A request

[Peterlag]

You can't engage in an honest discussion about Jesus' Own Words, so you must turn the topic away from His Words, and make up lies about me "not confessing that Jesus is my Lord and Savior".

Romans 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, "and" shalt believe in thine heart that "God hath raised him" from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You, Red, those Christians in Matt. 7: 22,23, all profess Jesus is Lord. But you don't believe in the God who sent Him, and Raised Him from the dead.

It's all just a game to you. It's more than that to me.

I'm sorry you did not make the debate. It would have been great to have a guy like you on my team.

 

[Selah]

Foolish unitarians, if Jesus Christ wasn’t God, He could not have redeemed those would believe in Him. He could not have resurrected on the third day. He could not be the Savior of the world. Jesus is God (in the order of Melchizedek).

s e l a h

 

[civic]

You can't engage in an honest discussion about Jesus' Own Words, so you must turn the topic away from His Words, and make up lies about me "not confessing that Jesus is my Lord and Savior".

Romans 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, "and" shalt believe in thine heart that "God hath raised him" from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You, Red, those Christians in Matt. 7: 22,23, all profess Jesus is Lord. But you don't believe in the God who sent Him, and Raised Him from the dead.

It's all just a game to you. It's more than that to me.

Projecting since you are the person evading , dodging , equivocating etc……. refusing to answer the simple question.

Is Jesus God ? Yes or no

Are you going to run away from the question angain and play your usual games ?

 

[Selah]

Projecting since you are the person evading , dodging , equivocating etc……. refusing to answer the simple question.

Is Jesus God ? Yes or no

Are you going to run away from the question angain and play your usual games ?

Since unitarians do not believe In Jesus as the Savior of the world, they are not Christians. That’s a sad fact. And their time is running out.

s e l a h

 

[Peterlag]

Foolish unitarians, if Jesus Christ wasn’t God, He could not have redeemed those would believe in Him. He could not have resurrected on the third day. He could not be the Savior of the world. Jesus is God (in the order of Melchizedek).

s e l a h

There's no Scripture that says a God redeemed us. The Bible says a man did.

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Studyman]

Projecting since you are the person evading , dodging , equivocating etc……. refusing to answer the simple question.

Is Jesus God ? Yes or no

Are you going to run away from the question angain and play your usual games ?

Jesus is not His Own God, NO!

 

[civic]

Jesus is not His Own God, NO!

BTW no trin believes He is His own god.

Another strawman

 

[FreeInChrist]

There's no Scripture that says a God redeemed us. The Bible says a man did

What man was that?

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

If Jesus has not redeemed us.... OH BOY!!!!! As men, not even Pope's can do that....Are we in trouble.

BTW, here is a little light reading for you.



www.truthsaves.org

Jesus. The Way, the Truth, and the Life.

John 1:1 — “God” or “a god”?​

At the beginning of his classic work on Jesus Christ, John opens with the significant phrase “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was ____.” John 1:1 Throughout the history of the church, the end of this opening classic has been translated “God.” Opposing this translation, the New World Translation, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the publishing arm of the Jehovah Witnesses) translates the ending “a god.” Which is correct?

---

Absence of the Definite Article

The first point Jehovah Witnesses often make on this verse is that in the Greek there is no definite article before the word “theos.” (“Theos” is the Greek word that we translate as “God” or “god” in English.) This is a particularly weak argument that takes little study to address. John uses the word “Theos” some 252 times in his writings. Twenty-two of these times it occurs without a definite article. In every place outside of John 1:1 and John 1:18 where the singular form of the word is used (whether it is with or without the article), John uses it to reference the one true God. There are no exceptions, even in the New World Translation.

Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses’ own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God. If “Theos” without the article is always translated as God by the New World Translators themselves (except for John 1:1, 18), then the argument that “Theos” should be translated as “a god” because it lacks a definite article fails. Interestingly, in the textual line followed by the New World Translation, John 1:18 has two occurrences of the word “Theos,” both without an article. The New World Translators translated the first usage as “God” and the second as “god.” The inconsistency in the New World Translation cannot be based on the lack of a definite article. The absence of the article does not indicate that John is not referencing the one true God.

Further, even as the absence of the article does not warrant the translation of “Theos” as “a god”, so the presence of the article does not mean that “Theos” must be translated as “God.” Though never by John, the word “Theos” with the article sometimes means another “god” in Scripture, though never by John (Luke in Acts 7:43 and 14:11; Paul in 2 Cor. 4:4). The presence or absence of a definite article does not provide a basis for choosing between “God” and “a god” in translating “Theos.” Rather, as with any word, the most common usage by the author should be used unless the context compels a different usage. Out of some 250 times the singular form of the word “Theos” is used by John, as stated above, every time the word is used to reference the true God. Not once does the word reference a lower deity, unless John 1:1 and John 1:18 are found to be proper exceptions. The remarkably consistent usage by John of the term “Theos” should drive one’s interpretation of his meaning when he used the term in John 1:1 and in John 1:18. Choosing to translate “Theos” as “god” in John 1:1 and John 1:18 goes contrary to John’s consistent usage of the term in all other places of his writings. There is no valid basis for arguing that the lack of an article means that John was referencing someone other than the one true God.

---

The Predicate Nominative Usage

Apparently understanding that their translation of John 1:1 could not be supported by the lack of an article, the New World Translators present a different argument, one more technical in nature. According to Appendix 2A of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripture, the translators claim the word “Theos” is “a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” As such, the word “points to a quality about someone.” The translators go on to state: “Therefore John’s statement that the Word, or Logos, was ‘a god’ or ‘divine’ or ‘godlike’ does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.” Then the translators give 14 examples from Mark and John where “a” is inserted in front of a variety of nouns, where the same Greek grammatical structure is in place. Sound convincing?

Hardly. It is true that a noun without an article can sometimes be seen as emphasizing the quality about someone or something. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Further, the question is not whether a grammatical structure may be translated in a certain way. Rather, the question is whether the grammar employed by John is sufficiently clear to overcome the remarkable consistency of his meaning of the word “Theos” to mean the one true God. In other words, is there a grammatical reason why one would translate the word “Theos” to mean something different from the meaning John gives the word in some 250 other places in his writings? The answer is again no.

What the New World Translators fail to tell you is that the same grammatical structure, a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and not preceded by the definite article, occurs several places in Scripture where it is given a definite (as opposed to an indefinite) meaning.

In John 8:54, a singular predicate noun occurs before the verb and is not proceeded by a definite article. The New World Translators do not translate the phrase as “He is your god.” Rather, they make “God” definite by properly translating the phrase like other standard translations, “He is your God.” Such a translation is compelled by the context, as it should be, because the referent noun for the word “He” is “Father.” Jesus is saying that his listeners claimed that the Father was their God. The term “God” is not used to describe a quality about the Father, but rather the identity of their Father. They claimed Him to be their God. Why do the New World Translators translate this usage as “God” but John 1:1 as “a god” when the same grammatical construction exists in both places?

Another example is found right in John 1. At John 1:49, there is a singular predicate nominative “king” that precedes the verb and lacks an article. Yet, the New World Translators do not translate this verse as “a king,” but as “King” giving the word a definite meaning. The grammatical structure is identical to John 1:1. One wonders why the translators translate these two passages in the same chapter so differently.

Let us look at another example of a singular predicate nominative preceding the verb that is without the article. James 2:19 states: “You believe there is one God.” The New World Translators make “God” definite by capitalizing the word even though it lacks an article and is a predicate nominative preceding the verb. But yet, in John 1:1 they fail to follow this same pattern and choose rather to translate it as “a god.”

In John 5:27, the New World Translation renders the Greek “because Son of man he is.” Why do they capitalize “Son” when it too is a singular predicate nominative preceding the verb that lacks an article? If the rule postulated for John 1:1 was to be followed, this should be translated “because a son of man he is.” Yet, that statement is meaningless because we all are sons of men. Jesus was special as the Son of man, as the New World Translators properly point out.

Another example is found in Matthew 27:54. Again, the same grammatical structure is found. Yet, the New World Translation gives this reading: “Certainly this was God’s Son.” Why does the New World Translation capitalize God and Son in this passage, giving those words a definite meaning, and yet translate John 1:1 as “a god”? In Matthew 14:30, the New World translators again render this same grammatical construction as a reference to a definite noun, even though there is no definite article.

Another example? How about Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28 and Luke 6:5? In each of these passages Jesus is quoted as saying: “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” The predicate nominative “Lord” precedes the verb and is without a definite article, and yet in none of these passages does the New World Translation render the meaning “The Son of Man is a lord of the Sabbath.” The point of the passage is not that Jesus has the quality of having oversight, or that Jesus is a lord. Rather, as even the New World Translation acknowledges, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. It is His identity, not his quality that is in view, a point the New World Translators do not miss. But again, the question arises, why do the translators give the grammatical construction here a definite meaning and in John 1:1 an indefinite meaning?

The same grammatical construction exists in 1 Corinthians 6:19. Here, interestingly and in total contrast to the way they handle John 1:1, the New World Translators in handling the same grammatical structure insert a “the” before the singular predicate nominative. The New World Translation renders the passage “Your body is [the] temple,” as do all widely accepted translations of the passage. One wonders why the translators do not mention this passage when they seek to explain why they translated John 1:1 as they did. Why is “temple” definite in this passage but “Theos” is indefinite in John 1:1, when the precise same grammatical structure – a singular predicate nominative preceding the verb and without an article–exists?

Let’s look at a few more examples, these again from John’s own writings. In 1 John 1:5, the New World Translation renders the passage as “God is light.” This again is a singular predicate nominative preceding the verb and without an article. In light of the argument raised by the translators relating to John 1:1, one would have expected this passage to read “God is a light” or “God is illuminating,” trying to express the quality. The same situation exists in 1 John 4:8, 16. Why is the translation not “God is lovely,” trying to capture the quality rather than “God is love,” capturing the identity?

These are only a few of the many examples where the same grammatical structure is translated by the New World Translators as being definite, where “a” is neither supplied nor appropriate. That the same grammatical structure may be and often is translated (even by the New World Translators) with a definite meaning is a fact you would not know from reading their explanation for why they translate John 1:1 as they do.

The bottom line is that in other places where the New World Translators translate “Theos” in the same grammatical structure, they always translate the word as “God,” referencing the one true God. (John 8:54; James 2:19). Consistently, as shown above, they translate words that relate to the titles or names of people as definite (they capitalize them) when they appear in this grammatical structure. The rule they postulate to explain John 1:1 is ignored by them in every other place that the word “Theos” or a proper name or title exists. Why should John 1:1 be the lone exception. It should not be. There is no sound grammatical reason for rendering the word “Theos” as anything other than “God,” the meaning John uniformly gives to the term. The consistent rendering of this grammatical structure elsewhere in Scripture argues strongly for translating John 1:1 with the definite meaning “God” and against the “a god” rendering.

Let me draw an analogy. Suppose you and I corresponded with each other. Suppose in my correspondence I mentioned “Paul” my friend. Suppose I wrote a great deal about Paul. Maybe I mentioned his name to you some 200 times. Suppose also that I never used the word “Paul” to reference anyone else in any of my writings to you. Every time I spoke with you, I kept talking about this same Paul. Now, suppose I also spoke a lot about my friend Butch. Butch and Paul, you note as you read my writings, seemed to be in a lot of the same places at many of the same times. One day you ask me: “Does Butch know Paul?” I answer you: “Butch is Paul.” Would you not understand that “Butch” is my nickname for Paul and that they are one and the same person? It would never enter your mind that Butch is some other person named Paul whom I have never mentioned.

John’s consistent usage of the term “Theos” to reference the one true God provides a compelling reason to translate the word as “God.” Neither the absence of the article nor the predicate nominative arguments compels a different translation.

One final question people may have is why John uses a definite article with the first reference to God in John 1:1 and does not include a definite article in the second. Sometimes, one simply does not know why a definite article is not supplied. Here, however, there is a simple grammatical explanation. When there are two substantives (nouns or pronouns) in the nominative case, somehow the grammar must be able to differentiate between which one is the subject and which one is the predicate. In English, we do it by word order. In the sentence “He is God,” “He” is the subject because it comes before the verb. “God” is the predicate because it comes after the verb.

In Greek, however, word order does not carry the same significance. In Greek, the subject may come first, second, third, or any other place in the sentence. Often, the verb comes first. Sometimes the verb comes last. The word order is used to show emphasis. It does not determine the subject.

In the sentence in question, the sentence structure in the Greek is “God . was . the . Word.” In Greek, the subject of the sentence can be determined by the presence and absence of the article. If only one of the nominatives has an article, it becomes the subject. (See Moulton and Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, pg. 183, nt. b (the noun without the article is simply a matter of word-order); Blass and DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pg. 143; Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament, pg. 46) Thus, in this sentence “God” becomes the predicate because it lacks the article. In fact, predicate nouns in Greek regularly lack the article. (See Muolton and Turner, Vol. III, pg. 183; Goetchius, pg. 143) Such does not make them definite or indefinite. The presence of the article before “Word” coupled with the absence of the article before God gives us the sentence structure — “the Word was God.” The position of the word “Theos” at the beginning of the sentence provides the emphasis of the sentence. Thus, John is stating “The Word was GOD,” with the emphasis on God.

One final note: John fully supports the deity of Christ throughout His writings. He gives us Thomas’ affirmation that Jesus was “His God,” a passage even the New World Translation renders as a reference to God (John 20:28). Jesus not only did not rebuke Thomas for this statement (which would be blasphemy if it were not true), but Jesus blessed him for the statement. John repeatedly uses names for Jesus that the Old Testament writers used for only God, such as the I Am, the Beginning and the End, the Almighty, and the Lord of Lords. Thus, John’s reference to the Word being God is fully consistent with John’s theology. The fact that he calls Jesus “God” in John 1:1 and John 1:18 should not come as a surprise to any who are students of John.

Click here for an eye-opening article. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught to deny the deity of Jesus. But their own translation says otherwise. Read and see for yourself.

 

[Titus]

Titus 3:4,
- but when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared

Who's the Savior? Paul told Titus the Savior is our God.

Titus 2:13,
- looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God our Savior Jesus Christ


Paul believed our God is the Savior.
I know which side Paul is on.

 

[civic]

Titus 3:4,
- but when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared

Who's the Savior? Paul told Titus the Savior is our God.

Titus 2:13,
- looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God our Savior Jesus Christ


Paul believed our God is the Savior.
I know which side Paul is on.

Amen that is indisputable. And if they try and say it refers to the Father in Titus 2:13 they are up a creek without a paddle since the appearing and coming always refers to the Son in the N.T. and never the Father.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.


τοῦ is the same.

ἡμῶν is the same.

καὶ is the same.

Σωτῆρος is the same.

Ἰησοῦ is the same.

Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if he wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

Peter refers to Christ as our God and Saviour- Lord and Saviour just the same as Paul in Titus 2:13 and it’s the same Greek construction in Titus 2:13 as it is in 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:11.

And the One who is coming / appearing in the NT is always the Son and NEVER the Father


epiphanea

2 Thessalonians 2:8
8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

1 Timothy 6:14
14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Timothy 1:10
10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus,

2 Timothy 4:1
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:

2 Timothy 4:8
8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Titus 2:13
13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Titus 2:13
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ‎tou ‎‎megalou ‎‎Theou ‎‎kai ‎‎sooteeros ‎‎Ieesou ‎‎Christou‎. This is the necessary meaning of the one article with ‎Theou ‎and ‎sooteeros ‎just as in 2 Peter 1:1,11. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read ‎Christou ‎‎Ieesou‎.


Parousia

Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:27
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:37
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Matthew 24:39
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

1 Corinthians 15:23
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 Thessalonians 2:19
19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

1 Thessalonians 3:13
13 To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:15
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:1
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

James 5:7
7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.

James 5:8
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

2 Peter 1:16
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2 Peter 3:4
4 And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

1 John 2:28-29
28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

And 2 Thessalonians 2:8 links both His appearing / coming as the same event of Christ not the Father. Both epiphenea and parousia together below in the same verse.

2 Thessalonians 2:8
8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

1 Peter 1:7
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:


Conclusion : This is where Unitarians really fail badly because they are so consumed with disproving the Deity of Christ that they fail with a well rounded theology which would benefit them greatly . You see how all biblical doctrines fit together seamlessly and especially in this case prove beyond all doubt that the one and only Person Paul was referring to in Titus 2:13 as God was Jesus and not the Father for He is never once in Scripture referred to as the One who is Coming/ Appearing .

Case closed for the Unitarian camp ! Its impossible for any unitarian to win this debate. They must turn a blind eye to all of these scriptures and hold onto their false doctrine concerning Christ and deny His Deity.


hope this helps !!!

 

[Studyman]

BTW no trin believes He is His own god.

Another strawman

What? Now wait a minute preacher, you and Red and Benny Hinn all promote "a Jesus" who walked this earth as "100%" Almighty God and "100%" man. But now you are preaching that even this same Jesus didn't believe HE was 100% "Almighty God"? How many "Almighty Gods" are there in your religion? But now you want Peter and I and everyone else to believe He did walk the earth as 100% "Almighty God". Why on earth would you promote something you know Jesus didn't even believe Himself? It seems perhaps you may know not what you worship? The Jesus "of the Bible" speaks to this very thing, as such a condition is nothing new. If you are interested in what HE actually says you can go there are hear Him.

John. 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, "when the true worshippers" shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father "seeketh such to worship him". 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I would argue that the philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting to others, is the very definition of a Convoluted mess and I lived by your philosophies for many years. But by the Grace of God, the hour came when I came to know the Almighty God that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, wants me to know and worshipped and pray to, the same "Almighty God" HE worshiped and prayed to. This "Christ" of the Bible, is now my Advocate between His Father, the One True God, and me.

Who is the advocate between the Christ's Father and you?

 

[synergy]

What? Now wait a minute preacher, you and Red and Benny Hinn all promote "a Jesus" who walked this earth as "100%" Almighty God and "100%" man. But now you are preaching that even this same Jesus didn't believe HE was 100% "Almighty God"? How many "Almighty Gods" are there in your religion? But now you want Peter and I and everyone else to believe He did walk the earth as 100% "Almighty God". Why on earth would you promote something you know Jesus didn't even believe Himself? It seems perhaps you may know not what you worship? The Jesus "of the Bible" speaks to this very thing, as such a condition is nothing new. If you are interested in what HE actually says you can go there are hear Him.

John. 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, "when the true worshippers" shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father "seeketh such to worship him". 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I would argue that the philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting to others, is the very definition of a Convoluted mess and I lived by your philosophies for many years. But by the Grace of God, the hour came when I came to know the Almighty God that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, wants me to know and worshipped and pray to, the same "Almighty God" HE worshiped and prayed to. This "Christ" of the Bible, is now my Advocate between His Father, the One True God, and me.

Who is the advocate between the Christ's Father and you?

Jesus now sits on his Father's Throne towards where all of Heaven is guiding their worship to (Rev 3:21). In Heaven, will you be worshiping Jesus (and the Father) as all of Heaven is doing right now?

 

[civic]

What? Now wait a minute preacher, you and Red and Benny Hinn all promote "a Jesus" who walked this earth as "100%" Almighty God and "100%" man. But now you are preaching that even this same Jesus didn't believe HE was 100% "Almighty God"? How many "Almighty Gods" are there in your religion? But now you want Peter and I and everyone else to believe He did walk the earth as 100% "Almighty God". Why on earth would you promote something you know Jesus didn't even believe Himself? It seems perhaps you may know not what you worship? The Jesus "of the Bible" speaks to this very thing, as such a condition is nothing new. If you are interested in what HE actually says you can go there are hear Him.

John. 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, "when the true worshippers" shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father "seeketh such to worship him". 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I would argue that the philosophy you have adopted and are now promoting to others, is the very definition of a Convoluted mess and I lived by your philosophies for many years. But by the Grace of God, the hour came when I came to know the Almighty God that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, wants me to know and worshipped and pray to, the same "Almighty God" HE worshiped and prayed to. This "Christ" of the Bible, is now my Advocate between His Father, the One True God, and me.

Who is the advocate between the Christ's Father and you?

He is not His own god, comprehend?

You don’t understand trinitarianism or your own unitarianism.

 

[Studyman]

Jesus now sits on his Father's Throne towards where all of Heaven is guiding their worship to (Rev 3:21). In Heaven, will you be worshiping Jesus (and the Father) as all of Heaven is doing right now?

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

This too, is my belief.

1 Cor. 11: 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

What I don't believe is that Christ came to earth as 100% God, and "Overcame" sin and temptation by reserving for Himself God Powers HE that HE and/or His Father withheld from every other human ever born. Then gave Himself a name above all other humans for doing what any of them could have done, had HE given them the same power HE reserved for Himself. Nor do I believe the Jesus "of the Bible" came to earth as 100% God, only to fake His Own Death, because God can't die.


It is written in the Holy Scriptures,

1 John 3: 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, "we shall be like him"; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

What the Jesus "of the bible" did for me can never be repaid, and I will never forget and will always place Him above me, as HE is my Lord. But I will not join this world's religious system in their judgments against Him and His Father. And if I make it to His Father's Kingdom, where Christ's Throne resides, where Christ has prepared a place for me at the behest of His Father, I will worship as ALL the Sons of God, including His Son that His God sent as my savior and redeemer worships. I'm sure Jesus doesn't forget all that His God did for Him either.

I'm not ashamed of the Christ of the Bible, that I would create "another Jesus" who overcame temptation by cheating.

 

[civic]

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

This too, is my belief.

1 Cor. 11: 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

What I don't believe is that Christ came to earth as 100% God, and "Overcame" sin and temptation by reserving for Himself God Powers HE that HE and/or His Father withheld from every other human ever born. Then gave Himself a name above all other humans for doing what any of them could have done, had HE given them the same power HE reserved for Himself. Nor do I believe the Jesus "of the Bible" came to earth as 100% God, only to fake His Own Death, because God can't die.


It is written in the Holy Scriptures,

1 John 3: 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, "we shall be like him"; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

What the Jesus "of the bible" did for me can never be repaid, and I will never forget and will always place Him above me, as HE is my Lord. But I will not join this world's religious system in their judgments against Him and His Father. And if I make it to His Father's Kingdom, where Christ's Throne resides, where Christ has prepared a place for me at the behest of His Father, I will worship as ALL the Sons of God, including His Son that His God sent as my savior and redeemer worships. I'm sure Jesus doesn't forget all that His God did for Him either.

I'm not ashamed of the Christ of the Bible, that I would create "another Jesus" who overcame temptation by cheating.

God doesn’t cheat another false accusation and strawman

 

[Studyman]

Foolish unitarians, if Jesus Christ wasn’t God, He could not have redeemed those would believe in Him. He could not have resurrected on the third day. He could not be the Savior of the world. Jesus is God (in the order of Melchizedek).

s e l a h

According to what is actually written in Scriptures, Jesus offered Himself for the sins of the World. Who did HE offer Himself to?

To believe Civic or Benny Hinn or others who have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, Jesus offered Himself to Himself, because HE is God. I believe in what the Scriptures say, that Jesus offered Himself to God, His God and my God, according to His Words, for the Sins of the world. And for that I am judged a reprobate.

If only those who God gave to Jesus are redeemed, as the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches, then who called for their redemption? Who did Jesus Redeem them for? What if the Bible is true, and Jesus is the Advocate between the One true God, His God, and me?

Rom. 5: 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled "to God" by the death of "his Son", much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his (Son's) life.

To believe you and Civics' religious philosophy, I would have to believe that God came to earth, pretended to be a man, faked being tempted, because God can't be tempted, and Faked His Death, because God can not die, and this to reconcile men to Himself, a very handsome, long haired god with blue eyes whose birthday is on December 25th., the greatest religious high day ever to be created, partaken of by this entire world.


While the Jesus "of the Bible, who "hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not," is relegated as not even existing.

It's no wonder the Jesus "of the bible" said to "come out of" this world's religious system, given they have rejected Him, and created their own image of God "All in His Name".

Who appointed Jesus, As the High Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek"? Is God's High Priest, "GOD", or is He a Priest "of God", a Messenger "of God"?

Here is what the Spirit of Christ inspired Malachi to write. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts."

Who Sent the Spirit of Christ, the Light of the World into the World, to be the Savior of those who God gave to Him?? Who Gave Jesus power over all Flesh? Who sent the Spirit of Christ to be the Spiritual Rock that Israel ate and drank from? Who sent this same Spirit into the man Jesus who even you admit, became God's High Priest? Are you saying HE came to earth as God, but is now demoted to a Priest of God forever? An advocate between God and man forever?

But the promoters of this world's religious system are not here to examine and discuss what is actually written, they are here to promote their own adopted religion, and justify their own judgments.

No different than the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time, except as Prophesied, they do all these things "In Christ's Name".

I will not join you guys in the religion you have adopted. I advocate that we turn away from the religions of this world, and turn to God through HIS Son, whose Spirit is not of this world.

 

[Selah]

According to what is actually written in Scriptures, Jesus offered Himself for the sins of the World. Who did HE offer Himself to?

To believe Civic or Benny Hinn or others who have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, Jesus offered Himself to Himself, because HE is God. I believe in what the Scriptures say, that Jesus offered Himself to God, His God and my God, according to His Words, for the Sins of the world. And for that I am judged a reprobate.

If only those who God gave to Jesus are redeemed, as the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches, then who called for their redemption? Who did Jesus Redeem them for? What if the Bible is true, and Jesus is the Advocate between the One true God, His God, and me?

Rom. 5: 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled "to God" by the death of "his Son", much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his (Son's) life.

To believe you and Civics' religious philosophy, I would have to believe that God came to earth, pretended to be a man, faked being tempted, because God can't be tempted, and Faked His Death, because God can not die, and this to reconcile men to Himself, a very handsome, long haired god with blue eyes whose birthday is on December 25th., the greatest religious high day ever to be created, partaken of by this entire world.


While the Jesus "of the Bible, who "hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not," is relegated as not even existing.

It's no wonder the Jesus "of the bible" said to "come out of" this world's religious system, given they have rejected Him, and created their own image of God "All in His Name".

Who appointed Jesus, As the High Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek"? Is God's High Priest, "GOD", or is He a Priest "of God", a Messenger "of God"?

Here is what the Spirit of Christ inspired Malachi to write. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts."

Who Sent the Spirit of Christ, the Light of the World into the World, to be the Savior of those who God gave to Him?? Who Gave Jesus power over all Flesh? Who sent the Spirit of Christ to be the Spiritual Rock that Israel ate and drank from? Who sent this same Spirit into the man Jesus who even you admit, became God's High Priest? Are you saying HE came to earth as God, but is now demoted to a Priest of God forever? An advocate between God and man forever?

But the promoters of this world's religious system are not here to examine and discuss what is actually written, they are here to promote their own adopted religion, and justify their own judgments.

No different than the mainstream preachers of Christ's Time, except as Prophesied, they do all these things "In Christ's Name".

I will not join you guys in the religion you have adopted. I advocate that we turn away from the religions of this world, and turn to God through HIS Son, whose Spirit is not of this world.

You’re asking so many questions that I don’t even know where to start. Would you consider asking just one or two questions at a time? This way, we can discuss each question separately and find the answers together, according to what the scriptures say. So, ask me one question at a time until we have discussed them all. Does that sound like a plan? s e l a h

 

[Red Baker]

You, Red, those Christians in Matt. 7: 22,23, all profess Jesus is Lord. But you don't believe in the God who sent Him, and Raised Him from the dead.

It's all just a game to you. It's more than that to me.

I just got in a little early, I cut my trip short due to a little sickness on my part, but doing better. I will address every post from you, @Peterlag (btw, Peter, your new avatar is better looking than the old one~ ) @Runningman @Keiw1 in the morning.

The Jesus "of the bible"

Studyman, your Jesus is from "your bible," a twisted perversion and corruption of God's word. You danced around @civis' question, which I already knew you would. I smell corruption as soon as I read these words from your post to civic:

I have to be careful knowing the intent of your question. The Jesus "of the bible" taught me this.

You wanted to be careful how to word your beliefs to hide your denial of Jesus' deity. Well, you only deceived your own heart more than it is already under a strong delusion, not those who are lovers of God's word.

Who inspired this, if not the Spirit of Christ that was in David?

The Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are one and the same!

Romans 8:9​

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Powerful scripture! So was Jesus God manifest in the flesh? If not how can you, Others as well, explain Romans 8:9? Need help? Just ask those who seek to reconcile scriptures instead of corrupting them like you do sir.

 

[Studyman]

You’re asking so many questions that I don’t even know where to start. Would you consider asking just one or two questions at a time? This way, we can discuss each question separately and find the answers together, according to what the scriptures say. So, ask me one question at a time until we have discussed them all. Does that sound like a plan? s e l a h

I replied to your words. You can answer the questions one by one if your are truly interested in honest engagement.

"Foolish unitarians, if Jesus Christ wasn’t God, He could not have redeemed those would believe in Him.

I am not a Unitarian, but I will answer your questions.

John 17: 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

If Jesus was God who came to earth as 100% Almighty God, as Red and Civic preach, then what "Glory" did HE have with His Father before the world was, that HE didn't have as God on earth? Why would 100% God need another God to Glorify Him?

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which "thou gavest me" out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept "thy word".

How is it that 100% God, manifests His Father's Name to men, who were His Father's possession, and not His Own? How is it 100% God, didn't speak His Own Words, nor did HE give His Own Words to the men His God gave to Him? How is it 100% God didn't do His Own Will? Didn't possess even one man that wasn't given to Him by who HE said was His God and my God? How is it 100% God didn't have any of His Own Power, only the Power that His Father Gave Him?

He could not have resurrected on the third day.

Rom. 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that "God" hath raised him from the dead", thou shalt be saved.

How is it that Jesus died, given Red and Civic preach HE was 100% God. How can God die? And why does Paul then teach that his and my Lord Jesus not only died, But that His "God", the God and Father of the Lord's Christ, raised Him from the dead?

Do you believe the Jesus "of the Bible", "faked" His Own Death, and Paul was covering it up?

He could not be the Savior of the world.

Civic and Red both claim that God came to earth as 100% God and 100% man.

My question is, when did this "God" they claim came to Earth, save the world? When He was nursing and having His diaper changed? When HE was 4? When HE hit puberty? When did this 100% God "save the world"?

Or have you been convinced that Christ didn't come in the flesh, HE just looked like a man?

Jesus is God (in the order of Melchizedek)."

Who declared this Jesus as God's High Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek"? Did Jesus make Himself a Priest, or did His God appoint Him as High Priest?

What is a Priest of God? "God"? Or a Messenger of God, Sent by God?

You can take these questions one by one if you are truly interested in answering them. Civic just calls me names, he won't engage in any manner of honest discourse concerning these valid questions.

I believe that the Spirit of Christ, the Spiritual Rock that Israel ate and drank from, became a mortal Human being in the person of the Jesus "of the Bible". That HE overcame Sin and Temptation by Faith in God, not as Civic and Red preach, that HE reserved God powers for Himself HE withheld from all other humans, and then when HE overcame by using powers no other human was allowed to access, HE Glorified Himself, and gave Himself a name above all other Humans, who would have also overcame, had God not withheld the powers He reserved into Himself.

We are all judged by our own choices. No one is making us choose one belief over another. Even if you don't want to engage on a public forum, I hope you might consider the only true answer to many of these questions.

 

[civic]

I replied to your words. You can answer the questions one by one if your are truly interested in honest engagement.



I am not a Unitarian, but I will answer your questions.

John 17: 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

If Jesus was God who came to earth as 100% Almighty God, as Red and Civic preach, then what "Glory" did HE have with His Father before the world was, that HE didn't have as God on earth? Why would 100% God need another God to Glorify Him?

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which "thou gavest me" out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept "thy word".

How is it that 100% God, manifests His Father's Name to men, who were His Father's possession, and not His Own? How is it 100% God, didn't speak His Own Words, nor did HE give His Own Words to the men His God gave to Him? How is it 100% God didn't do His Own Will? Didn't possess even one man that wasn't given to Him by who HE said was His God and my God? How is it 100% God didn't have any of His Own Power, only the Power that His Father Gave Him?




Rom. 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that "God" hath raised him from the dead", thou shalt be saved.

How is it that Jesus died, given Red and Civic preach HE was 100% God. How can God die? And why does Paul then teach that his and my Lord Jesus not only died, But that His "God", the God and Father of the Lord's Christ, raised Him from the dead?

Do you believe the Jesus "of the Bible", "faked" His Own Death, and Paul was covering it up?



Civic and Red both claim that God came to earth as 100% God and 100% man.

My question is, when did this "God" they claim came to Earth, save the world? When He was nursing and having His diaper changed? When HE was 4? When HE hit puberty? When did this 100% God "save the world"?

Or have you been convinced that Christ didn't come in the flesh, HE just looked like a man?



Who declared this Jesus as God's High Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek"? Did Jesus make Himself a Priest, or did His God appoint Him as High Priest?

What is a Priest of God? "God"? Or a Messenger of God, Sent by God?

You can take these questions one by one if you are truly interested in answering them. Civic just calls me names, he won't engage in any manner of honest discourse concerning these valid questions.

I believe that the Spirit of Christ, the Spiritual Rock that Israel ate and drank from, became a mortal Human being in the person of the Jesus "of the Bible". That HE overcame Sin and Temptation by Faith in God, not as Civic and Red preach, that HE reserved God powers for Himself HE withheld from all other humans, and then when HE overcame by using powers no other human was allowed to access, HE Glorified Himself, and gave Himself a name above all other Humans, who would have also overcame, had God not withheld the powers He reserved into Himself.

We are all judged by our own choices. No one is making us choose one belief over another. Even if you don't want to engage on a public forum, I hope you might consider the only true answer to many of these questions.

You are a Unitarian since you deny Jesus is God