All Claims of The Son's Deity

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus has a God just like us-John 20:17--try believing him, all true followers do.

I thought you were going to quote someone that said what you claimed they said. Where is that quote at?

We teach Unity between the Father and the Son. You preach division. You create a separation between the Father and Son that doesn't exist.

 

[amazing grace]

AS I pointed out to you in another thread....

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Originally addressed to a human king in Psalms . . . the human king in Psalms has a God who anointed him --- (45:7b) "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;"
And the human king, aka the Son of God also has a God that anointed him . . "therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

I even pointe out what the Watchtower said over there....

So, Jesus has a God.... and God has a son who is God.

All biblical

Jesus has a God . . . and God has a son who is God . . . then who is Jesus' God???

How many Gods do we have??? Let's see - God (1) has a son who is God (2) and Jesus has a God (3).

Not Biblical . . . . I believe that is what you call polytheism.

 

[mikesw]

Originally addressed to a human king in Psalms . . . the human king in Psalms has a God who anointed him --- (45:7b) "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;"
And the human king, aka the Son of God also has a God that anointed him . . "therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Jesus has a God . . . and God has a son who is God . . . then who is Jesus' God???

should we deny John 1:1-18 that shows Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? and also deny John 3:16 where Jesus is the one and only Son? Who are you to reject this testimony and despise scripture?

How many Gods do we have??? Let's see - God (1) has a son who is God (2) and Jesus has a God (3).

Maybe you heard that the reason we recognize that Jesus is not a separate god because the content is wholly within the Jewish context. The sonship may be due to the incarnation. I have not checked conventional thought on this. However, we still know the divine pre-existence (John 17:5).
We also know that "God" is sort of placeholder not a name. We know that only one god exists but we are not told what the full significance of the oneness of God per Deut 6:4. This becomes more apparent now the Son of God appears and shows the concept more complex of this oneness. But people still deny God can exist like this because they lean on their own understanding instead of on scripture.

Not Biblical . . . . I believe that is what you call polytheism.

If you want to call God polytheistic, that is your own interpretation or error.

If you want to join the Shoenheits into novel doctrine, you should only do so after the doctrine has been openly shared and discussed among capable theologians rather than holding to your private interpretation as normal truth.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Originally addressed to a human king in Psalms . . . the human king in Psalms has a God who anointed him --- (45:7b) "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;"
And the human king, aka the Son of God also has a God that anointed him . . "therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Jesus has a God . . . and God has a son who is God . . . then who is Jesus' God???

How many Gods do we have??? Let's see - God (1) has a son who is God (2) and Jesus has a God (3).

Not Biblical . . . . I believe that is what you call polytheism.

No matter how you try to twist what is written. Two become only One flesh.

In the very nature of man, God wrote the context of the Holy Trinity.

The reason Isaac was the only Son of Abraham even though Ishmael was already born was because the bride of Abraham was Sarah. Sarah was the difference.

The promise was never to Hagar. It was always to Sarah.

The Incarnation is a wonderful thing and all you do is mock it. We know you don't really care about Eve, Sarah or Mary. They are all just names to you. You don't understand what they mean to God.

 

[amazing grace]

should we deny John 1:1-18 that shows Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? and also deny John 3:16 where Jesus is the one and only Son? Who are you to reject this testimony and despise scripture?

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. --- I do not reject John 1:1; the word does not become flesh, i.e. Jesus until 1:14 so John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus at this point.

Nor do I deny John 3:16 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' ---- God did give his only Son.

I don't reject the above testimony nor do I despise scripture.

Maybe you heard that the reason we recognize that Jesus is not a separate god because the content is wholly within the Jewish context. The sonship may be due to the incarnation. I have not checked conventional thought on this. However, we still know the divine pre-existence (John 17:5).

No Jew would have ever thought that Yahweh was a Triune God.
Nor that God would become flesh, a human being - being very familiar with the OT scripture - they would have understood that God was not a man. (Num. 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Job 9:32; 1 Sam. 15:29)
Jesus preexisted in the mind of God, in God's foreknowledge. 'He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.'

We also know that "God" is sort of placeholder not a name. We know that only one god exists but we are not told what the full significance of the oneness of God per Deut 6:4. This becomes more apparent now the Son of God appears and shows the concept more complex of this oneness. But people still deny God can exist like this because they lean on their own understanding instead of on scripture.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." Deut. 6:4 The Shema - the most important prayer in Judaism - said every morning and every evening.
“Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ And being a faithful Jew, Jesus said it was the most important commandment of all.

If you want to call God polytheistic, that is your own interpretation or error.

I did not call God polytheistic . . . I was quoting what FreeInChrist said and claimed it to be biblical . . .

So, Jesus has a God.... and God has a son who is God.

All biblical

Things are better understood when kept in context . . . .

Jesus has a God . . . and God has a son who is God . . . then who is Jesus' God???
How many Gods do we have??? Let's see - God (1) has a son who is God (2) and Jesus has a God (3).

Not Biblical . . . . I believe that is what you call polytheism.

If you want to join the Shoenheits into novel doctrine, you should only do so after the doctrine has been openly shared and discussed among capable theologians rather than holding to your private interpretation as normal truth.

Oh, did I private interpret what FreeInChrist said? It's right there for anyone to read.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. --- I do not reject John 1:1; the word does not become flesh, i.e. Jesus until 1:14 so John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus at this point.

Nor do I deny John 3:16 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' ---- God did give his only Son.

I don't reject the above testimony nor do I despise scripture.

No Jew would have ever thought that Yahweh was a Triune God.
Nor that God would become flesh, a human being - being very familiar with the OT scripture - they would have understood that God was not a man. (Num. 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Job 9:32; 1 Sam. 15:29)
Jesus preexisted in the mind of God, in God's foreknowledge. 'He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.'

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." Deut. 6:4 The Shema - the most important prayer in Judaism - said every morning and every evening.
“Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ And being a faithful Jew, Jesus said it was the most important commandment of all.

I did not call God polytheistic . . .

I was quoting what FreeInChrist said and claimed it was biblical.



Oh, did I private interpret what FreeInChrist said? It's right there for anyone to read.

Just another Jew denying Messiah. The same are indiscriminately killing Palestinian Christians all in the name of "god".

 

[mikesw]

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. --- I do not reject John 1:1; the word does not become flesh, i.e. Jesus until 1:14 so John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus at this point.

Nor do I deny John 3:16 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' ---- God did give his only Son.

I don't reject the above testimony nor do I despise scripture.

You deny the logos refers to the pre-existence of Jesus. So you claim to accept scripture is fallacious.
You deny that Jesus is the true Son of God and make him merely to be the son of a human.

No Jew would have ever thought that Yahweh was a Triune God.
Nor that God would become flesh, a human being - being very familiar with the OT scripture - they would have understood that God was not a man. (Num. 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Job 9:32; 1 Sam. 15:29)

Duh. It did not become clear until the NT. Except you forget that those who wrote the NT were all Jews. So they actually accepted the Triune God.

Also, the details of Jesus as Messiah were not clear really until have his death and resurrection. So you have to deny Jesus as Messiah since the details are not obvious in the Old Testament.

Jesus preexisted in the mind of God, in God's foreknowledge. 'He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.'

Negating the meaning so you can deny Christ.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." Deut. 6:4 The Shema - the most important prayer in Judaism - said every morning and every evening.
“Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ And being a faithful Jew, Jesus said it was the most important commandment of all.

DUH! That is why we realize Jesus is not a separate god. Maybe you can learn what the Trinity concept is based on. It again bespeaks of your failure to know what you hope to refute.

Oh, did I private interpret what FreeInChrist said? It's right there for anyone to read.

Private interpretation refers to you holding doctrine or interpretation that is yours or your narrow group's interpretation. If you want to push for your novel doctrine, then call together able theologians and make your case.

 

[Runningman]

Dear trins,

If the Word became flesh, then is the Word a human? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[dwight92070]

Dear trins,

If the Word became flesh, then is the Word a human? A simple yes or no will do.

To the uni's,
No, the Word, which was God BECAME (human) flesh, and dwelt among us (humans). So did God cease to be God in heaven? Of course not. He was God in heaven. Jesus was God in human flesh. The Holy Spirit was always God. Are there three Gods? Silly question. There is only one God. This is the doctrine of the trins, the concept of which is all over the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

To the uni's,
No, the Word, which was God BECAME (human) flesh, and dwelt among us (humans). So did God cease to be God in heaven? Of course not. He was God in heaven. Jesus was God in human flesh. The Holy Spirit was always God. Are there three Gods? Silly question. There is only one God. This is the doctrine of the trins, the concept of which is all over the Bible.

What you've described is the doctrine of modalism, not the doctrine of the trinity, i.e., “God was in heaven, Jesus was God in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit was God...”

 

[mikesw]

What you've described is the doctrine of modalism, not the doctrine of the trinity, i.e., “God was in heaven, Jesus was God in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit was God...”

You do not understand heresies. That is why you think of modalism here and why you accept Arianism

 

[Runningman]

You do not understand heresies. That is why you think of modalism here and why you accept Arianism

Arianism is correct. Heresies like modalism and trinitarianism are false teachings.

Want to test it against Scripture? Scripture explicitly states all of the points of Arianism.

What @dwight92070 said is modalism because it treats God, the Word, and Jesus as the same person in different forms, different locations, rather than persons in a godhead. I guess he probably knows that and hopes no one would notice. I see a lot of modalism and Gnosticism in trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is just a melting pot of all the heresies.

 

[mikesw]

Arianism is correct. Heresies like modalism and trinitarianism are false teachings.

Want to test it against Scripture? Scripture explicitly states all of the points of Arianism.

What @dwight92070 said is modalism because it treats God, the Word, and Jesus as the same person in different forms, different locations, rather than persons in a godhead. I guess he probably knows that and hopes no one would notice. I see a lot of modalism and Gnosticism in trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is just a melting pot of all the heresies.

Who have shared that the understanding of the Triune God is heresy? Only those of the gnostic unitarians

 

[Victoria]

So Arianism & Modalism is vying for the Godhead's position?

 

[Runningman]

Who have shared that the understanding of the Triune God is heresy? Only those of the gnostic unitarians

The way to know what a trin is guilty of is simply look at what they accuse others of. Trinitarians are gnostic. Got Questions has an article on your Gnosticism. Their opening line in one of their articles is "The Trinity is Christianity’s most unique, defining, incomprehensible, and awesome mystery."

source: https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-doctrine-Trinity.html

 

[Runningman]

So Arianism & Modalism is vying for the Godhead's position?

Hi. What do you mean?

 

[Victoria]

Hi. What do you mean?

Hello again Runningman,

I've never heard of Arianism or Modalism until I joined the forum. It helps me to better understand this debate more now.

 

[mikesw]

The way to know what a trin is guilty of is simply look at what they accuse others of. Trinitarians are gnostic. Got Questions has an article on your Gnosticism. Their opening line in one of their articles is "The Trinity is Christianity’s most unique, defining, incomprehensible, and awesome mystery."

source: https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-doctrine-Trinity.html

The one on gnosticism seemed to say that modern unitarianism is a form of gnosticism of them claiming special doctrine of novel sort that is indefensible but still is advocated in opposition to the testimony of scripture.

On the other hand, Trinitarianism simply reconciles the scriptures about the divinity of Christ that must remain consistent with the sense of God's oneness expressed in the Shema. This reconciliation is necessary to expose the heretics who deny who Christ is by deny he is of the Godhead, shared in the Shema.

 

[Victoria]

According to some research I've done, Gnosticism's roots are found in Egypt, where all the ancient mystery religions originate from. It was one of the heresies taught at the school of Alexandria. The teaching of the Godhead was never taught in Egypt, but in Antioch, where they were first called Christians. Acts 11:26

 

[Peterlag]

Peter said "it's not Scripture that the trinity comes from" and your immediate reply was "indeed not!" So you're agreeing with him.

I just put up an awesome page concerning "asking Jesus" and you can view it here...
https://walking-by-the-spirit.com/if-you-ask-me-anything-in-my-name