󠅤 The Lord sent Jesus Christ

[MTMattie]

Still entirely separate persons. The "one flesh" concept is a euphemism intimacy.

your interpretation.

They still are separate, but one Godhead.

Satan is doing his best to keep you blinded to the truth.

 

[Marion]

Just like the Father and Son are separate persons yet They are one.

Next fallacy

There's no doubt whatsoever that Jesus confidently claimed to be God.

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 14:9

I and the Father are one. John 10:30

 

[Runningman]

your interpretation.

They still are separate, but one Godhead.

Satan is doing his best to keep you blinded to the truth.

Ah, we have another self-righteous one who thinks his beliefs are unquestionable and infallible. Therefore, all who disagree must be evil.

Paul said that joining with a harlot is considered being one flesh. It's not anything to do with marriage. Understand yet?

1 Cor. 6 (KJV)
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

 

[Runningman]

Just like the Father and Son are separate persons yet They are one.

Next fallacy

And Christians are also one with them without becoming each other or becoming God or Jesus.

John 17
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Next fallacy.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There's truly is no problem ~ since neither Enoch, Moses, nor Elijah do, or say, anything personally that would cause folks to attribute Divine attributes of the Godhead, to them, regardless what some may say, and truly no man would impute to those godly men one single attribute that only the Godhead possessed.

Good morning Red Baker and @civic

Indeed, as we all know, many people have claimed all kind of religious beliefs that look strange to us.
Hypothetical believers in the deity of those men (or Krishna, or Buddha, or Hercules) would have no problem in setting up whatever argumentation to preach that they also had a dual God-man nature.

In the case of Enoch and Elijah, the fact that they did not taste death. That would be enough, plus all the stories that the hypothetical believers could invent.

In the case of Moses, there is much more material they could resort to:

• Moses talked to God face to face, and Jesus said that no man had seen God.
• God did not let Moses body get corrupted, and sent Angel Michel to resuscitate his body.
• Moses predicted that God would raise a prophet "like me", which is Jesus. So, Jesus would share the same divine nature than Moses.
• Moses with Elijah appeared to Jesus in the Transfiguration and talked to Him because they also shared the same divine nature and their bodies had not been corrupted.

Hypothetical believers could write down any sort of invented traditions about more miracles performed by them, or by Krishna, or any other character, historical or fictional.

My point, then, is that for monotheists, once we know who God is, no one else can claim deity, for himself or for others.
By definition, a monotheist does not EXPECT anyone else to be God and therefore, does not even need to examine the miracles or sayings of that person to rule him out as God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Dear @Red Baker and @civic

Below is an example of an argument that I made to civic to show how Jesus can't be God.
To this argument, you could make a contra-argument: "Well, Pancho, all you say is correct in regard to the HUMAN nature of Jesus. As human, Jesus had to learn Aramaic and carpentry. As a human, he needed oxygen, water and nutrients. But you are forgetting that He was also God. As God, He always knew Aramaic and carpentry. As God, he never needed oxygen, water and nutrients. As human, he could have sinned when tempted in the desert. As God, he could not".

If we applied that conter-argument to Krishna or Moses or any other character, historical or fictional, then we could end up having hundreds of people with dual nature. The divine nature would pass concealed 99% of the time that character lived, as happened with Jesus, and hypothetical believers could extract the 1% of the time they expressed a divine nature of any special saying or supposed miracle or event.

I was comparing two things that are incompatible with the essence of God.
There are many more examples we could think of.
For example, God doesn’t need to learn Aramaic and carpentry even when learning those things may be good for men.
He can’t learn them because He already knows them.
God doesn’t need oxygen, water, proteins, and other nutrients to survive… that’s incompatible to the nature of God.

Jesus had to learn Aramaic when he was a toddler, and perhaps carpentry when he grew up. His survival depended on the provision of oxygen, water and nutrients. So He cannot be God, by definition.

In short, God cannot become flesh literally, because then He would be finite and mortal, which is incompatible with his essence.

 

[MTMattie]

Ah, we have another self-righteous one who thinks his beliefs are unquestionable and infallible. Therefore, all who disagree must be evil.

You are right. The four corners of the Holy Scriptures are infallible and I believe nothing that is not there.

Paul said that joining with a harlot is considered being one flesh. It's not anything to do with marriage. Understand yet?

You certainly dont!

It was stated in Genesis regarding marriage...

Gen 2: 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Eph 5:31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

But if they also become one flesh with harlots... then that is all about sex, so be it, but does not discount the fact if they are one... they remain two.

Why can you not understand that??????????????????

1 Cor. 6 (KJV)
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

I'm giving myself a warning for the following....

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[Runningman]

You are right. The four corners of the Holy Scriptures are infallible and I believe nothing that is not there.

And the matter is you are not a Scriptural Christian. You are a Trinitarian. Your beliefs are found explicitly in the creeds and other extra-Biblical writings.

You certainly dont!

It was stated in Genesis regarding marriage...

Gen 2: 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Eph 5:31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

But if they also become one flesh with harlots... then that is all about sex, so be it, but does not discount the fact if they are one... they remain two.

Why can you not understand that??????????????????

It's because a marriage is not consummated except for upon that "one flesh" act that the Bible talks about.

I'm giving myself a warning for the following....

Are you speaking from experience?

Wow. I am just repeating what the Bible says. I hope you are not suggesting God and Paul were speaking from experience. You might want to give yourself a little more than a warning.

 

[mikesw]

Dear @Red Baker and @civic

Below is an example of an argument that I made to civic to show how Jesus can't be God.
To this argument, you could make a contra-argument: "Well, Pancho, all you say is correct in regard to the HUMAN nature of Jesus. As human, Jesus had to learn Aramaic and carpentry. As a human, he needed oxygen, water and nutrients. But you are forgetting that He was also God. As God, He always knew Aramaic and carpentry. As God, he never needed oxygen, water and nutrients. As human, he could have sinned when tempted in the desert. As God, he could not".

If we applied that conter-argument to Krishna or Moses or any other character, historical or fictional, then we could end up having hundreds of people with dual nature. The divine nature would pass concealed 99% of the time that character lived, as happened with Jesus, and hypothetical believers could extract the 1% of the time they expressed a divine nature of any special saying or supposed miracle or event.

Stupid to mention Krishna since that figure is ahistorical. Anything said of Krishna is not about a specific being that has specific observations made by others.
Moses actually was seen in a manner reflecting characteristics of God and he has a historical context. However, no group afaik has actually seen Moses as deity and worshiped him.
Jesus is different since he is both historical and has obvious ambiguity of being divine in the Godhead as well as being human. There then is the ambiguity and testimony both ways plus people have worshiped him from earliest records. The acceptance has also been broad, not some narrow group.

 

[MTMattie]

And the matter is you are not a Scriptural Christian. You are a Trinitarian. Your beliefs are found explicitly in the creeds and other extra-Biblical writings.

It's because a marriage is not consummated except for upon that "one flesh" act that the Bible talks about.

Wow. I am just repeating what the Bible says. I hope you are not suggesting God and Paul were speaking from experience. You might want to give yourself a little more than a warning.

you just proved yourself incapable of understanding what you are reading..... so sad.

 

[DougMartin]

Faith in the deity of Christ is necessary to being a Christian. It is an essential part of the New Testament gospel of Christ.

As the Logos Incarnate, Christ is revealed as being not only preexistent to creation, but eternal. He is said to be in the beginning with God and also that He is God.

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
John 1:1-3

That He is with God demands a personal distinction within the Godhead. That He is God demands inclusion in the Godhead.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Micah 5:2
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

This is an inaccurate translation. The verse does not say "everlasting" in the sense of eternal. It just says that the seed of David comes from old, from ancient times.
Please review modern translations and the vast majority of them translate the verse correctly.
You may try this link to Biblegateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Micah 5:2

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Faith in the deity of Christ is necessary to being a Christian. It is an essential part of the New Testament gospel of Christ.

I beg to differ.
The existence of Unitarian Christians throughout time is evidence that a person can be Christian and yet believe that The Father is the Only and True God, the God of Jesus.

 

[atpollard]

We should be careful for the illusion al guardrails that may seem to keep us on the road, but ultimately intentionally guide us into a ditch.

The Athanasian creed always crossed me as a simpleton's argument. It also says, ... [snip]

If I sat three apples on the table before you and said, "Not three apples, one apple." Would you believe me?

Nope ... but God is not an "apple". God is different; God is a LOT different ...

Jesus said this:

John 14:7-11 [NASB]​

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." ​

​

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." ​

​

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and [yet] you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how [can] you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves."​

Do you believe Jesus?

 

[mikesw]

I beg to differ.
The existence of Unitarian Christians throughout time is evidence that a person can be Christian and yet believe that The Father is the Only and True God, the God of Jesus.

we do not know what percentage of people still learn the gospel sufficiently to go to heaven.