Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't know how relieved I am to not have to be abused by you anymore!
Now run along.
Anybody else want to answer my questions here since sciota can't:
In other words, you never considered Jesus saying He is not the disciple's God when He said to them:
"I am ascending to your God" (John 20:17).
Their God was not Jesus. Their God was Jesus' God.
If Jesus was their God why did He not say so here?
If you truly want answers to your questions you should quote the bible passage correctly. What you wrote as John 20;17 is not it at all. And it does not say what your incomplete rendering of it seems to.
Actually, Jesus spoke those words as the risen Lord Who has fully crucified the flesh. He was not speaking from the standpoint of His humanity but from the standpoint of His new humanity.
"Hypostatic union" is an unscriptural term. It is a form of unsound words not taught by the holy spirit.
"infinite God" is also an unscriptural term and a form of unsound words.
1Co 2:12-14 Now we obtained, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may be perceiving that which is being graciously given to us by God, (13) which we are speaking also, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, matching spiritual blessings with spiritual words." (14) Now the soulish man is not receiving those things which are of the spirit of God, for they are stupidity to him, and he is not able to know them, seeing that they are spiritually examined."
1Ti 6:3-5 If anyone is teaching differently and is not approaching with sound words, even those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching in accord with devoutness, (4) he is conceited, versed in nothing, but morbid about questionings and controversies, out of which is coming envy, strife, calumnies, wicked suspicions, (5) altercations of men of a decadent mind and deprived of the truth, inferring that devoutness is capital."
Here is more proof that Christ is saying these things not from His humanity by from His spiritual side:
Rev 3:2 Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be dying; for I have not found your acts completed in the sight of My God."
Rev 3:12 '"The one who is conquering, him will I be making a pillar in the temple of My God, and he may be coming out nevermore, and I will be writing on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God, and My new name."
Jesus is not the disciples' God but Jesus' God is the disciples' God and Jesus has a God too which is the disciples' God.
You twist, and you distort, and you redefine anything that doesn't agree with your nonscriptural beliefs. There is no truth in you.
Not deceptive at all.....just showing to you and everyone else that the scripture was quoted by several, prior to 200 AD. Unless you accept this, you will always be blind to the truth. Es la vida!
You must search the truth...unbiased of you preconceived assumptions.
Excuse me but you quoted a portion of scripture that does not exist... Because you want to deceive other or ignorance.. either way you quoted verse 7 with it's proven interpolation then backed that up without the interpolation... I don't know about others but that screams inconsistency to me.
The whole passage is meant to prove that Jesus is the SON of God and not God himself. I believe Ireneaus proved that by his exhortation of heresies.
Some quotes:
"Chapter XII.-The Triacontad of the Heretics Errs Both by Defect and Excess: Sophia Could Never Have Produced Anything Apart from Her Consort; Logos and Sige Could Not Have Been Contemporaries."
For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other productions; He who was not produced with that which was produced; He who was unbegotten with that which was born; He whom no one comprehends with that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on this account [Himself] incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has a definite shape.
For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members,(61) and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good-even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God.
If then, even in the case of human beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission, nor is that intelligence which produces other things separated from the living man, while its motions and affections come into manifestation, much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any means be separated from Himself; nor can anything(62) [in His case] be produced as if by a different Being.
They lead them on by the use of those [expressions] with which they have been familiar, to that sort of discourse which treats of all things, setting forth the production of the Word of God, and of Zoe, and of Nous, and bringing into the world, as it were, the [successive] emanations of the Deity. The views, again, which they propound, without either plausibility or parade, are simply lies from beginning to end.
3. How much safer and more accurate a course is it, then, to confess at once that which is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him-He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made-than that, after wearying ourselves with such an impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled, at some point or another, to fix the mind on some One, and to confess that from Him proceeded the configuration of things created.
Now, if the beings generated by the Father be similar to their Author, then those who have been produced must remain for ever impossible, even as is He who produced them; but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable of passion, then whence came this dissimilar substance to find a place within the incorruptible Pleroma? Further, too, according to this principle, each one of them must be understood as being completely separated from every other, even as men are not mixed with nor united the one to the other, but each having a distinct shape of his own, and a definite sphere of action, while each one of them, too, is formed of a particular size,-qualities characteristic of a body, and not of a spirit.
If, then, that seed [referred to] is here solidified and formed into a definite shape, it will possess the figure of a man. and not the form of the angels. How is it possible, therefore, that that seed should be after images of the angels, seeing it has obtained a form after the likeness of men? Why, again, since it was of a spiritual nature, had it any need of descending into flesh? For what is carnal stands in need of that which is spiritual, if indeed it is to be saved, that in it it may be sanctified and cleared from all impurity, and that what is mortal may be swallowed up by immortality; but that which is spiritual has no need whatever of those things which are here below. For it is not we who benefit it, but it that improves us.
For He [Jesus] did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. "
He was a man... because he was exactly what he appeared to be, a MAN.
Isaiah 9-6 For unto us a child is born.
to us a son is given.
And the government shall be upon His shoulders.
And His name shall be called.
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace.
This is but one of the many many scriptures that destroys your statement. This is one of my favorite passages of the bible as it really shows us who Jesus is and where He came from.
What is it about this very clear scripture that you don't understand?
This question is for those who do not believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy spirit are one God.
What is it about this very clear scripture that you don't understand?
This question is for those who do not believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy spirit are one God.
The Bible is so very clear on the Deity of Christ, and on the triune nature of God. It boggles the mind that there are people who profess to believe in Christ, and yet deny the most basic of doctrines concerning God.
To be honest... I don't think it's at all clear what he's arguing in that section. Check this out Kat...
"Jesus Christ was not a mere man, begotten from Joseph in the ordinary course of nature, but was very God, begotten of the Father most high, and very man, born of the Virgin."
Now I haven't yet finished the third book.. so I had to skip quite a bit in order to see what you are talking about... One thing that leaps to mind is that in Book two Irenaeus definitely argues that one cannot be separate from something and be one with it at the same time. Also that one thing cannot be a different substance from something and yet be the same as the other thing.
In refuting those heresies in books 1 and 2.. you think he is now endorsing a twofold God as possible when he denounced 4, 6, 8-fold gods? That is rubbish.. and if he did then he has no ground on which to accuse others if, in fact, he himself does the same. Why didn't he say Jesus was THE very God? See he is refuting that others say that Jesus was conceived by Joseph.. He doesn't state that God was on earth.. he states that the Word of God dwelt in men, specifically Jesus and that there was something special about Jesus (which we all agree).
So if truly Irenaeus is to denounce these heresies which claim multiple persons of God, yet then claims Jesus is God.. he has ascribed to the very fallacy he rejects... If that is so.. and I will read the rest of Book 3 tonight.. then I would have to reject what Irenaeus state because he contradicts himself.
What is it about this very clear scripture that you don't understand?
This question is for those who do not believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy spirit are one God.
So then Jesus having been given the title of EVERLASTING FATHER in the passage you quote is then also the Father?
So then Jesus having been given the title of EVERLASTING FATHER in the passage you quote is then also the Father?
That seems to be what the passage is saying but I believe that it is really saying that they are one God. What about the time that Jesus was talking to the pharisses about Abraham and Moses? He said that before they were born that "I Am". Here He was clearly stating that He was one with the FatherEqual and co eternal.
That seems to be what the passage is saying but I believe that it is really saying that they are one God. What about the time that Jesus was talking to the pharisses about Abraham and Moses? He said that before they were born that "I Am". Here He was clearly stating that He was one with the FatherEqual and co eternal.
You know it is simple and easy to see what the scripture is saying. But you will find others who not only misinterpret scripture, but they actually disagree with what God has said about Himself. Jesus is God and the scripture proves it. You will soon find out that some here don't really take the scripture for what it says. Lack of knowledge is destroying alot of people.
That seems to be what the passage is saying but I believe that it is really saying that they are one God. What about the time that Jesus was talking to the pharisses about Abraham and Moses? He said that before they were born that "I Am". Here He was clearly stating that He was one with the FatherEqual and co eternal.
No. If you are saying that Jesus is the Mighty God then in the same respect Jesus is the Everlasting Father. How can Jesus be God and be the Father? Don't you find something suspect about that? First Jesus is the Son.. then he is the Everlasting Father? So who is the Everlasting Father if not Jesus in that passage... If you asked me if I was a mother.. I would reply, "I am"... does that imply the same thing as when God said "I am who I am?" Do you also believe that Jesus was nearly 50 years old when the Jews say "you are not yet 50 years old"... obviously he was nearly 50 or they would not have said that.. yet most christians believe Christ was only 30... How do you reconcile that Jesus is called Mighty God and Everlasting Father? How can you then say that he is only figuratively Everlasting Father but is literally Mighty God? Don't you contradict your interpretation of the verse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
