Trinity DebateWHAT DOES THE BIBLE THINK OF JESUScouple of problems here. first, you're asking me to try and understand a verse OUT OF CONTEXT (without taking all of scripture into consideration). secondly you are asking me to understand this passage without trying to defend the Trinity (something which would demand that i disregard the whole Bible since i believe that the Bible supports the Trinity). thirdly, let me ask you this, how do you interpret THIS verse (if that's the kind of question you want to ask): John 10:30: "I and the Father are One" without trying to support your Unitarian view? or John 10:33, or Revelations 1:17-18? and you're telling ME to get serious? alright. so according to this, John is saying that the Word is really "God's Divine Plan"? so where it says "And the Word was God", it should really say "And God's Divine Plan was God"? hmmm. that sounds really strange. how can God be His own "Divine Plan"? sounds like that would entail either raising God's plan to His status of God, or lowering God to the lesser status of His Divine Plan. that sounds really problematic. you think that makes sense of this issue? sounds like it makes it more complicated. i keep telling you, that He lowered Himself, and became obedient to God's purpose ("Divine Plan"). for all practical purposes, and as far as we were concerned, Jesus DID have a God while on earth. enough of that. try a different path. i agree that Jesus was FULLY human, which means that while on earth He had a God. i'm VERY interested in understanding how you interpret/understand scripture. when we say, "scripture by scripture" we're essentially saying that we don't interpret it, but we let God's Word speak to us and reveal its truths. using the word "interpret" isn't the point here. if you're more comfortable with the phrase "we understand scripture by scripture" i'm afraid you're nitpicking a bit much. but, please tell me how you understand the Bible. man. here we go again. and i actually read all of your posts. it's almost as if you're purposely trying to misunderstand me. "water can exist as vapor, liquid, and solid at the same time" is not the point. if that WERE the point then dimensions would also work (H/W/D), or the roles of a person (father, husband, son), or even the numbers 1,2 and 3, since they could all coexist at the same time as well. the problem with these things is that they don't all NEED to exist at the same time. one doesn't HAVE to have height in order to have depth, or HAVE to have vapor in order to have liquid, or HAVE to be a father in order to be a son, or HAVE to have 3 in order to have 1, or HAVE to have a body in order to have a spirit. that's why these other analogies don't work. in order to have the full essence of time, the three aspects of Past, Present, and Future are absolutely essential. you can't have one without the other two. get it now? you know, you're an intelligent individual, and i admit that you've made some VERY GOOD points in what you're trying to show me, but sometimes you make statements that i can't believe you'd make. this is one of them. let me ask you something: Did Moses sin? if you're answer to that question is "yes" then you've just answered your own question about whether Moses could be part of the HOLY Trinity. i already answered this when we dealt with how people were called "lord" in the OT vs. how Jesus is called "Lord" in the NT because of how you were trying to attenuate how Jesus was called Lord, but this is one of those things that you chose to ignore. if you would have read it, you wouldn't have made this mistake again. let me post it again for you:
no, but i also don't see any mentions of particular animals like dinosaurs in the first chapter of Genesis either. does that mean that dinosaurs weren't created during creation week? we can go to the rest of the Bible to conclude that they were. your inference doesn't work. absence of information here does not mean what you're implying it does. and once again, you're asking me to interpret a verse in a vacuum, without taking the whole of the Bible into context. straw-man again. i'm not implying that Jesus is "God", but Divine, One with the Father and Holy Spirit. so could the Divine Jesus fill this role here, and become a man, and be called a Priest (which He is in Hebrews)? and you make an interesting comment here. you asked "Can God be His own Priest?" you're saying that this "Man" that's being talked about will be the "Priest of God" according to this verse? so if that's how you're interpreting this verse then if this "Man" is a created-being, would God appoint a created-being as priest over Himself? if this verse says what you're implying, then you have a more difficult time than i do. according to this verse, while you're saying that my beliefs make God priest over Himself, your views make a created-being priest over God. and you're challenging me? yes. once again, Jesus was FULLY human, which is why He was able to take our sins, by being made just as we are. i don't disagree with what you've said here. hmm. interesting. i thought it was Jesus that did that. John 8:58-59: "58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." and John 10:30-33: "30I and the Father are one." 31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." the Jews understood what He was saying. He was saying that He was God. they picked up stones to stone Him, because had he been a mere creation, they realized that He was blaspheming against God. then who is Isaiah 9:6-7 talking about then? look more carefully at verse 6 of Philippians 2. this isn't talking just about a servant but one who's very nature is God, and equal with God. fine. forget this verse. thanks for the info. just because you were once Trinitarian, but are no longer, does not at all mean that you've come to the Truth. you may just as well have gone away from the Truth. and Jesus was all these things. don't they also call Jesus Lord? what does that mean? isn't God the only one that can be called Lord in that sense that they are using? yeah, well Jesus calls Himself, the Alpha and the Omega. the Beginning and the End. who can have that title but God? and no you haven't "explained" the reason that Jesus can truly be called the Alpha and the Omega. and He WAS appointed Messiah and King. you're right. that doesn't mean that He can't be Divine. just sitting here and casually calling Him by those names doesn't lessen the force that those Titles actually have. no one can be called those things without being Divine or someone blaspheming. exactly. the Man Christ Jesus. let me ask you something: why didn't God just create the first man like Jesus in the first place? perfect and powerful enough to resist the temptation of this world and the devil? then He could have avoided all this and still have had the same outcome of a perfect world and people that could fellowship with Him. i have another question: isn't God love? who was He loving before He created man? or who was He talking to or having a relationship with before He created man? thanks. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame