do you have an argument against Jesus being Messiah or not?Scripture teaches that Jesus isn't the king in the same way God is. I didn't write it. I have no argument against Jesus being prince because I agree with the Bible. How about you?
do you have an argument against Jesus being Messiah or not?Scripture teaches that Jesus isn't the king in the same way God is. I didn't write it. I have no argument against Jesus being prince because I agree with the Bible. How about you?
Nice bait and switch. I have no argument against Jesus being the Messiah nor did I ever suggest otherwise. Do you have an argument against it?do you have an argument against Jesus being Messiah or not?
You are using a single verse that says "ruler" or "prince" with an attempt to remove him from being King-- a prophetic role of God's rule.Nice bait and switch. I have no argument against Jesus being the Messiah nor did I ever suggest otherwise. Do you have an argument against it?
Do you have issue with him being the King over His Kingdom, over all creation?Nice bait and switch. I have no argument against Jesus being the Messiah nor did I ever suggest otherwise. Do you have an argument against it?
Jesus isn't the king compared to God. Jesus is the king of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5) and isn't the Sovereign Lord and Creator (Acts 4:23-31) so him being prince doesn't undo him as messiah as you seem to be suggesting. God made Jesus the Lord and Messiah. The kind of king Jesus is is a human king over the throne of Jacob (Luke 1:33) but Jesus is never on the throne of God anywhere in the Bible. You misunderstand the context as always.You are using a single verse that says "ruler" or "prince" with an attempt to remove him from being King-- a prophetic role of God's rule.
So now you confess that Jesus was given a kingdom to rule over with his people?Do you have issue with him being the King over His Kingdom, over all creation?
i indeed have no problem with those prophecies.So now you confess that Jesus was given a kingdom to rule over with his people?
Ah, so if I remembered correctly, last time we talked about Daniel 7, the kingdom the Son of Man received from the Ancient of Days was a jointly owned kingdom to rule over with his saints. You had previously said it had already happened and that prophecy was fulfilled, but now it seems you've come to realize it's a prophecy?i indeed have no problem with those prophecies.
Jesus isn't the king compared to God. Jesus is the king of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5) and isn't the Sovereign Lord and Creator (Acts 4:23-31) so him being prince doesn't undo him as messiah as you seem to be suggesting. God made Jesus the Lord and Messiah. The kind of king Jesus is is a human king over the throne of Jacob (Luke 1:33) but Jesus is never on the throne of God anywhere in the Bible. You misunderstand the context as always.
prophecy is still prophecy. no?Ah, so if I remembered correctly, last time we talked about Daniel 7, the kingdom the Son of Man received from the Ancient of Days was a jointly owned kingdom to rule over with his saints. You had previously said it had already happened and that prophecy was fulfilled, but now it seems you've come to realize it's a prophecy?
prophecy is still prophecy. no?
It is those Christians who note the deity of Christ. That is such a glaring error on your part
you skip the passages of the preexisting One that becomes flesh. duh. How many times do you have to deny those passages? that is where the debate is. The debate does not surround passages that note God the Father.
You sound like the dedicated JW in speaking of "catholic" view as if it were the Roman Catholic doctrine instead of the common Christian teaching. You make strawman opponents. Worse. Your arguments are from a non-Christian group.
Read your comment again. Do you see you just introduced a lot of non-Biblical phrases and terminology? That's the issue. You have your head filled with doctrines and philosophy to describe the things you believe, but you don't really have the Scripture to back it up. There is no trinity mentioned or described in the Bible, right? How could the Father being alone the true God be an interpretation? What do you think Jesus was interpreting when he defined God as the Father? Just trying to figure your perspective out.
I'd just like to jump in here and comment if I may.He like the Arians, Arminians, deny the Aseity of the Son. Which presents a huge problem for himself. There was never a time when the Son was not. The Son is eternal and creator. Runningman would ratNher dismiss clear Scripture that states Christ is the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation), to save face. He even disagrees with the religious leaders of Jesus' day that Christ was declaring himself to be God, and tried to kill him for it. He has no clue, just another heretic, thinking he knows best.
I'd just like to jump in here and comment if I may.
Aseity (Latin a se): the theological and philosophical concept of being self-derived, self existent, or 'from oneself'. It refers to the absolute independence, self-sufficiency, and uncaused nature of God, who depends on nothing else for existence. It represents the distinction between the creator and creation. Jesus was NOT a se. Jesus was born, he did not self exist. Jesus was dependent on his Father.
"God of himself" autotheos? So the Son is derived of himself; from himself?No problem, please, by all means join this conversation. Let me clear something up here. You are making the same mistake as Runningman. You are conflating the relational procession of the Son (Distinction from the Father) with the Son's homoousion & Aseity. The key to understanding the Irreducible Tripersonal Essence and Autothean Personhood is:
The 3 Persons is the One Essence & the One Essence are the 3 Persons.
The Son is Autotheos ("God of himself") asserts that the Son (Jesus Christ) possesses divine essence, aseity, and deity inherently in his own right, rather than deriving his deity from the Father. While the Son is personally generated by the Father, his divine nature is underived, ensuring full, co-equal deity.
Explain how denying the a se of the Son is 'two gods'.By you denying the A SE of the Son, then you have a dilemma. You have 2 Gods, not one. BTW, Jesus did declare to be God. Which is why the religious leaders charged him with blasphemy and crucified him for it.
You are taking the I AM statement of Yahweh and applying it to Jesus in the context of John 8.......Yahweh is the Father.
I'll leave you with this.
Before Abraham Was, I Am
48 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
You would have people believe that singular person pronouns like You, He, Him, His, I refer to more than one person? The language of the Bible refutes your claims of a 3 person god being the Creator. The kind of logic you are using is niche, not standard or conventional by any means. The Bible also never states what your conclusions are about a 3 person God, yet it says "You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens," which is not only what the Bible says, but what I am quoting too.LoL....that's exactly the reason you do not understand. You are like Jim Jones trying to deceived the weak minded. Paul instructs Christians to grow in knowledge (2 Peter 3:18). You are not even familiar that Trinitarian language goes back to the early church Fathers?
You claim that Jesus is not God in himself; that he is not eternal. But Scripture is explicit that he has no beginning. He always is and will be (Rev 22:13).
Isaiah talks about how he saw the glory of Christ (Isaiah 6:4).
Furthermore Nehemiah 9:6 “You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
It is you who have no clue and what to make of these passages.
The 3 persons is the one essence and the one essence are the 3 persons.