Runningman
Active Member
Not according to Scripture. Jesus is never called God in human flesh. Jesus is called a man who came in the flesh.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
Don't change the subject just because it pains your ears to know the Bible teaches that Jesus was justified.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Not changing the subject at all. Justification comes from loving someone. You think it comes from living your standard of morality.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
The word man covers flesh. "A man that came in the flesh" as you put it... is completely nonsensical babble.
Runningman
Active Member
You're trying to disprove Jesus being justified by God? Good luck!
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.
Runningman
Active Member
You should fix yourself before giving unsolicited advice to others.
Runningman
Active Member
Coming in the flesh refers to being there, in person, in the flesh as opposed to a letter or story. Keep focus on the fact that most of the people who were preached to about Jesus did not have the ability to actually meet the great man they were being talked up about so much. There were doubters, but they assured people that Jesus did come in the flesh. Do you deny that Jesus is a man who came in the flesh as well?
Doug Brents
Active Member
lol, Jesus is NOT the offspring (son) of God. Jesus is eternal (having no beginning and no end)(John 1:1, Heb 7:3, 1 John 5:20, Rom 1:20), and only God is eternal.
At the time Jesus spoke John 17:3, He was in the form of a man, had not yet been glorified, and was in the form of a servant (man). He worshiped God as any man would. But that does not mean that He was not still one with God.
Calling Jesus "Lord" in connection with the Father in 1 Cor 8:6 makes them equals. God is the only Lord, and this verse calls Jesus the Lord.
But if you think these verses say Jesus is not God, then you should consider Isa 9:6: Jesus is the everlasting Father, the Mighty God. You deny this at risk of your soul. You have been warned.
Runningman gets everything wrong. The vindication by the second person of the Trinity reflects that what Jesus shared in his ministry and the implied guilt in crucifixion are shown to be in Christ's favor through the resurrection. It proves to the world that he is the Christ, not that somehow that Christ Jesus gained justification by the Spirit.
Also, as noted, the Spirit is shown to be a distinct person of the Godhead here. Too many weaknesses of interpretation by runningman are found here.
Runningman
Active Member
Jesus is never called eternal in the Bible. The verse you quoted from Hebrews 7 is a comparison of Melchizedek to Jesus. For your argument to hold any sort of merit, you must prove that Melchizedek is an eternal being. I hope we don't need to inform you that he isn't. So if Mel is not eternal then either is Jesus.
John 17:3 explicitly and undeniably calls the Father the only true God. Sorry, no fancy arguments are going to change that.
But 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 defines the one God as the Father.
To be fair, nothing in the Bible says Isaiaih 9:6 applies to Jesus and if it does then it was a failed prophecy in your version. Read the CJB and LXX version of Isaiah 9:6.
Runningman
Active Member
This is pure fiction. The Bible doesn't talk about most of the things you just said. Why do you put your religion ahead of Scripture?
Another obvious error of runningman.
We have the baptism account in Matthew 3:13–15 (ESV)
13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
14John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Jesus was baptized because that was what was called for the people through John the prophet. But we see that Jesus did not need it of himself. John needed what Jesus had, not Jesus needing what John had.
Runningman
Active Member
Fred, sometimes you lose debates. Just how it is. Doesn't mean run back to your point and attempt to make them all over again and expect a different result. Sometimes it just seems you want to get debunked repeatedly. The Bible says Jesus was justified by God. I didn't write it. If you disagree with the Bible, just say so.
synergy
Active Member
The Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14 literally means “pitched a tent” or “tabernacled” among us. This term directly connects to the Old Testament, where God manifested His presence through the physical Tabernacle.
In the Old Testament, the Tabernacle was the visible and tangible dwelling place of God's Glory among His people. It was through this sacred structure that God communicated and revealed Himself.
John draws a powerful parallel: just as God dwelled in the Tabernacle, the Word, who was God, dwelt among his people in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new and greater Tabernacle, the visible manifestation of the invisible God. John affirms this when he writes, “We beheld His glory…”—the same divine glory that once filled the Tabernacle is now fully revealed in the person of Christ.
Runningman
Active Member
You and Fred both stepped in it. Do you also deny that Jesus took John's baptism of repentence?
That happens to you many times.
Runningman
Active Member
Nope. God was with Jesus, God was not Jesus. Jesus' anointing and empowerment began at his water baptism. God is entirely external to Jesus.
So a question for you is, can God be with Jesus and others without them being God?
Acts 10
37You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.
Similar threads
