U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2018, 01:30 AM
 
3,095 posts, read 832,431 times
Reputation: 242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Comments in purple.
Jesus did know everything, because he/God were and are one. That's clear throughout the Gospels and New Testament. Based on what scripture do you prove that he "didn't know everything"?
Jesus didn't know everything because Jesus and God were not one but two. God did not die but Jesus died. Jesus never claimed to be God. He didn't claim even to be good. When a woman had touched him (Luke 8:45, Mark 5:30) he did not know who had touched him. God would certainly have known who touched him.

 
Old 01-08-2018, 02:28 AM
 
3,095 posts, read 832,431 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
One reason (among others) that one of the persons of the Godhead had to become man is because God can't die. Therefore the second person of the Trinity became man so that he could go to the cross and die for the sins of the world.
God became man just to show us that he can die?

So who dies on the cross; God, Son or a man called Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus has eternally existed as God, but when He entered into the world through the virgin conception and birth He also became true humanity. And from that moment onward Jesus is both truly God and true humanity in one person. Theologically this is known as the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Jesus.
Union of one or union of two? Jesus was not known until he was named Jesus after his birth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
As is seen in John 1:1 compared with John 1:14, and in Philippians 2:5-8 Jesus existed as God and became flesh.
That's misinterpretation.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God's. He was with God in the beginning.
It was the Word that was with God in the beginning; not Son or Jesus. Man can die but God's Word does not die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
During his first advent Jesus refrained from using his deity independently of the Father's will for him during his first advent. This is known theologically as the kenosis of Jesus. Jesus didn't give up his deity as a man, he simply chose not to access that part of his person except at certain times. This is why during his first advent Jesus could be ignorant of things and had to learn as any other person did. But when Jesus did choose to exercise his deity could certainly do so.
No. Jesus never did anything without God's permission. Even his death wasn't his own choice but as God Willed.

“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."(John 5:19)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
While you claim, on the basis of your own reasoning that Jesus can't be God, the writers of the New Testament expressly stated that he is God.
As Jesus never claimed to be God, writers of the New Testament were wrong to express otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
And Jesus himself is recorded as having claimed to be God.
Never.

Show us, in which saying of Jesus he claimed so!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Now, if you don't believe the Biblical writers declaration that Jesus is God, that's your choice, but then why believe anything else the Biblical writers say about him and what he taught, and about Christianity? Where else other than the Bible do we learn anything at all about Jesus?
None of those writers were ever with Jesus. How could they know what Jesus had said?

If you replace the word "Jesus" with the word "God" and say:

"God was born to Mary."
"God taught in the temple."
"God was riding a colt or a donkey."
"God was mocked and beaten."
"God was made to carry his cross."
"God was crucified and was dead for three days (less than 1.5 in reality), after giving up the ghost."
"God was hiding from the Jews and the Romans after his resurrection." Afraid of being killed again?

The whole theology of God becoming man falls apart.
 
Old 01-08-2018, 08:38 AM
 
20,141 posts, read 15,463,555 times
Reputation: 7291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
God became man just to show us that he can die?
God became a man because since it was mankind that sinned it was necessary for a man who himself had no sin to be a substitute for us. Since the entire human race was under the penalty for Adam's sin, it was necessary for one of the persons of the Godhead to become a man in order to judicially bear our sins and be judged for them. Since the wages of sin is death, the Word became flesh so that he could die in our place.
Quote:
So who dies on the cross; God, Son or a man called Jesus?
Jesus Christ is both God and man. His human nature is completely distinct from his divine nature. It was the humanity of Jesus that died. Not his deity.
Quote:
Union of one or union of two? Jesus was not known until he was named Jesus after his birth.
A union of anything implies more than one. There is within the one person of Jesus a union of two distinct natures. His divine nature as God and his human nature. There is no blending of the two natures. His deity is distinct from his humanity.
Quote:
That's misinterpretation.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God's. He was with God in the beginning.
It was the Word that was with God in the beginning; not Son or Jesus. Man can die but God's Word does not die.
Obviously the name Jesus refers to his humanity. But it's understood that before he entered into the human race through the virgin conception he existed as the eternal Word. And no, John 1:1 does not say ''and the Word was God's.'' It says, ''and the Word was God [singular]. Actually, in the Greek it says, ''and God was the Word'' - καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Θεὸς. Both Θεὸς [God] and Λόγος [Word] are in the nominative case as seen by the ος suffix which is also singular. The nominative case is the subject. But since the ''Word'' is the actual subject of the verse, it is proper in English to say 'and the Word was God', rather than 'and God was the Word.'
QUOTE]
No. Jesus never did anything without God's permission. Even his death wasn't his own choice but as God Willed.

“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."(John 5:19) [/quote]
Jesus willingly submitted to the Father's plan for his incarnation. As I said, Jesus refrained from using his deity independently of the Father's will for him during his first advent. But that doesn't mean that Jesus never used his deity at all. He simply didn't use his deity to personally benefit himself such as when Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread to ease his hunger.
Quote:
As Jesus never claimed to be God, writers of the New Testament were wrong to express otherwise.
Here you express arrogance in assuming that you know better than the Biblical writers whether Jesus was God or not. The apostle John who was with Jesus calls him God, Paul who encounter the risen Jesus calls him God, and the writer of Hebrews calls him God.
Quote:
Never.
And now you contradict yourself. You just got through saying that the writers of the New Testament were wrong to say that Jesus claimed to be God and now you are saying that it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus said he is God.
Quote:
Show us, in which saying of Jesus he claimed so!
Okay.

In John 8:58 Jesus said, ''Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'' Here Jesus was expressing his preexistence. He said that he existed before Abraham was born. But Jesus also said, not ''I was'' but ''I am'' which in this context goes right back to the Old Testament 'I am' statements of God in Isaiah 41:4; 42:8; 42:12,13; 44:6; 45:7,18,22; 46:9. All of those are 'I am' statements of God. Jesus in stating his pre-existence by saying that ''before Abraham existed, I am'' was claiming to be God. And the Jews knew that he was claiming to be God. In a later incident, (see John 10:32-33) when Jesus asked the Jews why they intended to stone him, they answered that it was because he was claiming to be God.

To understand this next claim of Jesus to be God you need to know something about the context in which Jesus makes the claim that he would be seen coming on/with the clouds of heaven as recorded in Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:62. When Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 where it is said ''I [Daniel] kept looking in the light visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days [God the Father] and was presented before Him.

The context is that of the ancient near east [ANE] in which the reference to the cloud rider, the one who rides the clouds, the one who rides the heavens, was a reference to Baal, a god of the Canaanite pantheon of gods. Baal eventually superceded El as the chief god of the Canaanites. Baal was called the one who rides the clouds. Israel was a part of the ANE culture and it was understood that references to the one who rides the clouds referred to deity.

The Old Testament writers took the term 'cloud rider' and applied it to Yahweh. Their intent in doing so was one of subversion. They were saying that it wasn't Baal who rode the clouds, it was Yahweh who rode the clouds. Yahweh is referred to as the one who rides the clouds, who rides the heavens in Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3. But when we get to Daniel 7:13 the cloud rider imagery is applied to the Son of Man. Jesus' favorite self designation was 'Son of Man' and took that title from Daniel 7:13. Jesus is the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7:13. When Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 as his answer to the high priest Caiaphas, he was claiming to be the one who rides the clouds which was a well known title of deity which elsewhere in the Bible, as was shown, is applied to Yahweh but is applied to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13. Jesus was claiming to be the one who rides the clouds. He was claiming to be God. And Caiaphas knew that Jesus was claiming to be God because as soon as Jesus made the claim, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused him of blasphemy and deserving of death.
Quote:
None of those writers were ever with Jesus. How could they know what Jesus had said?
That simply is not true. Take the Gospel of John for instance. The Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus. And in John 21:20-24 the writer of the Gospel of John is stated to be 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'' This means that the writer of John was with Jesus during his earthly ministry. The early church said that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the apostle John. Even you argue against John being the writer of the Gospel to which his name has been attached, the writer was still an eye witness of Jesus.

Paul, who stated that Jesus is God (Philippians 2:5-6) had personal encounters with Jesus after he had been raised from the dead.
Quote:
If you replace the word "Jesus" with the word "God" and say:

"God was born to Mary."
"God taught in the temple."
"God was riding a colt or a donkey."
"God was mocked and beaten."
"God was made to carry his cross."
"God was crucified and was dead for three days (less than 1.5 in reality), after giving up the ghost."
"God was hiding from the Jews and the Romans after his resurrection." Afraid of being killed again?

The whole theology of God becoming man falls apart.
Jesus is the God-man. He is both eternal and infinite God, and true humanity in one person. God wasn't born to Mary, the humanity of Jesus was born to Mary. His nature as God eternally existed, but his humanity had a beginning with the virgin conception and birth of Jesus.

The plain fact of the matter is that the New Testament is as clear as can be that God became man. Again, a simple comparison of John 1:1 with John 1:14 shows this as does Philippians 2:5-7.

Your arguments are simply denials of what the Biblical writers wrote concerning Jesus and you really have no leg to stand on.
 
Old 01-08-2018, 01:42 PM
 
Location: US
25,911 posts, read 13,687,070 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
God became a man because since it was mankind that sinned it was necessary for a man who himself had no sin to be a substitute for us. Since the entire human race was under the penalty for Adam's sin, it was necessary for one of the persons of the Godhead to become a man in order to judicially bear our sins and be judged for them. Since the wages of sin is death, the Word became flesh so that he could die in our place.

Jesus Christ is both God and man. His human nature is completely distinct from his divine nature. It was the humanity of Jesus that died. Not his deity.

A union of anything implies more than one. There is within the one person of Jesus a union of two distinct natures. His divine nature as God and his human nature. There is no blending of the two natures. His deity is distinct from his humanity.

Obviously the name Jesus refers to his humanity. But it's understood that before he entered into the human race through the virgin conception he existed as the eternal Word. And no, John 1:1 does not say ''and the Word was God's.'' It says, ''and the Word was God [singular]. Actually, in the Greek it says, ''and God was the Word'' - καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Θεὸς. Both Θεὸς [God] and Λόγος [Word] are in the nominative case as seen by the ος suffix which is also singular. The nominative case is the subject. But since the ''Word'' is the actual subject of the verse, it is proper in English to say 'and the Word was God', rather than 'and God was the Word.'
QUOTE]
No. Jesus never did anything without God's permission. Even his death wasn't his own choice but as God Willed.

“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."(John 5:19)
Jesus willingly submitted to the Father's plan for his incarnation. As I said, Jesus refrained from using his deity independently of the Father's will for him during his first advent. But that doesn't mean that Jesus never used his deity at all. He simply didn't use his deity to personally benefit himself such as when Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread to ease his hunger.

Here you express arrogance in assuming that you know better than the Biblical writers whether Jesus was God or not. The apostle John who was with Jesus calls him God, Paul who encounter the risen Jesus calls him God, and the writer of Hebrews calls him God.

And now you contradict yourself. You just got through saying that the writers of the New Testament were wrong to say that Jesus claimed to be God and now you are saying that it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus said he is God.

Okay.

In John 8:58 Jesus said, ''Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'' Here Jesus was expressing his preexistence. He said that he existed before Abraham was born. But Jesus also said, not ''I was'' but ''I am'' which in this context goes right back to the Old Testament 'I am' statements of God in Isaiah 41:4; 42:8; 42:12,13; 44:6; 45:7,18,22; 46:9. All of those are 'I am' statements of God. Jesus in stating his pre-existence by saying that ''before Abraham existed, I am'' was claiming to be God. And the Jews knew that he was claiming to be God. In a later incident, (see John 10:32-33) when Jesus asked the Jews why they intended to stone him, they answered that it was because he was claiming to be God.

To understand this next claim of Jesus to be God you need to know something about the context in which Jesus makes the claim that he would be seen coming on/with the clouds of heaven as recorded in Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:62. When Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 where it is said ''I [Daniel] kept looking in the light visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days [God the Father] and was presented before Him.

The context is that of the ancient near east [ANE] in which the reference to the cloud rider, the one who rides the clouds, the one who rides the heavens, was a reference to Baal, a god of the Canaanite pantheon of gods. Baal eventually superceded El as the chief god of the Canaanites. Baal was called the one who rides the clouds. Israel was a part of the ANE culture and it was understood that references to the one who rides the clouds referred to deity.

The Old Testament writers took the term 'cloud rider' and applied it to Yahweh. Their intent in doing so was one of subversion. They were saying that it wasn't Baal who rode the clouds, it was Yahweh who rode the clouds. Yahweh is referred to as the one who rides the clouds, who rides the heavens in Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3. But when we get to Daniel 7:13 the cloud rider imagery is applied to the Son of Man. Jesus' favorite self designation was 'Son of Man' and took that title from Daniel 7:13. Jesus is the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7:13. When Jesus quoted Daniel 7:13 as his answer to the high priest Caiaphas, he was claiming to be the one who rides the clouds which was a well known title of deity which elsewhere in the Bible, as was shown, is applied to Yahweh but is applied to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13. Jesus was claiming to be the one who rides the clouds. He was claiming to be God. And Caiaphas knew that Jesus was claiming to be God because as soon as Jesus made the claim, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused him of blasphemy and deserving of death.

That simply is not true. Take the Gospel of John for instance. The Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus. And in John 21:20-24 the writer of the Gospel of John is stated to be 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'' This means that the writer of John was with Jesus during his earthly ministry. The early church said that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the apostle John. Even you argue against John being the writer of the Gospel to which his name has been attached, the writer was still an eye witness of Jesus.

Paul, who stated that Jesus is God (Philippians 2:5-6) had personal encounters with Jesus after he had been raised from the dead.


Jesus is the God-man. He is both eternal and infinite God, and true humanity in one person. God wasn't born to Mary, the humanity of Jesus was born to Mary. His nature as God eternally existed, but his humanity had a beginning with the virgin conception and birth of Jesus.

The plain fact of the matter is that the New Testament is as clear as can be that God became man. Again, a simple comparison of John 1:1 with John 1:14 shows this as does Philippians 2:5-7.

Your arguments are simply denials of what the Biblical writers wrote concerning Jesus and you really have no leg to stand on.[/quote]

 
Old 01-08-2018, 01:46 PM
 
Location: US
25,911 posts, read 13,687,070 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Comments in purple
Mat 24:36 'And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known—not even the messengers of the heavens—except my Father only;
 
Old 01-08-2018, 05:47 PM
 
20,141 posts, read 15,463,555 times
Reputation: 7291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Why should God be substitute for us and then kill himself or let the Romans kill him?

Would God want an innocent person to be jailed for the crimes that you or I commit? What kind of God is that who lets the sinners off and punish an innocent man (Himself)?
Since the wages of sin is death, that wage, or penalty had to be paid. Since the entire human race is in bondage to sin it was necessary for God Himself to become a man who himself was free from sin so that as a man he could be our substitute. It required someone who himself was not in bondage to sin to be judged for the sins of those who were in bondage to Sin in order to free them from that bondage.

What kind of God is it who punishes an innocent man? That's the wrong question to ask. The question to ask is what kind of God pays the penalty Himself that He pronounced on sin because He didn't desire that any perish for sin. Since no one who is in Adam and under the curse of Adam's sin can provide salvation either for himself or for the human race, God took it upon Himself to become a man, free from sin, and qualified to go to the cross and take our punishment. He did so as a man, not as God.

Quote:
Tell me something:

Are you going to get away with your sins?
If you murder someone tomorrow, would Jesus bear your sin on the Day of Judgment?
Jesus already paid for, already bore every sin that has ever, and will ever be committed in human history. This took place on the cross.

While sin is not the issue as far as eternal salvation is concerned, sin can still result in divine discipline in time.


Quote:
Why should he die without committing any sin? This theology is saying that wages for being sinless is death on the cross.
Once again, Jesus came into the world in order to go to the cross and die for our sins, as our substitute. He had to be born without sin and commit no personal sin in order to be qualified to be our substitute.


Quote:
I can't believe that people can have such senseless belief in such theology where sinners are not crucified but the sinless.
You can't believe that God was willing to provide a means of salvation for a spiritually dead race because He doesn't desire that anyone perish? You can't believe that God was willing to become a man so that as an innocent man he could bear our sins for us???


Quote:
Then Jesus the man dies and not the Son or the Deity. God never sacrificed His Son or Himself but a sinless man to forgive your sins as if otherwise He was unable to forgive your sins.
Jesus, the God-man died on the cross as a man, not as God. The human nature of Jesus, not his divine nature died. In order to be able to forgive our sins, those sins had to first be judged. By becoming a member of the human race, Jesus bore our sins and was judged for them thus making it possible for God to forgive us. God's justice had to be satisfied before He could forgive our sins.


Quote:
But what you keep forgetting is that Jesus, the man, himself had proved that sins can be forgiven (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, Luke 7:48) without killing any innocent man.
The only reason Jesus could forgive sins is because he, knowing that he was going to the cross to die for the sins of the world, could look into the heart of men and know who had, or would have faith in him.



Quote:
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

You can't enter the kingdom of heaven by sinning (disobeying God) but by doing the Will of God.
The context in Matthew 7:21-23 concerned those who were doing works such as prophesying in Jesus' name, casting out demons, and performing miracles. But they had not trusted in Jesus for eternal life. The will of the Father is to believe in Jesus (John 6:49). Those who do have eternal life.

Quote:
That means Jesus wasn't crucified and killed for your sins. You are still accountable for your sins.
Jesus was crucified and died for our sins as is attested to in the Bible. Our sins are not the issue with regard to eternal salvation. They do however result in divine discipline in time.

Quote:
Which nature was of the Son who died on the cross? Did half a nature of Jesus had died on the cross or the whole of Jesus?

Go on, tell us whether the Son was just a man or deity as well. I am sure you are now going to prove that the Son died on the cross. Yes?
I've already been over this. And more than once. The pre-incarnate Word who has always existed as God took on flesh, becoming a member of the human race. He died on the cross as a man. Not as God. Jesus is called the Son of God but He Himself is God. He's not the Father who is the first person of the Trinity, he is the second person of the Trinity who is referred to as the Son.




Quote:
No. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"Word was with God". It means God is not the Word but the Word is with God. It means the the Word is God's (not the Word is Gods). The Word was God's and it was with God. If it is "with God" then it is not God.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I didn't quote the entire verse. I simply pointed out to you that you statement in post #42 in which you said '' n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God's, was incorrect. It 'God' singular. Not 'God's' plural.

Furthermore, you state that if it is with God then it is not God despite the fact that it also says, ''and the Word was with God.'' Plurality within the Godhead is being stated in John 1:1. The Word who was with God (the Father) was Himself God (the Son.)

Quote:
So it wasn't God who came to be crucified but someone else. God was never crucified.
How many times do I have to go over this? One of the persons of the Trinity became a man and as a man was crucified. Read what Paul said.
Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7] but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8] Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Quote:
In Greek, Word is "logos" and God is "theos". One is not the other. Theos is not logos but logos is with theos. The two are not the same.
You're ignoring the entirety of the verse. Read it carefully.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
You can't miss what it is saying. The Word who was with God was Himself God. The reason this is possible is because while God is one in essence or nature, God is more than one in persons. In John 1:1 both the Father and the Word, both of whom are God, are in view.


Quote:
A proof enough that even Satan knew that Jesus was not God or even begotten Son of God.
Satan knows that Jesus is God. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, one of the temptations was when Satan said to Jesus,
Matthew 4:3 And the one tempting, having come to Him, said "If You are Son of God, speak, that these stones may become loaves of bread."
Koine Greek has four conditional clauses. In English the word 'if' is understood as maybe yes, maybe no. But in Greek there are four different aspects to the word. In the first class condition ''if'' is considered to be true for the sake of argument. The first class condition is formed by the word ''Εἰ'' (if) with the main verb in the indicative mood in any tense. And that's what we have in Matthew 4:3. Satan knows that Jesus is God. And in tempting him Satan is saying in effect, ''Since you are the Son of God, speak, that these stones may become bread.'' Satan was tempting Jesus to use his ability as God to turn stones to bread in order to ease his hunger as a man. Again, Jesus is both God and man. While as God Jesus couldn't hunger, he could become hungry as a man.


Quote:
Gospel of John was not written by apostle John. No point in attributing it to apsstle John.
Early church tradition says that John was the writer of the Gospel of John. And you evaded the point that the writer of the Gospel of John is stated to be the disciple whom Jesus loved and is therefore someone who was with Jesus and an eyewitness.

Quote:
No contradiction!

Jesus never said that he was God and the writers were wrong to give impression that Jesus was God when Jesus himself had declared that only God is good. He clearly had denied himself to be God and good.

But Jesus never claimed to be God. Jesus was not speaking on his own authority but God had told him to say so (John 8:28).
You contradicted yourself, and despite the fact that I clearly showed that Jesus did claim to be God, I proved it, and went into some detail doing so, you still claim that he didn't claim to be God.


Quote:
If he was Son of God, why the emphasis on Son of Man? It is obvious that he didn't want people to regard him Son of God but Son of Man.
Jesus wore a number of titles. Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David. Jesus, though God, emphasized his humanity and the fact that he was the Messiah. Therefore his favorite self designation was 'Son of Man.'

Quote:
I would stay quiet about reference to Baal here, I were you, or else it would reveal too much Babylonian influence in such references.
Should people be afraid of the truth? The Old Testament is full of ANE motifs. And the truth is, as I told you, that the Old Testament writers took a title that was attributed to Baal and applied it to Yahweh. It was also applied to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 which Jesus applied to himself and therefore claiming to be God.

Quote:
Neither the author of this Gospel is apostle John nor there is any evidence that Jesus was dead when he was brought down. It was late, there was earthquake and dark had spread around there. Nobody could testify that Jesus was dead. No writings exist immediately after the event. All Gospels were written many years after the event.
Again, the early church fathers stated that John was the author of the Gospel of John. They were in a better position to know who the writer was then scholars today are.

And the Romans were experts at crucifixion. They knew when someone on the cross was dead. Jesus' side was pierced with a spear to make sure that he was dead.

So what if the Gospels weren't written immediately? They were still written within the lifetime of people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus, and within the lifetime of many of the apostles. Again, the Gospel of John was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved which means that he was with Jesus as he is stated to be in John 21:20-24.


Quote:
If you believe Paul you will believe anything. He had never met Jesus in his lifetime.
You're revealing your true intent on this thread, and it's not one of honest inquiry. Paul met Jesus after he was resurrected. And Paul was in favor with the other apostles. He was accepted by them. Yes, I believe Paul.


Quote:
Then neither God nor the Son of God died on the cross but an innocent human only. To forgive your sins?
I've gone over this how many times now? God can't die. That is why one of the persons of the Godhead had to become a man, and as a man die on the cross. And yes, to be judged for our sins, in our place, as our substitute.


Quote:
Son came from the Father. Father did not become Son. The two are not the same. Jesus was never the Father. Therefore, Jesus is never God. Jesus died. God will never die.
The Son was sent by the Father. No, the Father did not become the Son. They are two different persons of the Godhead. Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. God cannot die which is why God had to become a man so that as a man he (Jesus) could die for our sins.


Quote:
Further, you too are going to die. Jesus hasn't taken away your sins. Be in no doubt that you will be judged on what you do rather than on what you believe only.
Everyone experiences physical death. But because Jesus took away our sins on the cross, anyone who simply believes in Him has eternal life. Upon physically dying the soul and spirit of the believer enters into the presence of God in heaven.
Quote:
Your arguments are denials of many words from Jesus. You know very well that it was never either God or Son of God who is subject of crucifixion and death on the cross.

You will have to do more mental gymnastics to decide whether the Word or Son died on the cross or just flesh born from Mary longtime after the beginning.
No, all that I've said is based on what the Bible teaches. No mental gymnastics are involved. Since the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God and that he became flesh and that he went to the cross to die for our sins, your statement that I ''know very well that it was never either God or Son of God who is subject of crucifixion and death on the cross'' is nothing but denial on your part.

Okay, enough of this. I've patiently addressed your arguments, none of which hold up. And it just occurred to me that based on your screen name it can be assumed that you are a Muslim which would explain why you deny that Jesus is neither God or the Son of God. But the Bible teaches that he is.

We're at an impasse and unless you can objectively read, and accept what the Bible says, no further progress can be made. I think therefore that this discussion has reached its end.
 
Old 01-08-2018, 06:05 PM
 
37,055 posts, read 24,931,674 times
Reputation: 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Since the wages of sin is death, that wage, or penalty had to be paid. Since the entire human race is in bondage to sin it was necessary for God Himself to become a man who himself was free from sin so that as a man he could be our substitute. It required someone who himself was not in bondage to sin to be judged for the sins of those who were in bondage to Sin in order to free them from that bondage.
Preposterous. If the wages of sin is death, that wage, or penalty has been paid by every human who has ever lived. What was needed was a human consciousness that perfectly embodied the consciousness of God in agape (love), i.e. perfect resonance (Identity). That is why Jesus was needed. His death simply represented His rebirth as Spirit, something we each will undergo upon our death. The difference is that His human consciousness connected all human consciousness to God so we will not be separated from God (after our refinement to eliminate the dross).
 
Old 01-08-2018, 06:11 PM
 
20,141 posts, read 15,463,555 times
Reputation: 7291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Preposterous. If the wages of sin is death, that wage, or penalty has been paid by every human who has ever lived. What was needed was a human consciousness that perfectly embodied the consciousness of God in agape (love), i.e. perfect resonance (Identity). That is why Jesus was needed. His death simply represented His rebirth as Spirit, something we each will undergo upon our death. The difference is that His human consciousness connected all human consciousness to God so we will not be separated from God (after our refinement to eliminate the dross).
Actually, it's your beliefs that are preposterous. The wages of sin is death. Spiritual death. Separation from God. And except for the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, everyone would remain in a state of spiritual death or separation from God. This is clearly laid out in the Bible. But of course you reject so very much of what the Biblical writers have written thinking that you have some special in with God due to some claimed encounter with God during meditation. Your beliefs are about as heretical as they come.
 
Old 01-08-2018, 07:41 PM
Status: "You are the universe in ecstatic motion" (set 10 hours ago)
 
1,514 posts, read 758,405 times
Reputation: 2108
Mary is the latest incarnation of a mother goddess she has parallels with the moon goddess Diana and Isis.
Jesus is the embodiment of a God
Mary Magadalene is also a goddess figure and an embodiment of the divine feminine.
There are many sacred and divine figures in the bible.
 
Old 01-09-2018, 05:20 AM
 
3,095 posts, read 832,431 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Since the wages of sin is death, that wage, or penalty had to be paid.
If you sin, you pay the penalty; not any other innocent man. Adam sinned, he paid the penalty.

Paul has destroyed what Jesus had taught.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Since the entire human race is in bondage to sin it was necessary for God Himself to become a man who himself was free from sin so that as a man he could be our substitute.
God to be your substitute? Nonsense!
You sin, you die; not God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
It required someone who himself was not in bondage to sin to be judged for the sins of those who were in bondage to Sin in order to free them from that bondage.
Even Jesus was in bondage to sin through Mary (a human).
And if you sin, you must pay the price; not an innocent man.

Jesus proved it that sins can be forgiven without him dying on the cross. Why are you ignoring that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What kind of God is it who punishes an innocent man? That's the wrong question to ask.
Of course it is the right question to ask. It exposes the absurdity of killing an innocent man for the crime of the sinners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The question to ask is what kind of God pays the penalty Himself that He pronounced on sin because He didn't desire that any perish for sin.
He didn't need to pay at all. You must pay if you sin unless you ask for forgiveness (Luke 24:47) and God will forgive you. Didn't the Holy Spirit tell you that all kind of sins can be forgiven except one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Since no one who is in Adam and under the curse of Adam's sin can provide salvation either for himself or for the human race, God took it upon Himself to become a man, free from sin, and qualified to go to the cross and take our punishment. He did so as a man, not as God.
You will take your punishment as you are still under the bondage of sin and pay the wages of sin in your death. You are not going to make any God-man a scapegoat (Lev. 16) for your own sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus already paid for, already bore every sin that has ever, and will ever be committed in human history. This took place on the cross.
A load of nonsense!

This nonsense means no Christian will go to hell. What a wishful thinking.

Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Matthew 23:33
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Perhaps Jesus didn't know that he was going to be made a scapegoat for the sins of whole mankind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
While sin is not the issue as far as eternal salvation is concerned, sin can still result in divine discipline in time.
It all depends on which sin you are referring to.

Sin is disobedience to God. The only way out, once you are guilty, is to repent and mend your conduct. There is no other valid way out. Repenting and mending is the only solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Once again, Jesus came into the world in order to go to the cross and die for our sins, as our substitute. He had to be born without sin and commit no personal sin in order to be qualified to be our substitute.
Jesus didn't come but was sent in the world to the lost sheep of Israel to give them the last warning to repent and mend or face the wrath from God. That's what The Messiah was sent for; to give the last warning after so many prophets to Bani Israel. That was his only mission. He was gone after giving the last warning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You can't believe that God was willing to provide a means of salvation for a spiritually dead race because He doesn't desire that anyone perish? You can't believe that God was willing to become a man so that as an innocent man he could bear our sins for us???
Why make Jesus the scapegoat for your sins. Is your God so handicapped that He can't forgive your sins even if you repent and mend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus, the God-man died on the cross as a man, not as God.
In that case, what died on the cross was not God, was not the Son and was not the Word but a man only. Do you understand where you are going wrong?

God never sacrificed Himself or His Son but perhaps someone born to Mary a long time after the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The human nature of Jesus, not his divine nature died.
Then Jesus never died; only half of his nature. Which nature was of the Word and of the Son (remember "in the beginning")?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
In order to be able to forgive our sins, those sins had to first be judged. By becoming a member of the human race, Jesus bore our sins and was judged for them thus making it possible for God to forgive us. God's justice had to be satisfied before He could forgive our sins.
Luke 7:48
Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

Jesus never crucified and killed himself on the cross before that woman's sins were forgiven. This is proof enough that your theology about forgiveness of sins is twisted and against the words of Jesus. You are following Paul; not Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The only reason Jesus could forgive sins is because he, knowing that he was going to the cross to die for the sins of the world, could look into the heart of men and know who had, or would have faith in him.
Then no need for a charade of sacrificing anyone's son for forgiveness of mankind's sins. I am sure God can look into the hearts of every human and forgive his/her sins for faith in God.

See, you are coming round to how God forgives sins!
It was only a matter of time before you discover the truth as to how God forgives sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The context in Matthew 7:21-23 concerned those who were doing works such as prophesying in Jesus' name, casting out demons, and performing miracles. But they had not trusted in Jesus for eternal life. The will of the Father is to believe in Jesus (John 6:49). Those who do have eternal life.
Doesn't your God want the whole mankind's sins to be forgiven?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus was crucified and died for our sins as is attested to in the Bible. Our sins are not the issue with regard to eternal salvation. They do however result in divine discipline in time.
Then Jesus did not die for your sins if you are still subject to divine discipline at the Judgment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I've already been over this. And more than once. The pre-incarnate Word who has always existed as God took on flesh, becoming a member of the human race. He died on the cross as a man. Not as God. Jesus is called the Son of God but He Himself is God. He's not the Father who is the first person of the Trinity, he is the second person of the Trinity who is referred to as the Son.
Who died on the cross, the Son (second person of the Trinity) or Jesus (the man)?
Time for more mental gymnastics!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I didn't quote the entire verse. I simply pointed out to you that you statement in post #42 in which you said '' n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God's, was incorrect. It 'God' singular. Not 'God's' plural.
God's is not the same as Gods.

If the Word is with God then the Word is not God but is WITH God. That means, any Word that God sends to humans is God's. Read carefully what I am writing here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Furthermore, you state that if it is with God then it is not God despite the fact that it also says, ''and the Word was with God.'' Plurality within the Godhead is being stated in John 1:1. The Word who was with God (the Father) was Himself God (the Son.)
Then the Son was not killed on the cross for your sins. God Himself (the Son) did not die on the cross. You need to sort out your twisted theology!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
How many times do I have to go over this? One of the persons of the Trinity became a man and as a man was crucified. Read what Paul said.
Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7] but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8] Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
It would be better for Christians to get away from this curse of Babylon called trinity in unity, three gods in one. It is a Pagan concept born in Babylon centuries before Jesus was born. And I have already said that Paul has messed up Christianity that Jesus had preached. He was punished in Rome for his sins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You're ignoring the entirety of the verse. Read it carefully.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
You simply can't understand that the Word is not God but the Word is God's.

Let me make you think better:

If I say, "in the beginning was the Wife, and the Wife was with Husband, and the Wife was Husband", how stupid I would look? The statement made would be false. The correct statement would be, "In the beginning was the Wife, and the Wife was with Husband, and the Wife was Husband's". It makes sense this way. The Wife is not Husband. Can you understand the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You can't miss what it is saying. The Word who was with God was Himself God. The reason this is possible is because while God is one in essence or nature, God is more than one in persons. In John 1:1 both the Father and the Word, both of whom are God, are in view.
"Both" means two Gods. Where was the third (the Holy Spirit) at the time? Separate from them two? Why not, in the beginning was the Word, the Holy Ghost and God and all three were God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Satan knows that Jesus is God. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, one of the temptations was when Satan said to Jesus,
Matthew 4:3 And the one tempting, having come to Him, said "If You are Son of God, speak, that these stones may become loaves of bread."
That means Satan knew that Jesus was not Son of God but son of Mary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Early church tradition says that John was the writer of the Gospel of John. And you evaded the point that the writer of the Gospel of John is stated to be the disciple whom Jesus loved and is therefore someone who was with Jesus and an eyewitness.
You can have any tradition you like. Christians are divided as to who was the author of Gospels (including the Gospel of John). Apostle John never wrote this Gospel. It is the latest of the four and has gone several editorial processes before finally being accepted as the last of the four Gospels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You contradicted yourself, and despite the fact that I clearly showed that Jesus did claim to be God, I proved it, and went into some detail doing so, you still claim that he didn't claim to be God.
You proved nothing. Jesus never claimed that he is God. God does not die; Jesus died. God knows everything; Jesus did not know everything. Jesus had a mother; God does not have a mother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus wore a number of titles. Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David. Jesus, though God, emphasized his humanity and the fact that he was the Messiah. Therefore his favorite self designation was 'Son of Man.'
Why not 'Son of God'? Don't you realize that he didn't want you to think that he was Son of God but he was Son of Man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Should people be afraid of the truth? The Old Testament is full of ANE motifs. And the truth is, as I told you, that the Old Testament writers took a title that was attributed to Baal and applied it to Yahweh. It was also applied to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 which Jesus applied to himself and therefore claiming to be God.
That is your mental gymnastics. Jesus never said that he is God. In fact, he was always drawing distinction that he is not God as only God is good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Again, the early church fathers stated that John was the author of the Gospel of John. They were in a better position to know who the writer was then scholars today are.
Author of Gospel of John had made a reference to another apostle assumed by some to be apostle John. That mean the author was not apostle John. There are comments in the Gospel that were made after John had dies. Read all about this Gospel's authorship in the following Link:

Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
And the Romans were experts at crucifixion. They knew when someone on the cross was dead. Jesus' side was pierced with a spear to make sure that he was dead.
Not everyone dies whose side is pierced. Romans were not in favour of killing Jesus. It was the Jews who wanted Jesus killed. Romans must have fooled those Jews and made them think that Jesus was crucified. There is no proof that Jesus died on the cross. Even his legs were not broken as was the usual case in these crucifixions. I reckon Jesus never died on the cross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
So what if the Gospels weren't written immediately? They were still written within the lifetime of people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus, and within the lifetime of many of the apostles. Again, the Gospel of John was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved which means that he was with Jesus as he is stated to be in John 21:20-24.
John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Who are "we" here if not the authors of this Gospel?

Apostle John couldn't have said so about himself. It is others ("we") who are talking about the testimony of a disciple. Above Link explains more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You're revealing your true intent on this thread, and it's not one of honest inquiry. Paul met Jesus after he was resurrected. And Paul was in favor with the other apostles. He was accepted by them. Yes, I believe Paul.
Absolutely honest inquiry!

Where did Paul meet resurrected Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I've gone over this how many times now? God can't die. That is why one of the persons of the Godhead had to become a man, and as a man die on the cross. And yes, to be judged for our sins, in our place, as our substitute.
If one of the three persons of Godhead died then he was not part of Godhead. You have no leg to stand on if you think that one of the three became a man and died on the cross. That means any of the co-equal persons of the godhead can become man and die on the cross at the hands of Romans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The Son was sent by the Father. No, the Father did not become the Son.
Exactly! There is difference between the One who sends and the one who is sent. Both are not co-equal otherwise the Son could have sent the Father.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
They are two different persons of the Godhead. Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. God cannot die which is why God had to become a man so that as a man he (Jesus) could die for our sins.
Then if Jesus is God the Son and the Son was sacrificed on the cross for your sins, it was God the Son who had died on the cross. Jesus the man was not God the Son. Your theology has no leg to stand on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Everyone experiences physical death. But because Jesus took away our sins on the cross, anyone who simply believes in Him has eternal life. Upon physically dying the soul and spirit of the believer enters into the presence of God in heaven.
There is only one death. Death in this world. You are going to die. I am going to die. Abraham died. Jesus died. Moses died. Paul died. All are going to die. From which death did God send Jesus to save mankind in the middle of human history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, all that I've said is based on what the Bible teaches. No mental gymnastics are involved. Since the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God and that he became flesh and that he went to the cross to die for our sins, your statement that I ''know very well that it was never either God or Son of God who is subject of crucifixion and death on the cross'' is nothing but denial on your part.
Then all you have to say is that it was God the Son who died on the cross. If you refuse, the Son was never sacrificed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Okay, enough of this. I've patiently addressed your arguments, none of which hold up. And it just occurred to me that based on your screen name it can be assumed that you are a Muslim which would explain why you deny that Jesus is neither God or the Son of God. But the Bible teaches that he is.
Did Jesus ever say from his own mouth that he is either God or Son of God? If not, you are not believing the Bible Jesus preached but what others preached after Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
We're at an impasse and unless you can objectively read, and accept what the Bible says, no further progress can be made. I think therefore that this discussion has reached its end.
Not at all!

The OP is how many Gods. 1+1+1=3 and not =1.
If 1 can become man then each one of three can become man. If 1 can die then each one (co-equal) can die. You have no leg to stand on with such a theology.

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone".

Jesus is not God.

Luke 18:19
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone".

Jesus testifies he is not good as only God is good. This means, he denies that he is God.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top