Runningman
Active Member
God was justified (judged innocent) by the Spirit?
The "Atheist Dilemma"
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
civic
Active Member
Wrong since I believe He came in the flesh as the scriptures declare in many places. We believers who are Christ followers, Christians call this the Incarnation. He is our Emmanuel- God in the flesh, The Word who was God, became flesh as John proclaims in his gospel and he also says those wgo deny this are the spirit of antichrist in 1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 1:7.
And of course He died, death is the separation of the body from the soul/spirit. It doesn't mean cease to exist.
next fallacy......
hope this helps !!!
360watt
Active Member
Not salvation in question.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
These comments of yours make zero sense.
These comments of your prove that you have little, if any faith from the standpoint that you so not believe what the written word says as it is all laid out for you. You don't believe because you do not understand.
It is almost like you do not want to know, therefore you cannot be held accountable if you err.
Many months ago you were all about Genesis and Adam and Eve both within the threads as well as DMs to me....
God's grand plan for us is brilliantly simplistic in design.
There is nothing complicated with the incarnate Jesus.
or the fact that Jesus emptied Himself.... which, I bet, you do not understand
Jesus emptied Himself (ekenōsen, Phil 2:7) precisely because He became incarnate (took on human flesh).The incarnation required the kenosis (self-emptying) — not of His deity, but of the independent exercise of His divine attributes.
Let me simplify
Jesus had to live as a real human. He had to be made as His brothers in every way. See Heb 2:17
Jesus had to be tempted like us. Tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin. See Heb 4:15
Jesus had to suffer and die. (God's plan) And He shared in their humanity so that by His death he would destroy Satan. See Heb 2:14
Jesus had to obey as a servant by humbling Himself by becoming obedient to death See Phil 2:8
HE COULD NOT STAY IN HEAVEN'S GLORY AND DIE ON A CROSS.
@Runningman , Until you can understand this. Until you can confidently say you believe this because your know, knows.... Until you breath this knowledge daily as if it were the exact oxygen that keeps you alive.... for this IS.... and that it is such a very part of your very spirit... You will never know or understand.
civic
Active Member
The simple fact He was sinless should make every uni shake in their boots since we know all have sinned. Only God is Holy,sinless, without sin, perfect,good etc........ And we know Jesus is all the above and much much much more. They give Jesus lip service and devalue Him. Jesus says those who deny Him ( unitarianism ) the Father will also deny. One must give to Jesus the same/equal respect, honor, glory, worship, praise, power as the Father. Those who refuse then God will also refuse them.
hope this helps !!!
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Runningman
Active Member
Justified in 1 Timothy 3:16 would require God being judged based on accusations against Him and His righteousness needing to be proven, even if the outcome was positive. This runs contrary to Scripture because God is the justifier, not the justified, cannot be tempted, is altogether righteous, and as Paul said in Romans 11:34 "who can be His counselor?" The KJV version of 1 Tim 3:16 contradicts God's nature, sovereignty, immutability, and questions His absolute righteousness.
So you may have heard already, but the version you're using has been proven to be false. The earliest manuscripts of that verse don't use the word "God" because it's not referring to God, but rather a human named Jesus who isn't God.
Runningman
Active Member
The fact that Jesus can be tempted to sin, and could have chosen to sin, yet God can't should make you question your beliefs.
Jesus can be tempted to sin:
Hebrews 4
15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
God can't be tempted to sin:
James 1
13Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
This clearly demonstrates that Jesus isn't the same as God.
civic
Active Member
Runningman
Active Member
Not tempted with evil, but Jesus was tempted with evil. God and Jesus aren't the same.
360watt
Active Member
The KJV is from the majority text with over 5000 copies of manuscripts that mostly agree with eachother.
The westcott and hort text is based on far fewer texts that have much bigger differences between them.
The claim that it is based on older manuscripts doesn't stand up, when you look at the lectionaries and quotes the KJV uses, that data it based on testimony going way back. What the KJV was saying is based on what was most agreed upon.
Oldest doesn't always mean best if the testimony of the texts don't agree and are not what the majority agree upon.
Aside from this.. who else but God, would this verse refer to? You can remove the word God and it's still referring to a fully God being by context.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Apples to apples not apples to pears................................................Please.
Jesus ....one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Above...Jesus is the one who was tempted........
IS NOT THE SAME THING AS
God .... God cannot be tempted with evil,
For here .... God is the one who as is suggested to be tempting others.
Full sentence... your quote... Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
He is fully God and fully human. Jesus had to be fully human and fully God so that he could be a suitable substitute for humanity in a way that satisfies divine justice. As a perfect, human substitute, he could represent humanity and bear the penalty for sin. As God, his sacrifice had infinite value, allowing him to fully atone for the sins of the world and overcome death itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Runningman
Active Member
And Jesus can be tempted with evil because he was tempted "in all ways as we are." This debunks the deity of Christ, sends the trinity packing, etc.
Runningman
Active Member
Well, the general consensus among trinitarians is that the KJV's versions of 1 Timothy 3:16 is not what Paul meant to say. I understand why you would want to keep the word "God" in that verse because it seems to help your beliefs, but left like how the KJV has it, it calls Christianity as a religion into question because it damages the credibility of the Bible.
Actually, it's better to just go with the more modern versions that use better manuscripts because it doesn't present any issues. It's about Jesus as a man who was justified by God and given salvation. Scripture does indeed teach that God is Jesus' savior, just like so many others.
1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.
360watt
Active Member
It doesn't make any difference .. this is still about a fully God being.
Believed throughout the world.. lines up with the book of John.. 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' ie.. John 3:16, 36. John 5:24, 6:40, etc..
Believe on Jesus and He gives eternal life.. all through the book of John.
Appeared in the flesh... this doesn't make any sense if referring to just a man. It's in contrast to someone who is Spirit appearing in the flesh.. that's the context.
The KJV doesn't present issues.. it has deeper meaning. The translators have done their best to render what the original languages are into a particular brand of English to match it. It wasn't actually the English of the time.
But I won't continue on arguing on translations.. the other newer translations can be seen as referring to Jesus as God by context.
God in the KJV is often rendered He in newer translations. The context around the 'He' means it is referring to fully God anyway.
Runningman
Active Member
It's makes a world of difference. Remember, God is the justifier, not the justified, in the Bible.
Irrelevant because John 17:2 states that Jesus was granted authority so he may give eternal life. That means Jesus did not inherently have the authority to give eternal life because he isn't God.
John 17
2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.
"In the flesh" means there in person. It's just an idiom and doesn't infer or suggest a pre-existence or incarnation.
"God" isn't in the earliest manuscripts. Means 1 Tim 3:16 isn't about God.
360watt
Active Member
Justification in this context is in a different meaning to salvation.
In this context, it's more akin to presented as rightful heir than being saved/born again.
Jesus also having all authority granted to Him.. doesn't diminish His authority, but demonstrates the subjection/interrelationship in the Triune God. Almost like a person's head governing what their body does.
End.
Case closed = there are 2 kinds of translating= Catholicism( all protestant translations were done from Catholicism translating= error filled and altered( removal of Gods name) against his will.Now to educate the uni's on latreuo
In Matthew 4 I tend to think proskeuno and latreuo are being used interchangeably here, having the same definitional motif, as meaning sacred service to the one true God. But since you're drawing a distinction between "worship" [proskueno] and "service" [latreuo] here, I would be curious to see your definitions of these two words in this particular context?
The NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJ, 21c KJV, Young’s Literal Transl., Wycliffe NT, and the ESV all distinguish between “worship” and “service” in Matthew 4:9-10. I’ve yet to find a version that doesn’t.
Outside of Philippians 3:3; Hebrews 9:9, 10:2, latreuo is invariably rendered “to serve.” That meaning is more than possible in Philippians 3:3, as P. T. O’Brien says, “The choice of latreuw here is deliberate, given that in the LXX it denoted the service rendered to God as his peculiar people.” [Epistle to the Philippians, p.360.] In Hebrews 9:9, 10:2 “to serve” is the proper reading. [See Alan C. Mitchell, Daniel J. Harrington, Hebrews, p.161: “ ‘Serve’ latreuin is sometimes synonymous with ‘minister’ leitourgein.”]
Certainly, in Matthew 4:9-10 there is conceptual overlap between “worship” and “service”: to worship is a form of service. But as used through the LXX and NT, latreuo is more generic.
Latreruo rev 22,3
· The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21, 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time.
· Christians are called, "bond-servants" (common word for slave) who serve the Father and the Son who are referred to as "Him" rather than "them." Yet we also know that the very first statement in the book of Revelation 1:1 is that Christians are bondservants of Christ. Then again Jesus calls Christian’s, "His bondslaves". Then again in Rev 2:20 we are called bondservants of Christ. Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3, 11:18, 19:2, 5 the Christians are called bondslaves of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called bondslaves of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6 Another is the continued use of the singular to refer to both the Father and the Son: "And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. " (Revelation 22:6) This is doubly emphasized by Rev 22:16, where Jesus says it was He who sent his angel to Christians.
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His [Christ’s] bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His [Christ’s] bond-servant John,
Revelation 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel , who calls herself a prophetess , and she teaches and leads My [Christ’s] bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols .
Revelation 22:3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him [both Father and Son]
· In Rev 22:3 they will serve the Father and Son as "him" rather than "them".
· It uses the singular "face" that they see, rather than faces. Yet if both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time.
· Both the Father and the Son's name is to be marked on the foreheads of Christians. (Rev 3:12, 14:1) Yet Revelation 22:4 uses the singular "His name" on the forehead, proving it refers to both although it sounds like it refers to a single individual. Another interesting observation is that Rev 14:1 uses the plural names, yet in Rev 22, where the unity is strongly emphasized, the singular name is used. This powerfully proves that both the Father and Son are served by Christians in Rev 22:3.
· In Rev 22:5, The Father and Son reign forever. Yet in Rev 20:6 the singular "Him" is applied to the two of them, as though they are one.
The parallel use of Him to refer to two people in Rev 20:6 proves Rev 22:3 refers to both Jesus and the Father.
- Both are co-recipients of worship Heb 1:6; Rev 5:11-14; Matt 14:33, 28:9; John 9:38; Rev 19:10
- Both are co-recipients of the kind of "service" that is only allowed to God: Matt 4:10; Rev 22:3f Greek--latreuo)
- Notice the identical structure in Rev 20:6 speaks of Christ or both, but not the Father alone. "but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." Rev 20:6
- Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 have the Father and the Son referred to as the singular "him". This shows the unity between the two.
- Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 use the singular HIM to refer to both the Father and the Son.
- Now Notice Rev 20:4, "reigned with Christ for a thousand years"
- What this means is that Rev 20:6 sets up a precedent that when two are mentioned, if it refers to only one of either the Father or the Son, it must refer to the latter!
- This means that, based upon the example of Rev 20:6, the one we are said to serve in Rev 22:3 is Christ.
- Of course we believe the singular refers to both, but Jehovah's Witnesses twist the passage to refer to only one. We are merely proving that if the singular "serve Him" rather than "serve them" refers to only one, it would be the last one mentioned... the Son. This is exactly what happens in Rev 20:6.
- The Jehovah’s Witnesses completely ignore this fact and claim that Rev 22:3 excludes Christ. They don’t comprehend the irrefutable power of the pattern of "singular use" in the Book of Revelation and specifically Rev 20:6.
The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21, 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to unitarians who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time. Also we see the following regarding the One God seen in the passages of Revelation as the Father/Son. We see the singular face that they see not faces faces. Both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time. Both the Father and the Son' name is marked on the their foreheads in Rev 3:12 and 14:1) But we also see in 22:4 uses the singular His name on their foreheads. In Rev 14:1 we see the plural names but in Rev 22 the singular name is used. . Also in 22:5 the Father and Son together reign forever and in 20:6 the singular Him is applied to the Father/Son, because they are the One God. We see the plurality of the Godhead in display throughout the book of Revelation and that One God who is 3 Persons being described in the singular many times. Believers worship the one God on the One throne with the name of the Father/Son on their foreheads worshiping Him(Father and Son). They see His face (Father/Son). We also see Jesus tell us the same thing in Matt 28:19 when He declares to His Disciples to baptize them(plural) in the name(singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. #3 Distinct Persons, One name, One God. This is exactly what we see in the book of Revelation.
Case closed! Check and Mate uni's
hope this helps,
And JW translating, put Gods name back where God willed it to be out of love and respect for him, and corrected errors.
Thus one chooses who they trust with their eternal life by the translation they choose.
Lets look at the facts: hundreds of trinity religions= a mass of confusion because of using altered translations and dogmas.
Jw religion= a worldwide brotherhood, in love, peace and unity( of thought of Gods truth)( 1 Cor 1:10) no division. Living now to do Jesus Fathers will( Matt 7:21)
Heb 1:8 would contradict Heb 1:4 in your reasoning.
No they did not worship Jesus. Catholicism mistranslated the Greek word-Proskeneue- It carries 5 different meanings-1) worship to God-2) obeisance to a king-3) honor to a judge, plus 2 more. Every Israelite worshipper of the true living God( YHVH(Jehovah) knew 100% the messiah has a God( Psalm 45:7)-thus did not bow in worship ever to one who has a God( John 20:17), they bowed- obeisance -to Gods appointed king. The correct usage of that Greek word. Catholicism translation is error filled and altered. The good translation has Gods name in place over 7000 spots giving support to Jesus' Fathers will( Matt 7:21) on the matter.Wrong again.....
Two different sources weigh in on this.
G First and Got Questions follows.
Hi FreeInChrist!
Yes — Jesus did accept worship during His earthly ministry, and He continues to receive worship as the risen Lord. The New Testament is crystal clear on this.
1. Jesus Accepted Worship on Earth
→ Worship (Greek: proskyneō) = bowing down, kneeling in reverence → Never rebuked — unlike angels (Rev 19:10) or Peter (Acts 10:25–26)
Verse Who Worshiped Jesus’ Response Matthew 14:33 Disciples in the boat “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” Matthew 28:9 Women at the tomb “They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.” Matthew 28:17 11 disciples on mountain “When they saw him, they worshiped him…” John 9:38 Man born blind “Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.” Luke 24:52 Disciples after ascension “Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem…”
2. Jesus Claimed the Right to Be Worshiped
Verse Jesus’ Words Meaning John 5:23 “That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father…” Same worship as God Matthew 4:10 (to Satan) “Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.” He applies OT worship to Himself Philippians 2:10–11 “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow…” Fulfills Isaiah 45:23 (Yahweh) 3. Early Christians Worshiped Jesus — and He Received It
Verse Evidence Hebrews 1:6 “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Revelation 5:12–14 “Worthy is the Lamb… To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be… honor and glory…” Acts 7:59 Stephen: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (prayer = worship) 4. **Jesus Rejects False Worship — But Accepts True
→ He knows the difference — only divine worship is accepted.
Example Response Satan’s temptation (Matt 4:10) Rejects — worship God alone Blind man’s worship (John 9:38) Accepts — “You have seen him…”
Final Answer
Worshiping Jesus = Worshiping God. (John 5:23 — “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.”)
Got ?
Similar threads
