If Jesus Is God Then He Is The Father

there is only "one" almighty ...... JESSUS,

Amen. And?

AND the ONE Almighty is "JESUS.
Equally shared? Shared by who? You're arguing like a Trinitarian while denying the use of the word person. I'm cool with that. Use whatever phrases you want to describe what Scripture teaches, as long as they are faithful to Scripture.
ERROR, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

now the ROOT of this word and our answer.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

what's another word that is synonyms with portion and allotted? answer "SHARE". BINGO, now that was easy. the LORD JESUS is the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in Flesh, "Lord".

got it? so no, I don't speak as a trinitarian, nor a Oneness, but as the Lord Jesus and his Apostle, and disciples speak.... , "Diversifies Oneness".

:ninja:
 
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" BEING is present tense. you're reproved.

see above, andtry READIG the Bible with the Holy Spirit sometimes..... :cool:

yes, and as a matter of fact no man biological descendant. scripture, Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." BINGO. you're corrected, and reproved.

he is without Mother, or Father, biologically, .... hello..... :LOL: I just Love this.

:ninja:
God was found in the form of God?

Or, a human clone was found in the form of God(oneness)?

Or, the human son of God was found in the form of God?


Jesus had no father and mother as he was Melchisedek?

Did he adopt a Father and mother in Matt 1?

Did he give birth to Himself?

Or, is Jesus still without Father or mother today?

Was Melchisedek a man or not?...


4 Now consider how great this man was....
 
That's literally what "who being in form(μορφῇ) God" means when said word is contrasted with fashion(σχήματι). μορφῇ has a formal definition, and a generic one. Generically, it refers to the outward shape of something. Formally, it refers to the core substance of what something is. In formal language, when μορφῇ and σχήματι are paired, they are used to discuss the core of what something(μορφῇ) is as opposed the outward appearance(σχήματι) of something. In fact, the NIV translates the passage "Who, being in very nature God". And guess what, all the Greek scholars agree that it is a valid well justified translation of the passage.



The text says
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:", and you see this as being "a natural man"? Wow, talk about the lengths one will go to to justify their opinions.



I'm still holding your beer on the "It looks like it says he was a natural man." statement. You put us to shame in the reading things into Scripture department.


God Bless
You think it is saying this?...


6 Who(GOD), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But(GOD) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and(GOD) was made in the likeness of men:

8 And(GOD) being found in fashion as a man, he(GOD) humbled himself, and(GOD) became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(GOD EXALTS HIMSELF), and given him(GOD GIVES HIMSELF) a name which is above every name...

Or this?...


6 Who(HUMAN), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself(HUMAN) of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a (HUMAN)servant, and was made(AS A HUMAN IS) in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a (HU)man, he(THE HUMAN SON OF GOD) humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(GOD EXALTED THE HUMAN), and given him a name which is above every name
 
God was found in the form of God?
how IGNORANT can u be, God was found in Flesh, lol. Oh my don't be silly. the Christ, the Ordinal Last was in flesh, but has the same NATURE, :geek:
Or, a human clone was found in the form of God(oneness)?

Or, the human son of God was found in the form of God?
don't let the devil use u like that. a mind is a terrible thing to waste ..... or is it 2 late... (smile) ..... :eek: YIKES!
Was Melchisedek a man or not?...
yes, without mother and without father, just as, (NOT is), but as God, and as well as the angels who are men without mother or fatrher and having no desent..... don't u know anything?
4 Now consider how great this man was....
is not God a man? just not like us who are his IMAGE .... LOL, LOL, LOL. Oh Dear, how simple minded they are.

:ninja:
 
6 Who(GOD), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
get it right, 6. Who (Christ), the Ordinal Last BEING in the Form of God, (the Spirit), thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

ok Truther, let's see how IGNORANT u really are. QUESTION. "is there anyone EQUAL to God? yes or no.

one more, "is there anyone EQUAL with God? yes or no

your answer to both questions please, I can't wait to hear your answers.

READ BOTH CAREFULLY, BRFOTR ANSWERING.

:ninja:
 
how IGNORANT can u be, God was found in Flesh, lol. Oh my don't be silly. the Christ, the Ordinal Last was in flesh, but has the same NATURE, :geek:

don't let the devil use u like that. a mind is a terrible thing to waste ..... or is it 2 late... (smile) ..... :eek: YIKES!

yes, without mother and without father, just as, (NOT is), but as God, and as well as the angels who are men without mother or fatrher and having no desent..... don't u know anything?

is not God a man? just not like us who are his IMAGE .... LOL, LOL, LOL. Oh Dear, how simple minded they are.

:ninja:
God was found in flesh?

Is this Jesus' doctrine too?

Jesus said that in the description of God to another person?....


24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


I think you are Catholic.
 
get it right, 6. Who (Christ), the Ordinal Last BEING in the Form of God, (the Spirit), thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

ok Truther, let's see how IGNORANT u really are. QUESTION. "is there anyone EQUAL to God? yes or no.

one more, "is there anyone EQUAL with God? yes or no

your answer to both questions please, I can't wait to hear your answers.

READ BOTH CAREFULLY, BRFOTR ANSWERING.

:ninja:
You teach this?...

6 Who(THE FLESH OF GOD), being in the form of God(WHICH ALSO HAS IT'S OWN MIND/WILL), thought it not robbery to be equal with God(HIMSELF):


...how brilliant.
 
God was found in flesh?
yes, the Ordinal. Last WAS, do u understand? probably not.
Is this Jesus' doctrine too?
no, it's the "Lord" Jesus doctrine.
Jesus said that in the description of God to another person?....


24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
ERROR, ANOTHER (G243 Allos) of himself in the ECHAD as First and Last in Ordinal designations.

how many times must we tell u this?

:ninja:
 
You teach this?...

6 Who(THE FLESH OF GOD), being in the form of God(WHICH ALSO HAS IT'S OWN MIND/WILL), thought it not robbery to be equal with God(HIMSELF):


...how brilliant.
NO, ERROR, have u ever been in a bible study before? no put down, but u is in gross darkness.

LOOK, go back, look up definitions and just LISTEN, sit on the sideline with your mouth close and get some understanding of what's been taught... ok.

:ninja:
 
yes, the Ordinal. Last WAS, do u understand? probably not.

no, it's the "Lord" Jesus doctrine.

ERROR, ANOTHER (G243 Allos) of himself in the ECHAD as First and Last in Ordinal designations.

how many times must we tell u this?

:ninja:
John 4:24 was error and Jesus really meant he was God in flesh?

Like this?...


24 God is A SPIRIT AND(ALSO FLESH): and they that worship him (AS ME) must worship him(AS ME) in spirit and in truth.

Or, did Jesus really mean this?


24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him(SOMEONE OTHER THAN MYSELF) must worship him(...) in spirit and in truth.
 
NO, ERROR, have u ever been in a bible study before? no put down, but u is in gross darkness.

LOOK, go back, look up definitions and just LISTEN, sit on the sideline with your mouth close and get some understanding of what's been taught... ok.

:ninja:
So, don't you teach God's flesh thought it not robbery to be equal with His Spirit?

Yes you do.

I know, I taught it too.;)
 
That's literally what "who being in form(μορφῇ) God" means when said word is contrasted with fashion(σχήματι). μορφῇ has a formal definition, and a generic one. Generically, it refers to the outward shape of something. Formally, it refers to the core substance of what something is. In formal language, when μορφῇ and σχήματι are paired, they are used to discuss the core of what something(μορφῇ) is as opposed the outward appearance(σχήματι) of something. In fact, the NIV translates the passage "Who, being in very nature God". And guess what, all the Greek scholars agree that it is a valid well justified translation of the passage.

The text says
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:", and you see this as being "a natural man"? Wow, talk about the lengths one will go to to justify their opinions.

I'm still holding your beer on the
"It looks like it says he was a natural man." statement. You put us to shame in the reading things into Scripture department.
You think it is saying this?...

6 Who(GOD), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But(GOD) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and(GOD) was made in the likeness of men:
8 And(GOD) being found in fashion as a man, he(GOD) humbled himself, and(GOD) became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(GOD EXALTS HIMSELF), and given him(GOD GIVES HIMSELF) a name which is above every name...

Or this?...

6 Who(HUMAN), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself(HUMAN) of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a (HUMAN)servant, and was made(AS A HUMAN IS) in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a (HU)man, he(THE HUMAN SON OF GOD) humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(GOD EXALTED THE HUMAN), and given him a name which is above every name

Neither:
6 Who(Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But(Jesus) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and(Jesus) was made in the likeness of men:
8 And(Jesus) being found in fashion as a man, he(Jesus) humbled himself, and(Jesus) became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him(Jesus), and given him(Jesus) a name which is above every name...

Maybe, you should try to at least understand what we are saying before responding.


God Bless
 
there is only "one" almighty ...... JESSUS,

Amen. And?

AND the ONE Almighty is "JESUS.

Amen. And?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Equally shared? Shared by who? You're arguing like a Trinitarian while denying the use of the word person. I'm cool with that. Use whatever phrases you want to describe what Scripture teaches, as long as they are faithful to Scripture.
ERROR, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

Amen. And? It doesn't seem like you are arguing with me?

now the ROOT of this word and our answer.
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

And, your justification for thinking this root is relevant at all to the use in Philippians 2:6?

And, how does this answer my question:
Equally shared? Shared by who? I agree they are equally shared. But, I have multiple persons who can share in this divinity. You think there is only one person, therefore, what two or more people are sharing?

what's another word that is synonyms with portion and allotted? answer "SHARE". BINGO, now that was easy. the LORD JESUS is the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in Flesh, "Lord".

The text says "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Philippians 2:6-7. This whole "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is before Jesus was "made in the likeness of men." So, Philippians 2:6 can't be talking about "the LORD JESUS is the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in Flesh, "Lord"." FYI, that's not a sentence. Proper grammar would work wonders to improve communication.

got it? so no, I don't speak as a trinitarian, nor a Oneness, but as the Lord Jesus and his Apostle, and disciples speak.... , "Diversifies Oneness".

Got it: An undefined position that doesn't understand Trinitarianism at all.

God Bless
 
If Jesus Is God Then He Is The Father

How come we have a trinity doctrine that states that Jesus is God yet states that he is not the Father?

Because the Scriptures state the Father is his God.

Jesus as the son of man in the flesh has the title Son of God but that is not the only title Jesus has. Jesus as the son of man and may I say as the Son of God prays to God who he calls his Father.

The trinity doctrine separates the Father from the Son then teaches that the Son of God and the Father is God as two separate persons making God a plurality of Gods. God is a plurality but not a plurality of supreme Gods.

The reason that the Son can be called God is that
the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and thus they are a unified one.

The insanity of your claims is quickly seen by honest rational people who realize that if Jesus IS the Father there would be no need to say "the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father."


No separation here at all. God is one and that includes Father and the Son. However, the singular God is one entity or person not two or three. In God there is Fatherhood and Sonship but that does not make the one God two or three Gods but the trinity states that three Gods equal one God!

Scriptures state that God is the Father so for Jesus to be God then he must be the Father as well.

Didn't you just say he is IN the Father?

Jesus prays to the Father: Scriptures state that God is the Father so for Jesus to be God then he must be the Father as well.

It appears you are attempting to reason with people. Did you actually expect that to make sense? How is it that you thought that was rational?

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

This indicates that in Jesus there is more than just sonship!

No it doesn't. That came from your fantasy world not the text.

We have titles given to Jesus but the Trinity doctrines misconstrues some of these titles.



They say Jesus is the mighty God but that the Father is a might God as well but they speak of God as two persons. However, there is no indication as God as two persons in that scripture!

But the Scriptures do indicate the person who is God is the God of Jesus.
 
Back
Top