Jesus denied being God

MTMattie said:
Jesus Christ is one Person, fully God and fully man, with two distinct but inseparable natures. NO?
Click to expand...
scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Form here is the Greek word,
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

so the Nature of the Lord Jesus is "Spirit", for God is a "Spirit", per John 4:24a. but he's a ECHAD of himself/SHARED EQUALLY in flesh and blood.

Now his Body that he is dwelling in is natural. scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

see the difference, he, (the Lord "TOOK PART" in our humanity), but was never a "PARTAKER" of it.... that's the difference.

101G.
 
TomL said:
You are confused here I affirm his deity

I was responding to Runningman who stated Thomas was speaking to God (the father) rather than Jesus

I pointed out that he was speaking to God (the father) Jesus words make no sense
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification
 
Runningman said:
yes, anointed and empowered by God at his water baptism and he did miracles because God was with him. Nicodemus and Peter both understood Jesus is a man God is with, not a man claiming to be God.

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Click to expand...
as the G243 ALLOS WITH HIM. now let's explain. did not the same Peter said, Acts 2:32 "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." God raised up Jesus BODY? let's see. scripture, John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

now question time.
A. did the Lord Jesus raised up his own BODY? yes or No.
B. did the apostle peter forget what the Lord Jesus said at John 2:22? yes or no.
C. did God raise up the Lord Jesus? yes or no.
D. if C is correct then the Lord Jesus is God, else the Lord Jesus LIED, (God forbid), as well as the apostle Peter.

looking to hear your answer. thanks in advance.

101G
 
Aeliana said:
Survey-Says:

Loading…

berean-apologetics.community.forum
Click to expand...
There isn't a downvote button. However, you are making a theological argument to answer the question. I really don't know what your answer is. It appears you are saying Mary is the mother of Lord God Almighty. That is a Catholic position and I understand why you would do that because the alternative is you would have to confess Jesus isn't God. For the record, God doesn't have a mother.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Even unbelieving Jews knew what those words meant....

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

You're showing your inconsistency and lack of knowledge. You post a verse that confirms the Divinity of Christ and don't even realize it.
Click to expand...
Yes it’s unfortunate how they deny the clear teaching that Jesus claimed to be God and was called God by His disciples on many occasions. And we know He said and did the things only God can say and do.
 
101G said:
as the G243 ALLOS WITH HIM. now let's explain. did not the same Peter said, Acts 2:32 "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." God raised up Jesus BODY? let's see. scripture, John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

now question time.
A. did the Lord Jesus raised up his own BODY? yes or No.
B. did the apostle peter forget what the Lord Jesus said at John 2:22? yes or no.
C. did God raise up the Lord Jesus? yes or no.
D. if C is correct then the Lord Jesus is God, else the Lord Jesus LIED, (God forbid), as well as the apostle Peter.

looking to hear your answer. thanks in advance.

101G
Click to expand...
I believe Jesus was either speaking the words the Father gave him to say or he was speaking prophetically because John 2:22 says "He was raised from [the] dead" in the third-person perspective. In other words, this is worded in such a way as to say Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead. Therefore, when Jesus said "I will raise it up" it wouldn't have been the human Jesus talking or Jesus was repeating something the Father told him to say.

Yes, I will answer your questions and after that I have some.

A. No
B. No
C. Yes
D. False

I believe you have come to a wrong conclusion based on the reading of John 2:19-22.

Now let me ask you some questions:

When Jesus said "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" it must be congruent. If Jesus actually raised himself up then he must have destroyed himself. Yes or no.

Did the Father give Jesus the words to say? yes or no

Are Jesus' words his own? yes or no
 
101G said:
there is no such thing as hypostatic union,. that's a ERROR on many part. he took Part in our humanity, and not a Partaker in it.

101G.
Click to expand...
The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John8:58, 10:30),but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John1:14).The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Mary's Conception of Jesus​

According to Christian doctrine and biblical accounts, Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention. This miraculous event is known as the virgin birth or virginal conception.


Scriptural Account
The Gospel of Matthew (1:18-25) describes the event as follows:
  • Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.​
  • Joseph, a righteous man, was initially planning to break the engagement quietly due to Mary’s perceived infidelity.​
  • An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, instructing him to take Mary as his wife, assuring him that the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and naming him Jesus, who would save his people from their sins.​

Theological Significance
The virgin conception of Jesus emphasizes the unique nature of Jesus’ humanity and divinity. As the Son of God, Jesus’ birth was not the result of human procreation, but rather a supernatural act of God. This doctrine is central to Christian theology, highlighting Jesus’sinless nature and his role as the Savior of humanity.

ConsistencyAcross Sources
The search results provide consistent accounts of the virgin conception of Jesus, emphasizing the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. The doctrine is not limited to a single source but is widely accepted across Christian traditions and biblical accounts.

GOT?
 
civic said:
Yes it’s unfortunate how they deny the clear teaching that Jesus claimed to be God and was called God by His disciples on many occasions. And we know He said and did the things only God can say and do.
Click to expand...
Clear, the Lord Jesus is God in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.1. to make empty. STATE, while in Human Flesh. His NATURE never changed, only he made himself of no reputation just as Philippians 2:7 states.

101G.
 
Runningman said:
Not what the Jew Nicodemus said.

John 3
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Click to expand...

Nicodemus didn't hear what those other Jews heard.

Do you even realize how wonderful it was to hear EVERYTHING, Jesus said?

Jesus told others what they needed to hear. It was not always the same message. Neither do you claim it was.

At least employee some basic reading comprehension skills in your rhetoric.
 
Aeliana said:
The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time.
Click to expand...
ok, if that's true, please tell us HOW MUCH of the Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? ... was the Spirit Made empty only1/3 for the person of the son. for remember it has been stated, ... that it's ONE Spirit, and three Persons. so, how much of the ONE Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? for the person ... (son) to come in flesh. that's all 101G needs to KNOW. book chapter and verse please. as said, was the Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo 1/3, or 1/2 or all of the Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo or what? ... will be looking for your answer.

101G.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Denying the human aspect of His nature is to deny His suffering.
Click to expand...
did 101G deny his suffering? did you not read? "a Numerical difference in in flesh".
praise_yeshua said:
This is one of the reasons that Unitarians reject the Divinity of Christ. You're making their argument for them.
Click to expand...
another error on your part. 101G has clearly rebuked the Unitarians theory of belief by scripture. so please read 101G posts before you accuse 101G of anything... ok.
be blessed.

101G.
 
101G said:
did 101G deny his suffering? did you not read? "a Numerical difference in in flesh".

another error on your part. 101G has clearly rebuked the Unitarians theory of belief by scripture. so please read 101G posts before you accuse 101G of anything... ok.
be blessed.

101G.
Click to expand...

Your issue is one of details. I'm NOT treating you like a Unitarians. I understand your argument. Just making the point that by denying the human nature of Christ, you're agreeing with the arguments Unitarians use to discount the human suffering of Christ as taught in the Holy Trinity.

"Humiliations" goes beyond fleshly senses. It is an emotional connection.

You can make an argument relative to some sense of suffering within Divinity for various aspects of experience of Christ within the Incarnation. Humiliations at the hands of sinful men is not one of them.

I'll listen if you try.
 
To all who believe that .... The Lord Jesus" ....... was born. question, was it the son of God born, or the Son of Man? answer, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
the son of God is "BORN", now what about the Son of Man? was he born, no

scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
one more, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."

listen carefully, the Son of God, (which is flesh bone and blood), a body was born, came out of Mary. but the Son of Man is never born, but is "GIVEN" ... came from heaven, just as Isaiah 9:6 clearly states.

101G
 
101G said:
To all who believe that .... The Lord Jesus" ....... was born. question, was it the son of God born, or the Son of Man? answer, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
the son of God is "BORN", now what about the Son of Man? was he born, no

scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
one more, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."

listen carefully, the Son of God, (which is flesh bone and blood), a body was born, came out of Mary. but the Son of Man is never born, but is "GIVEN" ... came from heaven, just as Isaiah 9:6 clearly states.

101G
Click to expand...

Such was a "Perfect Union" of two seeds. One of which includes "the seed of the women".

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Every human being alive today is mixture of the seed of man and the seed of women. Every human being today has a human father. The women is of the man.....

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Your issue is one of details. I'm NOT treating you like a Unitarians. I understand your argument. Just making the point that by denying the human nature of Christ, you're agreeing with the arguments Unitarians use to discount the human suffering of Christ as taught in the Holy Trinity.
Click to expand...
Listen brother, 101G is not denying the human nature of Christ, as a matter of fact promoting it. understand by TAKING PART in our humanity, he suffer the death even the cross... ok. but understand 101G, he "took part" in our humanity, (his suffering), but was not a "PARTAKER" of it. meaning he was not born as you and 101G are... ok. God is NEVER BORN, he is GIVEN, he in the EQUAL SHARE only took on or took part in flesh and blood for the IDENITY, or identifying with us in his suffering for the cross for our sins.

101G.
 

Similar threads

Peterlag
Thomas... My Lord and my God
57 58 59
Replies
1K
Views
4K
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
P
The Holy Trinity (KING Jesus)
Replies
7
Views
77
101G
101G
T
I am that I am - The angel of the Lord
2
Replies
27
Views
354
101G
101G
Johann
Jesus: YHWH God Incarnate
Replies
16
Views
213
101G
101G
civic
God is Love
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
939
brightfame52
brightfame52
Back
Top Bottom