Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Peterlag]

Scripture is clear that whether they thought He was insane or not, they believed He was blaspheming. And the consequence for blasphemy is death by stoning. So every time they took up stones to stone Him to death they believed He was blaspheming. When did they take up stones? When He said things (which you deny) that made Him equal with God (John 5:18, John 8:56-59, John 10:30-33).

Jesus was accused of being the "Son of God", which, according to John 5:18, makes Him equal with God.

Stating that He was the Messiah was not what angered and disturbed the high priest. What angered him was Jesus claim to be the "Son of the Blessed". As noted above, that makes Him equal with God, and that is something the Jews could not accept. Can you? Can you accept that Jesus, who NEVER lied (or sinned in ANY way), claimed to be the Son of God? And that that claim makes Him equal with God?

Saying you are the son of God does not make you God. It does put you in the same family to whatever the Father has. If you're a king then the son would be a prince and therefore share in the kingdom on equal ground pertaining to the kingdom. If your dad is a business owner then it would put you on equal ground in the family business to share in the wealth and even run the business later on. The Jews understood that custom and even we do today in our country.

 

[Doug Brents]

Saying you are the son of God does not make you God. It does put you in the same family to whatever the Father has. If you're a king then the son would be a prince and therefore share in the kingdom on equal ground pertaining to the kingdom. If your dad is a business owner then it would put you on equal ground in the family business to share in the wealth and even run the business later on. The Jews understood that custom and even we do today in our country.

Is Jesus a prince? No, Satan is the prince (Eph 2:2). But Jesus is the King. And not only is Jesus King, but He is King OF Kings (Rev 17:14), a title also applied to the Father (1 Tim 6:15).
Jesus says that He and the Father are ONE (John 10:30). Now, if Jesus is not God, then this is a lie, he was guilty of blasphemy, and He CANNOT BE OUR SAVIOR!! Because the sacrifice that absolves us from sin MUST be perfect, without blemish, pure, and spotless. If Jesus sinned, then He was none of those things.

 

[Peterlag]

Is Jesus a prince? No, Satan is the prince (Eph 2:2). But Jesus is the King. And not only is Jesus King, but He is King OF Kings (Rev 17:14), a title also applied to the Father (1 Tim 6:15).
Jesus says that He and the Father are ONE (John 10:30). Now, if Jesus is not God, then this is a lie, he was guilty of blasphemy, and He CANNOT BE OUR SAVIOR!! Because the sacrifice that absolves us from sin MUST be perfect, without blemish, pure, and spotless. If Jesus sinned, then He was none of those things.

1.) I did not say Jesus was a prince. I said he is the son of God and that put him in the family business that I explained above.

2.) Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

3.) John 10:30 - There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant...he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts,the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of"being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God thathis followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or"substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

 

[mikesw]

1.) I did not say Jesus was a prince. I said he is the son of God and that put him in the family business that I explained above.

2.) Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

3.) John 10:30 - There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant...he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts,the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of"being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God thathis followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or"substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

Indeed the Son is very much alike his Father. We know this is nature that a mother giraffe does not bear a foal.

We can see an obvious flub by using John 11:52 about gathering into one the children of God. Somehow the idea of oneness has to be corralled into a denial of the divinity of God in order for Peterlag to preach his anti-gospel. He yet has to address the multitudes of passages that speak of the divinity of God. I think he has innovative arguments for whatever comes up. They just are not convincing.

 

[Doug Brents]

1.) I did not say Jesus was a prince. I said he is the son of God and that put him in the family business that I explained above.

The prince is the descendant of the King. Jesus is not the Father's descendant; He is equal to the Father.

2.) Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

Very true. But Jesus is both Man and God. He did not cease to be God when He took on man's flesh. Just as a CEO does not cease to be CEO when he takes on the "clothes" of a prospective employee (ie: Undercover CEO).

3.) John 10:30 - There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God."

Yes, there is.

The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant...he and his Father are very much alike.

The English words, and the Greek words, do NOT mean "much alike". They say exactly what they mean: they are ONE.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts,the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being."

Certainly not, Paul and Apollos are not one being. But they serve one purpose (the growth of the Church), are lead by one power (the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit), and are part of the one Body of Christ.

Christ uses the concept of"being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God thathis followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or"substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

When God makes a man and a woman "one flesh":
Do the two cease to be individuals? No
Do they cease to have individual bodies? No.
Do they cease to have individual wills? No.
But they are ONE in God's eyes, and cannot be divided, separated, or broken apart. They are ONE in purpose, one in authority, one in mission, one in goal; they are equals in the marriage.
Similarly, this is how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are joined. They are equal in power, equal in deity, equal in purpose, but they are still separate in that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. You see all three represented in Jesus' baptism: the Father speaking from Heaven, Jesus being immersed in Jordan, and the Spirit descending like a dove.

 

[Peterlag]

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2054

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered allover the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

Funny. That image reflects the one-verse unitarian who looks at John 17:3 while neglecting v5 and then says everything has to be interpreted in light of that one verse, like that guy in the image is doing. Might as well reduce the scriptures to one verse to satisfy the unitarian.

 

[Doug Brents]

View attachment 2054

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

Why do you expect God to spell everything out clearly in this way? This attitude of yours shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scriptures. Matt 13:34 says that Jesus spoke everything to the multitudes in parables, and He did not teach them anything without parables. He did this, as Matt 13:14 says, so that the truths He was speaking would not be understood by those who are not lead by the Spirit.

 

[MTMattie]

You're right, there is not just one, there are MANY!

You clearly haven't read the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and especially John go to great lengths to demonstrate Jesus' deity.

Then why did the Jews frequently take up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy? They clearly understood that He was claiming to be God, to be equal to God, and to be one with God.

Yes Doug,

And we have posts verses often that are either ignored, not read or indicated they don't mean what they say.

 

[MTMattie]

View attachment 2054

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

What does this verse mean to you?

Colossians 2:9​

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
OR

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,”
OR

Hebrews 1:8​

“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'

OR

Titus 2:13​

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”
OR

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
OR

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
OR

Romans 9:5​

“of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
OR

Revelation 1:8​

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Go ahead, have at it... do all the scripture twisting you want to. You cannot make a word mean something it is not and you cannot make a word have an unacceptable definiton.

 

[Peterlag]

What does this verse mean to you?

Colossians 2:9​

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
OR

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,”
OR

Hebrews 1:8​

“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'

OR

Titus 2:13​

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”
OR

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
OR

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
OR

Romans 9:5​

“of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
OR

Revelation 1:8​

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Go ahead, have at it... do all the scripture twisting you want to. You cannot make a word mean something it is not and you cannot make a word have an unacceptable definiton.

Philippians 2:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should confess or believe that Jesus is God. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

 

[Peterlag]

Why do you expect God to spell everything out clearly in this way? This attitude of yours shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scriptures. Matt 13:34 says that Jesus spoke everything to the multitudes in parables, and He did not teach them anything without parables. He did this, as Matt 13:14 says, so that the truths He was speaking would not be understood by those who are not lead by the Spirit.

The Apostles speak nothing in parables since Christians now have the spirit of Christ born within and can understand spiritual matters. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[mikesw]

The Apostles speak nothing in parables since Christians now have the spirit of Christ born within and can understand spiritual matters. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

Very bad concept here. Maybe Peterlag is not aware that many of the people who were blocked from understanding points about Jesus still lived the same time that the apostles did.

 

[MTMattie]

What does this verse mean to you?

Colossians 2:9​

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
OR

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,”
OR

Hebrews 1:8​

“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'

OR

Titus 2:13​

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”
OR

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
OR

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
OR

Romans 9:5​

“of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
OR

Revelation 1:8​

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Go ahead, have at it... do all the scripture twisting you want to. You cannot make a word mean something it is not and you cannot make a word have an unacceptable definiton.

Philippians 2:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should confess or believe that Jesus is God. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

The verse says....

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,”

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Always a counter to every word said.

What say you about

Colossians 2:9​

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
Or the others you have ignored.
Especially

Hebrews 1:8​

“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'

Pick and choose what you like and the others dont count.

Oy

 

[Peterlag]

The verse says....

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,”

Always a counter to every word said.

What say you about

Colossians 2:9​

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
Or the others you have ignored.
Especially

Hebrews 1:8​

“But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.'

Pick and choose what you like and the others dont count.

Oy

Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.

The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.

Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

 

[Peterlag]

I never cared for the Catholic doctrine or the philosophy of its protestant sisters.

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2057

I never cared for the Catholic doctrine or the philosophy of its protestant sisters.

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Nor does he care for the beliefs of the Jews on the Two Powers of Heaven or the second century Christians. He has his own doctrine to focus on, perhaps a form of Gnosticism.

 

[dwight92070]

View attachment 2057

I never cared for the Catholic doctrine or the philosophy of its protestant sisters.

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

So which church do you go to?

 

[Peterlag]

So which church do you go to?

I do not go to church that's why I know how to read the Bible correctly.

 

[mikesw]

I do not go to church that's why I know how to read the Bible correctly.

Whew. Good news indeed.