Did Jesus teach he was GOD himself?

Where does he say this? The righteous are said to be alive and the sinful dead even when alive.
“Now the Lord is God, not of the dead, but of the living; for to God all of them are alive.” Luke 20:38
But God's life isn't diminished.
If it is eternal, how can it be? Rather eternal life replicates itself:

"My people have committed two sins:
They have forsaken me,
the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns,
broken cisterns that cannot hold water." Jer 2:13

"Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
because they have forsaken the Lord,
the spring of living water." Jer 17:13

No, he was speaking of the commandments.
The law brings death, the spirit brings life.

Rom 7:5
"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

Rom 8:2
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.:"

All men sin. Jesus broke his vow of wine at the cross,
Don't be absurd

donated to the temple funds for his own personal sins,
As the law /authorities required.

took on a nazirite vow requiring sacrifices at its completion, came in contact with the dead requiring washing for the purification of sin, etc.
Matthew 23:24, 'Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel'."

The elites of the Jews are well known for playing at sophistry with the word of God. As Jesus said, it will only redound to their damnation.

BTW, when Jesus gave the verdict of saying whoever is without sin to cast the first stone, he changed the law in doing so. The law doesn't require sinless witnesses. That's a sin.
Nope. The law required matters be brought before judges, and as no-one had appointed Jesus a criminal judge, then he had no power to pronounce guilt. Deuteronomy 16:18-20

Jesus was speaking metaphorically about heaven.
Heaven is the throne of God.

I don't see Jesus fulfilling anything.
Because you're too busy playing the sophist in respect of the scriptures, and not willing to understand God's plan of salavation.

So you've admitted God can't do everything. ;) It's not just what Jews say.
On earth God can do most things, but he can't contradict his own character or law.

 
There is no exception. Jesus without a physical father would be a mamzer.


No physical DNA from God, so you fail. There's no mention of impregnation by God above. Overshadowed doesn't mean pregnancy. That's ridiculous.
#1 - Thus you blaspheme GOD by calling His Only begotten Son ( Jesus Christ the God-Man as per John 1:1+14 ) a mamzer! ----------------------- #2 - Oh yes indeed the power of the most high God in Luke 1:35 was quite capable ( with GOD all things are possible ) of creating the " Y " DNA that God the Holy Spirit placed inside of one of Mary's "X" DNA eggs when the Holy Spirit came upon her in Matt.1:20! So yes indeed God CAUSED the Virgin Mary to conceive as MENTIONED in Matt.1:20 & Luke 1:32-35! Case closed!
 
Only Tanakh is scripture.


God doesn't bleed, die, etc.


2 anointed in Daniel 9. The NT nor Jesus reference it as being fulfilled by Jesus.


The original and only Testament is all that's needed.


God the Fathef spoke to nature and was Jesus' God in the womb.


Sorry, the context in Genesis 1:1-27 is clear. In His image, not Our.


God spoke to creation throughout... be fruitful and multiply, etc.


Rotfl... no virgin mentioned here, but several seed of the woman elsewhere.


Zechariah 8:23 God is with us as well. Any good occurrence is considered as God being with us.


In your world.


God doesn't worship another. Jesus does. Review Exodus 20. It's idolatrous what you suggested.
#1 - Only in your WRONG say so! The NT is also scripture whether or not if you believe it! ------------- #2 - Since Jesus is God-Man as per John 1:1+14, God did not bleed or die, but as man, ONLY His body ( the Flesh of John 1:14 bleed and died! That blood took away all the Sins of those who accept Jesus Christ as LORD & Savior! That's the ONLY way one can come to God His Father as per His say so in John 14:6! Case closed! ---------- #3 - Yes it was fulfilled by Jesus as He was in Fact the child to be born as described in Isaiah 9:6 ( Mighty God " )! Thus John 1:1+14 is correct ( He is God-Man ) and God the Father backed it up in Heb.1:8 by calling His Only Begotten Son ( Jesus Christ ) " O God ", just after all His angels that were created THROUGH Him ( John 1:3/Col.1:16 ), WORSHIPED Him in Heb.1:6! Case closed! ------------- #4 - All scripture ( both OT & NT ) are needed to get the CORRECT answers! In OT, God said " US & Our " for the creation of Adam in Gen.1:26! Thus the NT in Matt.28:19 & 1 John5:7 tells us the " US & Our " are THREE Divine Person ( FSHS or Father Word & Holy Spirit )! Case closed! ------ #5 - FYI - nophysical Spirits have NO Image as an Image is Physical! Thus the Image of God was provided by God the Word of John 1:1 when He became " Flesh " ( Physical ) in John 1:14 as the God-Man then called Jesus Christ ( the Child mentioned in Isaiah 9:6)! Thus All human images are in Jesus Christ's Image as He is the Image as per Col.1:15! Our Image is in the God-Man's ( Jesus Christs image ) Case closed! --------------- #6 - FYI again God Spoke creation into EXISTANCE through God the Word ( Precarnate Jesus Christ ) of John 1:1 as per John 1:3 & Col.1:16! Case closed! --------- #7 - FYI again the Virgin is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 & Matt.1:34 and that Child is mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 and born of the Virgen Mary as per Luke 1:31-35! Case closed! --------------- #8 - The incarnation of God the Word in John 1:1+14 is who is called " Immanuel " in Isaiah 7:14 & Matt.1:22! Case closed! --------- #9 - Nope, in GOD's World that He created through God the Word of John 1:1 as per John 1:3 & Col.1:16- Case closed! ------ #10 - FYI again, Jeush Christ is BOTH God ( the Word ) and a Man! So yes as man He worshiped God His Father & Holy Spirit! Case closed on your Twisted view ( 2 Peter 3:16 )! All the scriptures on the same topic that I posted clearly rebukes that twisted view of yours as per 2 Tim.3:16 that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write! He ( as Saul of Tarsus ) was a Jew of Judaism like you till he met with the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus, where he learned the REAL Truth about who GOD is ( FSHS )! God had to become one of us in order to save His creation of mankind! Case closed!
 
#1 - Only in your WRONG say so! The NT is also scripture whether or not if you believe it! ------------- #2 - Since Jesus is God-Man as per John 1:1+14, God did not bleed or die, but as man, ONLY His body ( the Flesh of John 1:14 bleed and died! That blood took away all the Sins of those who accept Jesus Christ as LORD & Savior! That's the ONLY way one can come to God His Father as per His say so in John 14:6! Case closed! ---------- #3 - Yes it was fulfilled by Jesus as He was in Fact the child to be born as described in Isaiah 9:6 ( Mighty God " )! Thus John 1:1+14 is correct ( He is God-Man ) and God the Father backed it up in Heb.1:8 by calling His Only Begotten Son ( Jesus Christ ) " O God ", just after all His angels that were created THROUGH Him ( John 1:3/Col.1:16 ), WORSHIPED Him in Heb.1:6! Case closed! ------------- #4 - All scripture ( both OT & NT ) are needed to get the CORRECT answers! In OT, God said " US & Our " for the creation of Adam in Gen.1:26! Thus the NT in Matt.28:19 & 1 John5:7 tells us the " US & Our " are THREE Divine Person ( FSHS or Father Word & Holy Spirit )! Case closed! ------ #5 - FYI - nophysical Spirits have NO Image as an Image is Physical! Thus the Image of God was provided by God the Word of John 1:1 when He became " Flesh " ( Physical ) in John 1:14 as the God-Man then called Jesus Christ ( the Child mentioned in Isaiah 9:6)! Thus All human images are in Jesus Christ's Image as He is the Image as per Col.1:15! Our Image is in the God-Man's ( Jesus Christs image ) Case closed! --------------- #6 - FYI again God Spoke creation into EXISTANCE through God the Word ( Precarnate Jesus Christ ) of John 1:1 as per John 1:3 & Col.1:16! Case closed! --------- #7 - FYI again the Virgin is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 & Matt.1:34 and that Child is mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 and born of the Virgen Mary as per Luke 1:31-35! Case closed! --------------- #8 - The incarnation of God the Word in John 1:1+14 is who is called " Immanuel " in Isaiah 7:14 & Matt.1:22! Case closed! --------- #9 - Nope, in GOD's World that He created through God the Word of John 1:1 as per John 1:3 & Col.1:16- Case closed! ------ #10 - FYI again, Jeush Christ is BOTH God ( the Word ) and a Man! So yes as man He worshiped God His Father & Holy Spirit! Case closed on your Twisted view ( 2 Peter 3:16 )! All the scriptures on the same topic that I posted clearly rebukes that twisted view of yours as per 2 Tim.3:16 that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write! He ( as Saul of Tarsus ) was a Jew of Judaism like you till he met with the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus, where he learned the REAL Truth about who GOD is ( FSHS )! God had to become one of us in order to save His creation of mankind! Case closed!
The facts are Jesus was created in a womb, bled and died like a man, and has knees that will bow to God in the future. You can't escape that.;)
 
By changing the topic under discussion.
It was all part of the discussion.

That's because I'm not talking about that topic.
But I am and it was part of the discussion.

So, you take a heretic's word that he is a Trinitarian, but you won't take a Trinitarian's word on definitional aspects of the Trinity?
Who's to say you're not the heretic? In Jewish circles, you are.

Still trying to change the topic I see. I'm not justifying my position at all right now, in any way, shape or form. I'm just critiquing your previous argument. Maybe, you should stay on topic.
Maybe you should see everything being discussed is part of the discussion. You argued the possibility of a new Adam and yet Jesus doesn't even fit the mold. So, don't bring up a point that is DOA.

When someone asks for specifics, given them specifics.
I'm not going to repeat again what I've said. If you don't like the way the conversation is going, you can always stop.

God Bless
Likewise
 
Last edited:
By changing the topic under discussion.
It was all part of the discussion.

And? I wasn't talking about that; so, why are you bring up other topics as to move the conversation away from your divine impotence argument?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, you take a heretic's word that he is a Trinitarian, but you won't take a Trinitarian's word on definitional aspects of the Trinity?
Who's to say you're not the heretic? In Jewish circles, you are.

Sir, that you consider us heretical doesn't give you the right to bear false witness against those with whom you are debating. Trinitarians do not believe God has DNA. That's laughably outside of our entire worldview; so, why would you ever bring it up? Answer: because empty rhetorical tricks are easier than meaningful discussion. As I said before, other points your making are meaningful. To those, I made no comment because I'm not part of that discussion. All I'm trying to do right now is correct a bad argument you made.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Still trying to change the topic I see. I'm not justifying my position at all right now, in any way, shape or form. I'm just critiquing your previous argument. Maybe, you should stay on topic.
Maybe you should see everything being discussed is part of the discussion. You argued the possibility of a new Adam and yet Jesus doesn't even fit the mold. So, don't bring up a point that is DOA.

I couldn't care less about the topic you guys are discussing. Frankly, your arguments are meaningful, but not convincing to me. On the other hand, as long as you place more faith in the interpretations of you rabbis over what the text says, my words on these topics will not be convincing to you. So, I choose not to engage in this debate. I'm just pointing out that you stooped to disparaging the power of God as to reject the trinitarian view, and you should be called out on that.

With respect to the new Adam comment: I did not argue the possibility of a new Adam. I simply pointed out our position. Are you not able to tell the difference between an argument for a position and the stating of a position? FYI, I only stated our position that Jesus is a new Adam so that you could improve your arguments as to interact with our actual position.


DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
When someone asks for specifics, give them specifics.
I'm not going to repeat again what I've said. If you don't like the way the conversation is going, you can always stop.

Then don't make vague references to things that require me to guess you position while accusing me of being in error. Frankly, I've barely read any of this conversation. I just checked to see if you replied to our previous conversation, and I saw you make a truly silly comment. So, I made a very narrow comment on such. With respect to how the whole conversation is going, this is the Trinity thread. What you guys are arguing about is barely relevant to that topic. I not surprised those who rarely if ever interact with a Jew would not be well versed in debating with Jews. Perhaps, you would find better responses from those who are better prepared to argue such in a thread on Judaism. Maybe, you can read up on Christian whose expertise is found in Jewish studies. I'm not saying you would find their arguments convincing, but you would likely get more meaningful responses there as oppose to those whose only experience is found in debating Modalist and Arians who accept the NT as revelation.

God Bless
 
And? I wasn't talking about that; so, why are you bring up other topics as to move the conversation away from your divine impotence argument?
Because as I said, it was part of the discussion. Just because you don't like it or unable to defend your point, isn't my problem.

Lots of people take the fairy tale position of God being able to do the impossible. That idea falls apart when actions such as sinning, misjudgememt, logical contradictions, etc., come into play.

Sir, that you consider us heretical doesn't give you the right to bear false witness against those with whom you are debating.
I didn't say you held the DNA position, but since you asked regarding heretical beliefs, you fall into that camp from a Jewish perspective. Nothing false on that note.

Trinitarians do not believe God has DNA. That's laughably outside of our entire worldview; so, why would you ever bring it up?
I didn't. It was brought up by others in this forum and you jumped into the conversation.

Answer: because empty rhetorical tricks are easier than meaningful discussion. As I said before, other points your making are meaningful. To those, I made no comment because I'm not part of that discussion. All I'm trying to do right now is correct a bad argument you made.
I've made no bad arguments. So, you can correct someone else.

I couldn't care less about the topic you guys are discussing. Frankly, your arguments are meaningful, but not convincing to me. On the other hand, as long as you place more faith in the interpretations of you rabbis over what the text says, my words on these topics will not be convincing to you.
Rotfl... you're going off target. If you can't stick the topic, then don't bring it up. ;)

So, I choose not to engage in this debate. I'm just pointing out that you stooped to disparaging the power of God as to reject the trinitarian view, and you should be called out on that.
No, God has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm calling out the ridiculousness of that thinking.

With respect to the new Adam comment: I did not argue the possibility of a new Adam. I simply pointed out our position. Are you not able to tell the difference between an argument for a position and the stating of a position? FYI, I only stated our position that Jesus is a new Adam so that you could improve your arguments as to interact with our actual position.
So, you don't like that the new Adam arguments fall apart. Oh well.

Then don't make vague references to things that require me to guess you position while accusing me of being in error. Frankly, I've barely read any of this conversation. I just checked to see if you replied to our previous conversation, and I saw you make a truly silly comment. So, I made a very narrow comment on such. With respect to how the whole conversation is going, this is the Trinity thread. What you guys are arguing about is barely relevant to that topic. I not surprised those who rarely if ever interact with a Jew would not be well versed in debating with Jews. Perhaps, you would find better responses from those who are better prepared to argue such in a thread on Judaism. Maybe, you can read up on Christian whose expertise is found in Jewish studies. I'm not saying you would find their arguments convincing, but you would likely get more meaningful responses there as oppose to those whose only experience is found in debating Modalist and Arians who accept the NT as revelation.
So, you're not well versed enough to argue with a Jew. I get it. ;)

God Bless
Likewide
 
Sir, that you consider us heretical doesn't give you the right to bear false witness against those with whom you are debating. Trinitarians do not believe God has DNA. That's laughably outside of our entire worldview; so, why would you ever bring it up? Answer: because empty rhetorical tricks are easier than meaningful discussion. As I said before, other points your making are meaningful. To those, I made no comment because I'm not part of that discussion. All I'm trying to do right now is correct a bad argument you made.
The more I looked at your response, the more I find it ironic. You called out as heretics those that hold God has DNA, and yet most Christians hold, and I believe you do, that God incarnated and had Mary as a mother. How would your god not have human DNA? It seems like your talking out of both sides of your mouth.
 
The facts are Jesus was created in a womb, bled and died like a man, and has knees that will bow to God in the future. You can't escape that.;)
God is Spirit as per John 4:24 and nonphysical Spirits can NOT Die! Jesus is God-Man as per John 1:1+14! So FYI again the Fact is that God the Word of John 1:1 did NOT Die on the cross, and ONLY His body ( the Flesh of John 1:14 ) blead & died on the cross! You can't escape those Facts from these posted scriptures! Case closed!
 
God is Spirit as per John 4:24 and nonphysical Spirits can NOT Die! Jesus is God-Man as per John 1:1+14! So FYI again the Fact is that God the Word of John 1:1 did NOT Die on the cross, and ONLY His body ( the Flesh of John 1:14 ) blead & died on the cross! You can't escape those Facts from these posted scriptures! Case closed!
Jesus died and that is a fact.

The only person involved in creation was the Father who spoke and it was. Jesus was formed in the womb.
 
“Now the Lord is God, not of the dead, but of the living; for to God all of them are alive.” Luke 20:38
In what way are they alive?

If it is eternal, how can it be? Rather eternal life replicates itself:

"My people have committed two sins:
They have forsaken me,
the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns,
broken cisterns that cannot hold water." Jer 2:13

"Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
because they have forsaken the Lord,
the spring of living water." Jer 17:13
Ok, I don't have an issue with God being the Living God.

The law brings death, the spirit brings life.

Rom 7:5
"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

Rom 8:2
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.:"
No, sin brings death. If you want life, keep the commandments.

Don't be absurd
Check your own gospels. ;)

As the law /authorities required.
As God requires. It points to sin on a personal note.

Matthew 23:24, 'Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel'."

The elites of the Jews are well known for playing at sophistry with the word of God. As Jesus said, it will only redound to their damnation.
Rotfl... I understand why you can't reply to the specific examples given. ;)

Nope. The law required matters be brought before judges, and as no-one had appointed Jesus a criminal judge, then he had no power to pronounce guilt. Deuteronomy 16:18-20
Then he had no right to say anything. ;) He should have pointed the people to a real judge.

Heaven is the throne of God.
And earth His footstool.

Because you're too busy playing the sophist in respect of the scriptures, and not willing to understand God's plan of salavation.
Just because I understand the Tanakh the way you do, doesn't mean I don't understand God's plan.

Micah 6;6-8
With what shall I come before the LORD when I bow before the God on high? Should I come to Him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?
Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

It's a pretty simple plan.

On earth God can do most things, but he can't contradict his own character or law.
You were shown to be wrong with the exaggerated "God can do all". Just admit to it that you didn't consider all points.
 
Jesus died and that is a fact.

The only person involved in creation was the Father who spoke and it was. Jesus was formed in the womb.
FYI again ONLY His Flesh body ( of John 1:14 ) died on the cross and NOT His Spirit ( God the Word of John 1:1 )! So there' the Fact! Immortal God the Word of John 1:1 was NOT formed in Mary's womb in John 1:14! Only His Mortal " Flesh " ( body ) was formed in Mary's womb and that is ONLY what died on the cross! Also God the Father did NOT speak Jesus' flesh being formed in Mary's womb! God the Holy Spirit came upon ( that's not speaking, Jewjitzu ) her as per Matt.1:20 & Luke 1:32-35 and the Power ( that's not speaking either Jewjitzu ) of the most High God ( God the Father ) provided the necessary male DNA ( " Y " Chromosome ) for God the Holy Spirit to place in Mary's ( " X " chromosome ) egg in her womb to form that flesh body of God the Word of John 1:1+14! All three Divine persons ( FSHS of Matt.28:19 and Father, Word & Holy Ghost of 1 John 5:7 in KJV of Bible ) are involved in creation of man as GOD said " US & OUR " in Gen.1:26! Case closed!
 
FYI again ONLY His Flesh body ( of John 1:14 ) died on the cross and NOT His Spirit ( God the Word of John 1:1 )! So there' the Fact! Immortal God the Word of John 1:1 was NOT formed in Mary's womb in John 1:14! Only His Mortal " Flesh " ( body ) was formed in Mary's womb and that is ONLY what died on the cross! Also God the Father did NOT speak Jesus' flesh being formed in Mary's womb! God the Holy Spirit came upon ( that's not speaking, Jewjitzu ) her as per Matt.1:20 & Luke 1:32-35 and the Power ( that's not speaking either Jewjitzu ) of the most High God ( God the Father ) provided the necessary male DNA ( " Y " Chromosome ) for God the Holy Spirit to place in Mary's ( " X " chromosome ) egg in her womb to form that flesh body of God the Word of John 1:1+14! All three Divine persons ( FSHS of Matt.28:19 and Father, Word & Holy Ghost of 1 John 5:7 in KJV of Bible ) are involved in creation of man as GOD said " US & OUR " in Gen.1:26! Case closed!
You do know that the backdrop for this, Isaiah 7, doesn't support any of this? And you do know that the Father is specifically called out as Creator and God in Tanakh, i.e., Deut 32:6. Jesus flat out died which contradicts anything related to the living God.

You do know that women retain part of their father's DNA in theirs as well? And you do know that overshadowed doesn't mean impregnate in the NT?

Gen 1:26 merely speaks of God speaking to nature in creating mankind. In your thinking above, you'd have gods involved in creation, which I don't think you want to admit to. ;)

Context determines the meaning of words and Elo-him is definitely singular in Genesis 1:26-27. Have you heard of Dr. Michael Heiser from Logos bible software? Check out what he has to say about the morphology of elohim and how context determines the meaning.

...
As noted above, elohim is morphologically plural. Morphology refers to the "shape" or construction of a word - its form. As far as meaning, though, elohim can be either singular or plural depending on context. As anyone who has taken a language can testify, meaning is determined by context, not by a list of glosses in a dictionary (which are only OPTIONS – the translator must look to context for accuracy).
More specifically, the meaning of any occurrence of elohim must be discerned in three ways:

A. Grammatical indications elsewhere in the text that help to determine if a singular or plural meaning is meant.
B. Grammatical rules in Hebrew that are true in the language as a whole.
C. Historical / Logical context.

To illustrate, consider words in English such as:
"deer", "sheep", "fish" - the point is you need other words to help you tell if one or more than one of these animals is meant. Sometimes these other words are verbs that help you tell. Compare the two examples::

1) "The sheep is lost" - the word "is" is a singular verb (It goes with a singular subject; one wouldn't say, for example, "I are lost" - you would use a verb that goes with the singular subject ("I am lost").

2) "The sheep are lost" - the word "are" is a plural verb (again, another word next to our noun "sheep" tells us in this case that plural sheep are meant.

All of this is just basic grammar - and every language has grammar. Biblical Hebrew has its own ways of telling us if elohim means ONE person or many gods. It matches the noun elohim to singular or plural verbs, or with singular or plural pronouns (to use "sheep" again as an example: "Those sheep are white". [Or using YHWH with Elo-him since YHWH is a singular proper noun - my insertion] ). The word "those" is what's called a demonstrative pronoun - it automatically tells us that sheep in this sentence is meant to be understood as a plural.
 
Last edited:
And you do know that overshadowed doesn't mean impregnate in the NT?
the word overshadow, it's the Greek word G1982 ἐπισκιάζω episkiazo (ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to cast a shade upon
2. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy
3. (figuratively) to invest with preternatural influence

take note of the 3rd. reference. "to invest with preternatural influence", what do preternatural means. It means, "out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal". the meaning here, not in the natural way of conception between a man and a women. this body as I have said, God conceived or God made, and “formed” in Mary’s womb.

for the word beget, or conceive is another word for impregnate. scripture, Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

so Jewjitzu, you're reproved and corrected.

My source for the definition is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

PICJAG, 101G.
 
FYI again ONLY His Flesh body ( of John 1:14 ) died on the cross and NOT His Spirit ( God the Word of John 1:1 )! So there' the Fact! Immortal God the Word of John 1:1 was NOT formed in Mary's womb in John 1:14! Only His Mortal " Flesh " ( body ) was formed in Mary's womb and that is ONLY what died on the cross! Also God the Father did NOT speak Jesus' flesh being formed in Mary's womb! God the Holy Spirit came upon
Rod.ney. Come to the HEAD of the Class, on point and correct.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
the word overshadow, it's the Greek word G1982 ἐπισκιάζω episkiazo (ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to cast a shade upon
2. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy
3. (figuratively) to invest with preternatural influence

take note of the 3rd. reference. "to invest with preternatural influence", what do preternatural means. It means, "out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal". the meaning here, not in the natural way of conception between a man and a women. this body as I have said, God conceived or God made, and “formed” in Mary’s womb.

for the word beget, or conceive is another word for impregnate. scripture, Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

so Jewjitzu, you're reproved and corrected.

My source for the definition is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

PICJAG, 101G.
Nowhere does it mean impregnated, even in your definitions.

Rotfl...
 
it do you're reproved again,
Verb
To beget or conceive (offspring)

LOL, LOL, LOL,

PICJAG, 101G.
Rotfl... overshadow wasn't on the list.

The context is impregnation under the spirit of holiness, the commandment of marriage.
 
And? I wasn't talking about that; so, why are you bring up other topics as to move the conversation away from your divine impotence argument?
Because as I said, it was part of the discussion. Just because you don't like it or unable to defend your point, isn't my problem.

Lots of people take the fairy tale position of God being able to do the impossible. That idea falls apart when actions such as sinning, misjudgememt, logical contradictions, etc., come into play.

I've now told you countless times the limited nature of my response. I'm now just ignoring these rabbit trails.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sir, that you consider us heretical doesn't give you the right to bear false witness against those with whom you are debating.
I didn't say you held the DNA position, but since you asked regarding heretical beliefs, you fall into that camp from a Jewish perspective. Nothing false on that note.

You responding to Rod.ney said:
Thus God sent an angel to Joseph to tell him to still marry Mary because the Child ( Jesus Christ ) was not caused by a human male, but by God Himself as the Father as per Matt.1:20 & Luke 1:31-35! Case closed!
No physical DNA from God, so you fail. There's no mention of impregnation by God above. Overshadowed doesn't mean pregnancy. That's ridiculous.

Did Rodney say he held to God having DNA? Or are you just making accusations?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Answer: because empty rhetorical tricks are easier than meaningful discussion. As I said before, other points your making are meaningful. To those, I made no comment because I'm not part of that discussion. All I'm trying to do right now is correct a bad argument you made.
I've made no bad arguments. So, you can correct someone else.

Arrogance refusing correction.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, I choose not to engage in this debate. I'm just pointing out that you stooped to disparaging the power of God as to reject the trinitarian view, and you should be called out on that.
No, God has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm calling out the ridiculousness of that thinking.

One expressing his close-mindedness.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
With respect to the new Adam comment: I did not argue the possibility of a new Adam. I simply pointed out our position. Are you not able to tell the difference between an argument for a position and the stating of a position? FYI, I only stated our position that Jesus is a new Adam so that you could improve your arguments as to interact with our actual position.
So, you don't like that the new Adam arguments fall apart. Oh well.

Wow, you are that close-minded?

Sir, that you consider us heretical doesn't give you the right to bear false witness against those with whom you are debating. Trinitarians do not believe God has DNA. That's laughably outside of our entire worldview; so, why would you ever bring it up? Answer: because empty rhetorical tricks are easier than meaningful discussion. As I said before, other points your making are meaningful. To those, I made no comment because I'm not part of that discussion. All I'm trying to do right now is correct a bad argument you made.
The more I looked at your response, the more I find it ironic. You called out as heretics those that hold God has DNA, and yet most Christians hold, and I believe you do, that God incarnated and had Mary as a mother. How would your god not have human DNA? It seems like your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Sir, the above is an expression of your ignorance of Trinitarianism. Nothing more, nothing less. Moving on.

God Bless
 
I've now told you countless times the limited nature of my response. I'm now just ignoring these rabbit trails.

You responding to Rod.ney said:

Did Rodney say he held to God having DNA? Or are you just making accusations?

Arrogance refusing correction.

One expressing his close-mindedness.

Wow, you are that close-minded?

Sir, the above is an expression of your ignorance of Trinitarianism. Nothing more, nothing less. Moving on.
Then move on. I guess the new Adam didn't work out for you, and the incarnation never happened. Se la vi. ;)

God Bless
He has.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top