Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Runningman]

Wow, a response 50 posts later ...

If you have poster's regret, it's okay. You can always not reply.

"Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." - [Matthew 8:22 NKJV]

because ... "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - [John 3:18 NKJV] [See John 1 for clarification on who the 'only begotten Son of God' really is!]

Amen! I hope you believe that too.

But there is more Jesus said. Do you believe that the only true God, the Father, sent Jesus? He said you need hear his words and believe in the only true God to have eternal life.

John 5
24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[atpollard]

If you have poster's regret, it's okay. You can always not reply.

I don’t object to offering an honest reply to an honest answer.
If and when you answer the question that I actually asked in POST#2, I can reply to your response. However, ‘scripture pong’ to avoid the question is not an honest response (as your actions in the posts between Post #2 and Post #52 demonstrated you have no intention of offering an honest response, just debate tactic games).

Those that were experts in the language and had the benefit of hearing every word Jesus said rather than just our recorded abridged transcript and had non-verbal clues and cultural familiarity to draw from in interpreting those words, all reached the same conclusion: Jesus claimed equality with God. Those that believed Him became Disciples and those that did not believe Him tried to stone Him for blasphemy … but ALL agreed about what He claimed.

However, 2000 years later … you know more than they did about what Jesus REALLY meant.

 

[Runningman]

I don’t object to offering an honest reply to an honest answer.
If and when you answer the question that I actually asked in POST#2, I can reply to your response. However, ‘scripture pong’ to avoid the question is not an honest response (as your actions in the posts between Post #2 and Post #52 demonstrated you have no intention of offering an honest response, just debate tactic games).

My point in reply to your post in comment #2 of this thread is that they were accusing him. He didn't claim equality with God. Jesus characterized their words as an accusation. In other words, by the fact that Jesus identified their words as an accusation means that Jesus himself believed that had he actually did what they said he did then Jesus would have sinned. I hope that helps clear it up. When or if you want to get back on track just let me know.

 

[atpollard]

My point in reply to your post in comment #2 of this thread is that they were accusing him. He didn't claim equality with God. Jesus characterized their words as an accusation. In other words, by the fact that Jesus identified their words as an accusation means that Jesus himself believed that had he actually did what they said he did then Jesus would have sinned. I hope that helps clear it up. When or if you want to get back on track just let me know.

Nonsense.

If a man claims to be God it is blasphemy.
If God incarnate claims to be God it is not blasphemy.

Their accusation of blasphemy was false, not because Jesus never claimed to be God, but because Jesus was God.

 

[mikesw]

Nonsense.

If a man claims to be God it is blasphemy.
If God incarnate claims to be God it is not blasphemy.

Their accusation of blasphemy was false, not because Jesus never claimed to be God, but because Jesus was God.

Indeed. If these charges were of incorrect perception of Jesus' indication of his divinity (i.e., within the Godhead), the gospels would have added the accusers were just angry and just accused Jesus of blasphemy because those accusations sound bad. Matt 26:62-66 shows the High Priests view about Jesus's quote of Dan 7:13 as reflecting his claim to be God. It hardly would make sense for the priest to make the charge unless Daniel 7 context was understood by the High Priest and others to refer to a claim of divinity. And again, Matthew does not say the priest incorrectly pointed out Jesus' divinity implied here.

 

[Peterlag]

Thanks for proving Jesus is God.

No part of the following verse says Jesus is God and therefore it only proves Jesus is God in your mind because you cannot see Jesus Christ in the Scriptures. You twist every word that says Jesus into God.

14:13-14
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

 

[Peterlag]

You can believe a lie of you want.

You dodged my question.

Try not being evasive next time.

I don't dodge questions. Why should I dodge a question? But I have found that some of the questions are too stupid for me to understand the question. So don't blame me if you ask something that does not make sense.

 

[Fred]

No part of the following verse says Jesus is God and therefore it only proves Jesus is God in your mind because you cannot see Jesus Christ in the Scriptures. You twist every word that says Jesus into God.

14:13-14
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

That Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer means He is God.

 

[Fred]

I don't dodge questions. Why should I dodge a question? But I have found that some of the questions are too stupid for me to understand the question. So don't blame me if you ask something that does not make sense.

Post 50 was not in response to you.

 

[Marvelloustime]

Look at those letters in dark dark bold print black .
THEN know and understand the lips of that pope and those of interfaith religious dialogue , DENY GOD HIMSELF .
as they preach the lie that all religoins serve the same GOD we do in different ways .
Guess they forgot the part about those who BELEIVE NOT .
Guess many have forgotten the part where even JOHN wrote and said
HE who beleives not the testimony that GOD gave of the SON , IS CALLLING GOD a liar .
If one is calling GOD a liar , SURE SEEMS THEY DONT KNOW HIM at all . SO
on that note i suggest any and all FLEE THE TABERNACLES of the finding common ground INTERFAITH anti christ lie .

@TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY

 

[Runningman]

Nonsense.

If a man claims to be God it is blasphemy.
If God incarnate claims to be God it is not blasphemy.

Their accusation of blasphemy was false, not because Jesus never claimed to be God, but because Jesus was God.

Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God. Did he ever say "I am God?"

And by the way, does the word incarnation appear even one time in all of Scripture?

 

[Runningman]

No, He did not.

The Messiah was given dominion and glory and a kingdom.
If He was given such things… Who was the Giver?
When was the Messiah given that?

By definition, if a being was given authority, then that authority was not eternal, and not intrinsic to such being. Then we can rest assured that such being is not God.

In language, when one is given something, it means they had something they did not previously have. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism requires a sort of "God language" where words mean basically whatever they want them to mean and conventional reason flies out the window completely. Some may call this theology, others may call it madness.

For example, if you or I are given something then we did not have that until it was given. When Jesus is given something, the rules change entirely according to Trinitarianism. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[mikesw]

In language, when one is given something, it means they had something they did not previously have. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism requires a sort of "God language" where words mean basically whatever they want them to mean and conventional reason flies out the window completely. Some may call this theology, others may call it madness.

For example, if you or I are given something then we did not have that until it was given. When Jesus is given something, the rules change entirely according to Trinitarianism. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Do you have more tricks up your sleeve to convince Pancho Frijoles from getting reconciled with God?

 

[mikesw]

Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God. Did he ever say "I am God?"

And by the way, does the word incarnation appear even one time in all of Scripture?

@Fred, that reaction to your most reminds me of the two boats and a helicopter parable...
storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.

A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe. “Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast.”
“No,” says the preacher. “I have faith in the Lord. He will save me.”
Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.
“Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee’s gonna break any minute.”
Once again, the preacher is unmoved. “I shall remain. The Lord will see me through.”

The rest of the parable can be found at: https://jareddees.com/twoboats-helicopter-story/
So the Unitarian is waiting for scripture to tell him that Jesus is God.

 

[atpollard]

Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God. Did he ever say "I am God?"

And by the way, does the word incarnation appear even one time in all of Scripture?

Do we redact the Gospel of John for getting it so wrong?

Did John say “the Word was God”?
Did John say “the Word became flesh”?
Do you know the actual definition of “incarnation”?

It is really not my fault that you cannot understand the references to Daniel and who the “Son of Man” is (and why the High Priest immediately recognized it as a claim to divinity). It is not my fault that you cannot recognize the claims to divinity that the entire Jewish crowd could EVERY TIME they tried to stone Jesus. It is not my fault that you refuse to accept the Apostolic testimony concerning who Jesus is.

The steadfast unbelief in the face of the TRUTH presented to you by others and your repeating patently false claims based on a lack of some exact ENGLISH phrase that was not recorded to your satisfaction, is 100% your fault. If left unrepentant, you will be called to answer for “every idle word” (God’s claim, not mine).

 

[Runningman]

Do you have more tricks up your sleeve to convince Pancho Frijoles from getting reconciled with God?

Um, I think you got the wrong idea of what is happening here. @Pancho Frijoles , for the record, do you have any inkling to convert to Trinitarianism any time soon?

 

[Runningman]

Do we redact the Gospel of John for getting it so wrong?

Did John say “the Word was God”?
Did John say “the Word became flesh”?
Do you know the actual definition of “incarnation”?

It is really not my fault that you cannot understand the references to Daniel and who the “Son of Man” is (and why the High Priest immediately recognized it as a claim to divinity). It is not my fault that you cannot recognize the claims to divinity that the entire Jewish crowd could EVERY TIME they tried to stone Jesus. It is not my fault that you refuse to accept the Apostolic testimony concerning who Jesus is.

The steadfast unbelief in the face of the TRUTH presented to you by others and your repeating patently false claims based on a lack of some exact ENGLISH phrase that was not recorded to your satisfaction, is 100% your fault. If left unrepentant, you will be called to answer for “every idle word” (God’s claim, not mine).

Fine I'll bite. Anything else about a supposed incarnation in the Bible or just two verses in John 1?

 

[mikesw]

Um, I think you got the wrong idea of what is happening here. @Pancho Frijoles , for the record, do you have any inkling to convert to Trinitarianism any time soon?

He has been informed enough that he just needs to accept what scripture says. He would have to decide about Unitarian/Trinitarian options now that he has spoken against it for so long.

 

[atpollard]

Fine I'll bite. Anything else about a supposed incarnation in the Bible or just two verses in John 1?

Yup, there is more.

Do you now accept the two EXPLICIT verses pointed out to you from John 1?

 

[Runningman]

He has been informed enough that he just needs to accept what scripture says. He would have to decide about Unitarian/Trinitarian options now that he has spoken against it for so long.

I think Pancho subscribes to the Baháʼí faith which is more along the lines of Unitarianism but it's not really Christian though. I think he actually supports Islam, which I don't. My Lord is Jesus so I just go with what he said. I would prefer @Pancho Frijoles chime in in case I got it all wrong and i am not trying to gossip without his awareness of it.