Peter had to get the revelation from God the father as to the very nature of jesus, as was revealed Jesus was and is very Son of God, being both very God very man, so those who deny the trinity and the deity of Jesus are really still spiritually blinded
Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Peterlag
Active Member
Volume 3, Page 365: States that the Trinitarian formula was not uniformly used from the beginning and that baptism into the name of the Lord (Jesus) was the "normal formula of the New Testament".Volume 3, Page 82: Mentions that oldest sources state baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.Context: The 11th Edition notes that in the 3rd century, baptism in the name of Christ was still widespread and recognized by Pope Stephen I as valid.
Editor: James Hastings
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: Confirms early Christian baptism was in the name of the "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ," with no evidence for the triune name in the earliest accounts (Vol 2, 377, 378, 389)
Volume and Page: The discussion regarding the primitive church baptizing in the name of Jesus is generally cited in Volume 1, Page 88 (or Page 351 in some references, likely referring to the topic of baptism in the Acts 2:38 context).Content: The Dictionary notes that the primitive Church baptized "in" or "into" the name of Jesus (or "Jesus Christ," or "the Lord Jesus") and that the triune formula of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the early church.
According to sources citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 (sometimes referenced as p. 435 in older editions), the authors acknowledge that the baptismal formula was changed from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" by the Catholic Church.
Peterlag
Active Member
The verse says "that Jesus Christ came in the flesh..."
It does not say God came in the flesh. To say Jesus Christ means God when it does not say God, but Jesus Christ is deception. And it leaves the English language useless as a tool for communication.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
It does not say God came in the flesh. To say Jesus Christ means God when it does not say God, but Jesus Christ is deception. And it leaves the English language useless as a tool for communication.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
Runningman, are you not now the owner of the inherited properties from your parents as an heir?
We are discussing about Jesus being the "Son of God" not yet as being the "Son of man" Peterlag.
Peterlag
Active Member
The verse says "Jesus Christ came in the flesh."
It does not say "God came in the flesh." It's deceptive to say the words "Jesus Christ" mean "God" when it does not say "God." To do so leaves the English language useless as a tool for communication.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
Again, Jesus is the Christ. The Messiah.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (KJV)
It does not say "God came in the flesh." It's deceptive to say the words "Jesus Christ" mean "God" when it does not say "God." To do so leaves the English language useless as a tool for communication.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
Again, Jesus is the Christ. The Messiah.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (KJV)
synergy
Active Member
Even Hitler came in the flesh. So what's your heretical point?
synergy
Active Member
You continue to rip John 1:14 out of its own context: John already declared in verse 1 that “the Word was God,” and then says that this same eternal divine Word “became flesh”—not by ceasing to be God, nor by being turned into a creature in His divine essence, but by taking to Himself a true human nature and entering history as the man Jesus Christ. John immediately explains this with temple language: “and dwelt among us” literally means “tabernacled among us,” meaning the eternal Word who was with God and was God pitched His tent among us as Jesus, the true divine presence in human form, just as God’s glory once dwelt in the tabernacle. “Became” therefore does not mean “was created as a new being,” but that the divine Word assumed flesh without surrendering deity—just as Paul the Apostle says Christ came “in the likeness of men” and was “found in appearance as a man” while still existing in the form of God (Phil 2:6–8). Nor is this idolatry, because Christians do not worship “mere flesh” or a creature detached from God; we worship the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, who is fully man and fully divine, the visible self-revelation of the invisible God—not an idol replacing God, but the Word, who was God, personally present among us. Your heretical view confuses nature with person: God did not become “an idol”; rather, the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus. Why do you keep denying these Biblical truths?
Runningman
Active Member
Ownership is established upon inheritance, not the other way around. So according to Scripture Jesus cannot already own what he was set to later inherit.
Runningman
Active Member
No. Just keep it simple and let's see if we can get you over this hump.
1. Flesh is a creation right?
2. Is God created?
Doug Brents
Active Member
He emptied Himself before He came to Earth. He had ownership, glory, power, knowledge; and He gave it all up to become lesser than the angels.
Runningman
Active Member
Going to need to correct this. It doesn't say "before He came to Earth. He had ownership, glory, power, knowledge; and He gave it all up to become lesser than the angels."
The only part of your comment that is Biblical is the "He emptied himself" part.
Only God can share the throne with God
Doug Brents
Active Member
"but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men."
How did He empty Himself? BY taking on the form of a servant and being in the likeness of a man. Jesus was in Heaven with the Father (because Jesus is God as well as the Father). And He left Heaven to become a man. A man doesn't have the glory of God, or the knowledge of God, or the ability to use the power of God.
Jesus was still fully God while on earth, but chose to limit use of His attributes
Doug Brents
Active Member
Absolutely, He did not empty Himself of His deity, but He did empty Himself of the independent use of His power, His glory, His knowledge, and His ownership rights to the world He created.
Peterlag
Active Member
Is there a verse to go along with that?
amazing grace
Active Member
He emptied himself of his legal rights as the anointed King, the Christ, the Son of God ---- at the time of his arrest and trial Jesus said he could could appeal to God his Father "and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?"
YET just before his arrest - he chose to wash the disciples feet (even the one who would betray him) as a servant to others, a sacrificial servant.
Paul is teaching the Philippian church:
- Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit
- in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
- Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
- Exactly what Christ Jesus did and we are to imitate his behavior.
Similar threads
