts back.








Imagican wrote:

I do not have a lot of time for posting just now but I will make the effort to post more soon.



I wish everyone here at 123 Christian Forums a beautiful and blessed evening, and...

And these are not quotes from me. I did, however offer you a 'warm welcome' to the forums.




I can certainly appreciate both of these sentences. I do not have all that much time for forums anymore either.

Imagician, I greatly appreciate your reply to my post and I appreciate equally your hunger for truth. May I suggest we continue to search together as members of the glorious body of Christ.


I wish you a blessed evening, and...









May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.[/quote:69874]

Please don't think that I have 'singled you out' for 'personal attack'. What I have offered is NOTHING of the sort.

I DO wish you a warm welcome to the forums and hope that you are able to find 'a place' here and are able to offer or receive as God's will would have it.

I am just a bit skeptical of 'men' attempting to 'create doctrine' that is NOT offered through scripture or any other means than those that would 'say' that they were INSPIRED to 'create it'.

Blessings my brother,

MEC
 
MEC,

Would you mind addressing one thing in specific for me? It would narrow down some of this debate into managable chunks. What do you make of what the Apostle John wrote in John 5:18 when he explained what Jesus had said and done by saying, "He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God". This is not a statement saying, "The Jews thought he was making himself equal with God" but that rather "He was making himself equal with God". How do you explain this verse?

God Bless,

~Josh
 
Holy cow. You out-did yourself: That post was almost an entire webpage. LOL. :crazyeyes:

I repeat: In John 8:58 Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"â€â€invoking and applying to himself the personal name of Godâ€â€"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him."
 
cybershark5886 said:
MEC,

Would you mind addressing one thing in specific for me? It would narrow down some of this debate into managable chunks. What do you make of what the Apostle John wrote in John 5:18 when he explained what Jesus had said and done by saying, "He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God". This is not a statement saying, "The Jews thought he was making himself equal with God" but that rather "He was making himself equal with God". How do you explain this verse?

God Bless,

~Josh

Cyber,

I will most certainly answer the question which you have offered. But in addition, I would as that you address this question:

John, the SAME John to which you refer ALSO wrote this:

1John:

[12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

And this written by the SAME man that you would propose offered that Christ IS God Himself.

So, is John a 'liar'? Or was he simply CONFUSED? Or is there a 'different understanding' that we were meant to accept other than this 'tinity' that SAYS that Jesus Christ IS God. And I could quote scripture for quite a long post that offers that 'those that DENY The Son have NOT the Spirit of God within them'. Yet, wouldn't an insistence that Christ IS God BE denying the Son? For we KNOW that God IS The Father.

Now, in answer to YOUR request:


[1] After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
[2] Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
[3] In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
[4] For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
[5] And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
[6] When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
[7] The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
[8] Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
[9] And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
[10] The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
[11] He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
[12] Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
[13] And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
[14] Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
[15] The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

Here is the FIRST clue as to the answer that you seek....When it was CONFIRMED to the religious order of the time that Jesus WAS indeed HEALING in the name of God. Those that were threatened MOST by having the PEOPLE BELIEVE that Christ 'may indeed' BE the messiah, were threatened to the extent that it was THEN that they decided to END this 'up-starts' influence on the people by ANY means necessary...........

[16] And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

And HERE we have the MEANS that they CHOSE to 'use against Him'.....

[17] But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

and HERE we have Christ's defense. His MEANS of eliminating their 'weapon against Him'. My FATHER works IN the Sabbath and SO TOO do I.

[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 with God.

It is apparent NOW that they were looking for ANY means to destroy this 'man'. His statement offered NOT that HE WAS GOD, but that BEING the SON of God, He WAS able to DO as the Father SENT Him to Do. And that HE was ABLE to discern the TRUTH behind Sabbath and INSTEAD of USING Sabbath for an EXCUSE NOT to Do GOOD works on the Sabbath, Christ, UNLIKE those that accused Him, UNDERSTOOD the REASON and PURPOSE of Sabbath BEYOND their MEAGER adherance TO IT. The authority that He offered OFFENDED those that were SIMPLY adhering to LAW without regard to 'righteousness' and this was SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE to those that WERE the 'religious LEADERS' of the PEOPLE. Everything they STOOD for was being threatned in a way that they had NEVER faced before.

Not much different than the CC's desire to destroy ANYTHING that was able to contradict their teachings. For IF it could be PROVEN that what they TEACH is WRONG, then they would NO longer be ABLE to profess divine GUIDANCE.

Christ HERE plainly showed those that were IN authority that THEY did NOT understand the Sabbath NOR were they WILLING to accept that God's SON had 'arrived'. Their 'messiah' was standing before their VERY EYES yet they, through a desire to maintain their 'STANDING' were NOT able to SEE the TRUTH.

NEVER in this ENTIRE chapter did Christ proclaim to BE God. ONLY the Son of God. Given POWER in the NAME of God to perform that which He was SENT to perform. Over and over Christ STATES that EVERYTHING that He performed was GIVEN Him BY The Father. Not ONCE taking 'personal credit' for that which he STATED or PERFORMED.


[19] Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
[20] For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
[21] For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
[22] For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
[23] That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
[24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
[25] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
[26] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
[27] And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
[28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
[29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
[30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[31] If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
[32] There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[33] Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
[34] But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
[35] He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[36] But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

And HERE we have admission ONCE again that NO ONE has EVER even seen the SHAPE of God Himself.....

[38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
[41] I receive not honour from men.
[42] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
[43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
[44] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
[45] Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
[46] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
[47] But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

I have answered here what I 'think' you were asking. Now, I ask that you answer the question that I posed in a reasonalbe way.

MEC
 
Catholic Crusader said:
Holy cow. You out-did yourself: That post was almost an entire webpage. LOL. :crazyeyes:

I repeat: In John 8:58 Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"â€â€invoking and applying to himself the personal name of Godâ€â€"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him."

And you have attempted to offer falacy just as was offered BEFORE. For the scripture that you quoted the am was NOT capitalized. Yet you attempt to offer it as such in order to ALTER what IS stated by Christ.

We KNOW that Christ WAS foreordained BEFORE the formation of this WORLD. Therefore, for Him to STATE that 'before Abraham was, I am', offers NOT contradiction in understanding so far as His IDENTITY. And it by NO MEANS offers here that Christ IS STATING that He IS God. Only in the minds and hearts of those that have CHOSEN to follow the 'teachings of MEN'.

MEC
 
CC,

I've noticed that you are WELL able to offer quotes that supposedly back your beliefs. But each and every time tht you are confronted with the truth in which you are UNABLE to offer any substantiation of your beliefs in THAT area, you simply change the subject or have nothing to offer but criticism of others.

If your understanding is SO 'perfect' how is it that you are UNABLE to offer rebuttle or understanding that goes BEYOND what you have learned from 'your church' or 'scripture'?

MEC
 
We KNOW that Christ WAS foreordained BEFORE the formation of this WORLD. Therefore, for Him to STATE that 'before Abraham was, I am', offers NOT contradiction in understanding so far as His IDENTITY. And it by NO MEANS offers here that Christ IS STATING that He IS God. Only in the minds and hearts of those that have CHOSEN to follow the 'teachings of MEN'.

MEC,

You continue to ignore the plain meaning of this text. It is not simply establishing Christ's pre-existence.

It says "before Abraham was- I AM" not before Abraham was "I WAS".

He is clearly using the Name of God in this instance. To say "I am" rather than "was" is otherwise a clear grammatical error.
 
Imagican said:
John, the SAME John to which you refer ALSO wrote this:
1John:
[12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

And this written by the SAME man that you would propose offered that Christ IS God Himself.

So, is John a 'liar'? Or was he simply CONFUSED?

Okay, I feel I should interject... Imagican, have you ever considered the following verses?

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless; Gen. 17:1

Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.†Gen. 18:1

God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty , but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.†Exodus 6:2-3

Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.†Exodus 24:9-11

He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision . I shall speak with him in a dream. "Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?" Num. 12:6-8

"And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. . . " Acts 7:2


I suppose John was confused with the above people clearly seeing God as well?

There is an interesting way to figure this out. It lies in what Jesus said in John 6:46
 
Jesus received his human nature from his mother and his divine nature from his father.

Good theology demonstrates that God, who is perfect, cannot be divided. If he could, he would be neither perfect nor God. Since Christ shares Gods nature, he must be fully God. There is no other way around it.
 
Catholic Crusader said:
Jesus received his human nature from his mother and his divine nature from his father.

Good theology demonstrates that God, who is perfect, cannot be divided. If he could, he would be neither perfect nor God. Since Christ shares Gods nature, he must be fully God. There is no other way around it.

And by this very 'belief', if WE TOO can BECOME ONE with Christ, that would MAKE US TOO; God. And JUST because you SAY there is 'no other way around it'. offers NOTHING but 'your opinion' or 'belief'. It has NO bearing on the TRUTH by simply STATING it.

We TOO are ABLE to 'come to a PERFECT understading'. But that does NOT negate the FACT that even upon COMING to a 'perfect understanding', we are STILL able to BE divided.

MEC
 
Veritas said:
Imagican said:
John, the SAME John to which you refer ALSO wrote this:
1John:
[12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

And this written by the SAME man that you would propose offered that Christ IS God Himself.

So, is John a 'liar'? Or was he simply CONFUSED?

Okay, I feel I should interject... Imagican, have you ever considered the following verses?

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless; Gen. 17:1

Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.†Gen. 18:1

God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty , but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.†Exodus 6:2-3

Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.†Exodus 24:9-11

He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision . I shall speak with him in a dream. "Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?" Num. 12:6-8

"And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. . . " Acts 7:2


I suppose John was confused with the above people clearly seeing God as well?

There is an interesting way to figure this out. It lies in what Jesus said in John 6:46

What you fail to realize or 'see' is that the words offered do NOT offer ANY description of the APPEARANCE of God to these mentioned. So far as these scripture are concerned, we have NO way to discern that the 'appearance' WASN'T in the 'form' of a 'vision' or 'dream'. And even THEN, we have NO idea WHAT they SAW. For we have been TOLD over and over that EVEN Moses NEVER actually SAW God other than His 'back side'.

You offer that these actually SAW God, but the word appearance does NOT necessitate SEEING. For our THOUGHTS themselves or RECONNING can most definitely be described as APPEARANCE. When given information, it can CERTAINLY; "appear".

Now, since you would refute the words of John as well as what I have offered, you tell ME: Was John Confused? And if you contend that 'he was confused', was he 'confused' when he wrote of The Word? When he 'named' Christ, The Word, as so many believe that he did, was he simply confused here as well?

Either men HAVE actually SEEN God or they HAVEN'T. John does not only say that HE had never seen God, he offered that "NO MAN" has EVER SEEN God. Either his words ARE truth or they ARE NOT.

And even the Revelation of John may have well been SYMBOLIC visions that were ONLY representative of the ACTUAL appearance of God. For as far as we KNOW, God has NO distinctive APPERANCE other than LIGHT.

And if you dispute what is offered here, please, by ALL MEANS, tell us WHAT God LOOKS like.

And IF God had EVER desired to REVEAL His TRUE appearance to mankind, why do you 'suppose' that what MOSES SAW was a 'burning bush'? Wouldn't it have been MORE prudent, (if man was ABLE to actually OBSERVE the Glory of God), to simply APPEAR in that GLORY rather than in the form of a 'burning bush'?

Now, Veritas, what is it that these that you mention ACTUALLY SAW. I am NOT refering to 'appearance'. I am refering to ACTUAL SIGHT. With the EYES OPEN. What do you suppose that these ACTUALLY SAW?

And in answer to your question: OBVIOUSLY I have 'considered' the verses that you offer and there are MANY more. It IS the 'consideration' of these verses to which I refered when I offered the verses written by John. And by all indication, this is the SAME John that on the island of Patmos, observed visions in which he offers actual description of his visions INCLUDING that of God Himself. But as is offered THROUGHOUT Revelation, these WERE 'visions'. Nothing offered in the way of PHYSICAL sight so far as what we are offered in description. And JUST as Moses was 'gifted' with the appearance of a 'burning bush', we have NO reason to believe that John saw ANYTHING other than what he was GIVEN to SEE. I am QUITE sure that God could manifest Himself in the 'shape' or 'appearance' of ANYTHING in which He CHOOSES. And perhaps that is EXACTLY what John WAS refering to. That NO MAN has ever ACTUALLY SEEN God in His TRUE and COMPLETE Glory.

MEC
 
Devekut said:
We KNOW that Christ WAS foreordained BEFORE the formation of this WORLD. Therefore, for Him to STATE that 'before Abraham was, I am', offers NOT contradiction in understanding so far as His IDENTITY. And it by NO MEANS offers here that Christ IS STATING that He IS God. Only in the minds and hearts of those that have CHOSEN to follow the 'teachings of MEN'.

MEC,

You continue to ignore the plain meaning of this text. It is not simply establishing Christ's pre-existence.

It says "before Abraham was- I AM" not before Abraham was "I WAS".

He is clearly using the Name of God in this instance. To say "I am" rather than "was" is otherwise a clear grammatical error.

And here may WELL be YOUR misunderstanding. For you would have me believe that the NAME of God is 'I Am'. God USING this as a command to Moses to TELL others THIS in NO way MAKES God's NAME 'I Am'. And Christ did NOT offer, so far as we are able to discern; 'I Am', but "I am". Even your own church that WROTE these words were NOT brazen ENOUGH to alter the capitalization of THIS word.

And 'ain't it funny' that the Am in the OT IS capitalized to offer PLAINLY that this WAS 'considered' by the Jews to be in DIRECT reference to the 'entity of God'. Yet in the NT when Christ offers these SAME words, there IS NO capitalization of the 'Am'. How do you reacon that was allowed to HAPPEN? Mistake? Or divine INTERVENTION?

MEC
 
Paul W. said:
By "The Word" do you mean scripture or the paraphrase version of scripture?....
The Word is not a book. The Word is a person: The Second Person of the Trinity - THE SON. The Son took on flesh and dwelt among us. To reduce the Word to a dead letter on a page is to totally misunderstnd "The Word".
 
Back
Top