Trinity DebateWHAT DOES THE BIBLE THINK OF JESUSyou don't seem to understand anything that i say. i didn't belittle the NT Scripture. i disagreed with the idea you had behind it. what i said was: "this is too simplistic as well. you can grab tens of verses that say that Jesus is the Son of God. in normal language those verses would be just as equal to saying that "God has a God" (as you put it) as well. so why just use this verse?" your idea behind this is that showing a verse that says: "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" means that Jesus has a Father (God) just like us. but i've never heard anyone us that line of reasoning by using the term "Son of God", which is even more abundant than the former. if you're trying to prove that Jesus has a Father, you can just give the several verses that call Jesus the Son, or the "Son of God". i've never seen anyone use this line of reasoning regarding the term "Son of God", so why press it in the verse you gave? that's what i meant by too simplistic. and sorry for the sarcasm. (the post was rather long though, you have to admit). no you haven't. you've responded to a select few, but not my main points or arguments. i'm gonna make a separate post for the things i've said that i would like you to address, since you don't know what i'm talking about. and regarding this Philo business: i don't even know what that means. can you please explain that to me so i can understand what is being said. surely you know. it's almost unbelievable how you misunderstand everything i say. have you not heard that before? "Interpret scripture with scripture"? that's the whole idea behind exegesis and hermeneutics. what i really said was, i allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. i draw the information OUT OF the Bible, not INTO the Bible. Exegesis vs. Eisegesis. i already told you that. why do i have to repeat myself? and if you disagree here, please tell me how you understand scripture. and if that's the word you were looking for, and you feel my statement should have gone something like this: "I understand scripture with scripture" then you're resorting to semantics again. something you continue to do. once again: why do i have to continue to repeat myself? those scriptures most certainly DO concern a man. the MAN Christ Jesus. your axioms lead you to say "not God". those scriptures most certainly COULD concern God, were He to take on human form. what's your point with this verse? simply rejected it? that's the problem. you rejected it summarily without thinking about what i said. the problem with the other analogies, is that they can exist SEPARATELY. with one, you don't HAVE to have the other two. time is different. time is not "time" without the past, present and future. these three aspects of time are distinct, yet absolutely necessary, each one. once again, you should really think about what you're going to say before responding. i'm getting a little tired of having to repeat myself over and over. what sarcasm? don't make things up. i'm telling you "please don't misunderstand me again. get your understanding right before responding." i'm tired of having to repeat myself over and over. it's not fair to me. no sarcasm there. what? are you serious? the verse i gave you (Phil 2:6-8 ) says that Jesus took on the form of a servant. and the NT also says that Jesus is King: (Luke 23:3) "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied." and (John 18:36) "Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." the problem i do have however, i'll admit, is the fact that His name is to be Immanuel, but Jesus is never called that. i've heard that before, and it seems stupid to me that He wasn't. on the other hand, we know it was Him, since He fulfilled all the other prophecies. surely there is no one else. and if one thinks there is, can they provide a better candidate? to challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the Bible, is to even question the parts you profess to believe. and why "should" we see the words "Jesus is God in plain language"? what makes you so sure about that? you're simply appealing to what you've already decided on in your mind. something you've accused me of. and the Context doesn't demand that rendering as you say. "Preeminence" fits perfectly well in Colossians 1:15. and concerning the "mediator" and "man" and "first-born" and all that, i've already dealt with all that. that's why i don't want you to post so many verses at one time cuz we go over the same stuff over and over again. actually this applies to you, not me. since you have the absolute negative position, everything must be as you say it is, since anything else would be blasphemy. a verse to the positive affirms my position because Jesus could most certainly be God and Man, but He cannot be man who becomes God. i believe in the One True Only God. there is a distinction made between Jesus and God in order that we may understand. if Jesus is both God and Man, then He would have a God in His earthly manifestation, which is what these verses adress. and i agree that Jesus was born without an earthly father. but this no more denies His Divinity than saying that He was a man. after all the NT says that Jesus the Son was GIVEN and the child was BORN. the Son was given because the Son eternally existed, just as the OT and NT confirm: Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:17-18, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." Obviously, Rev. 1:17-18 can only refer to Jesus. Revelation 22:12-13, "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." straw-man. i never implied that. i'm saying the AMOUNT at one time. you can give me one or a few verses, or one or a few concepts and we can deal with them systematically. you're putting too much at one time and the responses end up being repetative because you don't wait for the answer. really? because Jesus claims to be Divine in the NT. if we're wrong, He mislead us. if God takes on human flesh, He most certainly can be a prophet to us, as well as our Priest: Hebrews 3:1. apparently you don't understand the concept of "elephant hurling", because if you did, you would realize that you could make those SAME points without doing it all at once. don't post so much at one time. deal with one concept at a time. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame