"genuine faith"

[Newbirth]

Scripture says Jesus truthfully made himself equal to God in John 10.

That would make two equal Gods . Which is proof that you are not thinking.

How do we know?

You don't

The correction by Jesus has two categories. In the first category are the ones to whom the word of God came and in the second category is the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, that is, the Son.

How does that help your position? God sent his son. Not another equal God. You said Jesus made himself equal to God

“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Joh 10:35-36, KJVA)

As the reply of Jesus made clear, the unbelievers didn't misunderstand His words, but they did misunderstand it to be blasphemy. See above.

You are not making any sense . They did not misunderstand his words but they misynderstood the same words?

The Scriptures and the testimony of Jesus in Scripture proclaim His deity repeatedly to those familiar with the Scriptures, the TANAKH or OT. John 10 and many other examples have been given, but since there are plenty more here is another for you to look up and verify for yourself.

The testimony of Jesus is that he is the son of God.

What is the context when Jesus said that He is the light of the world? What time of year was it and what was being observed or celebrated?

Stop trying to change the topic

If this is another question in which you seek only a wooden literalistic expression of Jesus being God then you will find one in John 13. A person might overlook it if he doesn't know the purported ineffable name and that it is only the LORD God who knows the beginning from the end, see Isaiah 45 and 46.

I am not interested in your opinion. Jesus already testified that he is the son of God. Are you going to make Jesus his father now?

After washing the feet of the disciples He then spoke of the one who will betray Him and says, “From this time I tell you before it happens, that when it happens you may believe that I AM.” (Joh 13:19, LITV)

19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Why did you omit vs 20? Who sent Jesus?

He is the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, that is, He is the Son. See John 10:35-36 above. A person could also reference John 5:26:27 in which it is stated that He receives various gifts from the Father because He us the Son of Man.

Therefore he is not God.

He is the one the whom Father sanctified and sent into the world, that is, He is the Son. See John 10:35-36 above. A person could also reference John 5:26:27 in which it is stated that He receives various gifts from the Father because He us the Son of Man.

Therefore he is not God.

He is the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, that is, He is the Son. See John 10:35-36 above. A person could also reference John 5:26:27 in which it is stated that He receives various gifts from the Father because He us the Son of Man.

Therefore he is not God.

He is the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, that is, He is the Son. See John 10:35-36 above. A person could also reference John 5:26:27 in which it is stated that He receives various gifts from the Father because He us the Son of Man.

Therefore he is not God.

All you had to do was look above in the post to which you replied because they were cited there.

"Why are you again taking Scripture and my words out of context? Have I not posted Matthew 28:18-19, Matthew, 1:21, and others prior to this reply of yours?"
See post #285
​

Those citations have also previously been posted in this discussion in their fully expanded form.

None of them says Jesus is God. What are you trying to prove? If you intend to prove that Jesus is God the least you can do is post a passage where Jesus said "I am God". Can you do that?

 

[BJ Bear]

Did God make Adam who was flesh from dust? If incarnate means made flesh then Adam was incarnate.
Genesis 2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Unlike the Word that in the beginning was with God, and was God, Adam is a created being who was not there in the beginning. Adam was created through the Word, through Jesus, just as Scripture says. The Scriptures for this were posted previously.

Where is the passage to echo test.

The sinfulness of all men was attested to by Jesus when He used the indefinite pronoun, "tis," translated as, "man," in John 3:5 of the KJV.

The solution for sinful men is to be born of God, or born from above, in baptism. see the context of John 1 through 3. (Something that was already covered in the discussion.)

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Joh 3:5, KJVA)

Where is your passage bro? Don't try to pass off your nonsense as scriptural rules without the scripture to echo test it.

You previously alluded to one, the passage about testing the spirits. Another is, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2Ti 3:16, KJVA)

I am not interested in your BS opinions. Post scriptures that can be echo tested.

If you were more familiar with Scripture then you would realize that a summary paraphrase 2 Timothy 3:16 is not BS. See above to see what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually says.

 

[Newbirth]

Of course you are taking Scripture out of context. The command in Matthew to the disciples is to make disciples of all peoples by baptizing them in the name (rather than names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And teach them all that He has commanded then. See Matthew 28:19.

And I proved to you that the apostles did no such thing.

In the Acts 2 passage which you cite Christ is being proclaimed, but the actual baptism is not yet being administered. A person can know this from the context because it continues, “40. And with many other words he earnestly testified and exhorted, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. 41. Then those who gladly welcomed his words were baptized. And about three thousand souls were added that day.” (Act 2:40-41, LITV)

So what is your point? You think he is telling them one thing then he is going to do something else? That would make him a liar.

The angel who came to Joseph was affirming the words of the LORD God through the prophet in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 along with assigning a cause, that is, because Jesus will save His people from their sin. For your convenience, here are the passages from Isaiah and Mathew which includes the reference to Isaiah 7:14.

“For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6, LITV)

“20. And as he was thinking about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord was seen by him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that in her is fathered by the Holy Spirit. 21. And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. 22. And all this happened so that might be fulfilled that spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23. "Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us). Isa. 7:14” (Mat 1:20-23, LITV)

Nothing in those passages says Jesus is God. Do you think Emmanuel means Jesus is God? So you think Jesus is his own father? You are funny.

 

[Newbirth]

Unlike the Word that in the beginning was with God, and was God, Adam is a created being who was not there in the beginning. Adam was created through the Word, through Jesus, just as Scripture says. The Scriptures for this were posted previously.

Jesus is referred to as the last Adam. Both the first Adam and the last Adam were made.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The sinfulness of all men was attested to by Jesus when He used the indefinite pronoun, "tis," translated as, "man," in John 3:5 of the KJV.

The solution for sinful men is to be born of God, or born from above, in baptism. see the context of John 1 through 3. (Something that was already covered in the discussion.)

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Joh 3:5, KJVA)

Nothing here proves that jesus is God.

You previously alluded to one, the passage about testing the spirits. Another is, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2Ti 3:16, KJVA)

And you have been reproved by the scripture. Jesus is the son of god ,he is not god since god is his father.

If you were more familiar with Scripture then you would realize that a summary paraphrase 2 Timothy 3:16 is not BS. See above to see what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually says.

Your summary is BS. You are denying that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah the son of God. You are saying the father is the son.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 

[BJ Bear]

PART 1

I've been having trouble posting so the reply is broken into parts.

You mean
John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is where the rubber hits the road and the reason I have been emphasizing what Scripture says to all men, proclaiming the faith to all men, rather than write about an unmoored faith, an abstract faith, which can be interpreted according to a man's fancy or Imagination.

John 3:16 is indeed a summary of the gospel to those who believe what John wrote. However, to those twist and deny what John wrote in the first three chapters they turn it into something other than a summary of the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, to and for you.

Doesn't scripture already say what it means?

Yes it does, but to those who don't understand it or who have learned to misinterpret the fix is to be Scripturally catechized, taught to echo what Scripture says.

Based on whose rule? Luke 12:
11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

This is where the rubber hits the road and the reason I have been emphasizing what Scripture says to all men, proclaiming the faith to all men, rather than write about an unmoored faith, an abstract faith, which can be interpreted according to a man's fancy or Imagination.

John 3:16 is indeed a summary of the gospel to those who believe what John wrote. However, to those twist and deny what John wrote in the first three chapters they turn it into something other than a summary of the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, to and for you.

Doesn't scripture already say what it means?

Yes it does, but to those who don't understand it or who have learned to misinterpret the fix is to be Scripturally catechized, taught to echo what Scripture says.

I'm an adult convert to Christianity and indiscriminately attended different churches. Unfortunately, different churches had different claims and doctrines.

While I was trying to figure out which end is up regarding the churches and doctrines I ran into some Lutherans. My questions usually started with, "I heard," or, "I read." A Lutheran pastor put me out of my questioning mode by telling me, "It isn't what the guys on the radio or tv say it is. It isn't what the books say it is. It isn't what I say it is," and while looking up at me over his glasses and gently poking me in the belly he said, " It isn't even what you say it is. I want you to go home, read the Bible, and come back and tell me what it says.

That was great advice and it wasn't long after taking it and comparing what I was hearing and reading to what Scripture says that I stopped listening to the radio/tv and stopped reading other books.

Later another Lutheran pastor gave me another bit of good advice. He told me you can't know what Scripture means until you know what it says. The way to learn what Scripture says and means is to read a section of Scripture and ask yourself, "What does it mean?"

If what you think it means is different from what it says then go back and read it five more times and then ask yourself, "What does this mean?" If it is different from what it says then repeat the process until what I think it means matches what it says.

I don't have a father son God. I have on God who is the father. He has a son named Jesus.

That is because you don't believe what John and the rest of the Scriptures have to say about the one God according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given.

The true faith is outside of us. It is revealed, given to us in the word alone, the word with the water (baptism), and the word with the bread and wine (Christ's body and blood). Some people believe it and receive it with joy through faith and others do not.
Those are trinitarian Gods not mine.

The one who has the Son has the Father. The one who does not have the Son does not have the Father. 1 John.

 

[BJ Bear]

PART 2

Those are trinitarian Gods not mine.

The one who has the Son has the Father. The one who does not have the Son does not have the Father. 1 John.

by whom? Scriptures do not say or mean Jesus is God,or God is a trinity, which is what you teach.

You have been given numerous examples of Jesus being proclaimed God in the Scriptures, but so far you have chosen to deny them. That is on you.



Btw, if you check out the Nicene Creed sometime you will find that the word trinity and any of it's derivatives are not there. When you complain about the word trinity or one of it's derivatives you're complaining about a theological shorthand term rather than the Scriptural witness it is recognized to represent in a single term.

You just said echo what the scripture say...Where does the scripture say ...Jesus ,God incarnate? You should quote the passage you are echoing...Because that echo is not sounding an an echo from the scriptures.

That has been done multiple times in the discussion. Again, read John 1.

Show the echo from scripture for that garbage that you just spewed...

Are you kidding? How many times has Matthew 28:18-19 been referenced or alluded to in this thread? It is baptize in the name..., rather than baptize in the names ..

Again the scripture that you are citing does not echo what you are saying.

Here is a simple definition of incarnate from dictionary-dot-com.

incarnate:

adjective

embodied in flesh; given a bodily, especially a human, form:a devil incarnate.

I am using your trinitarian lingo...taken directly from your Athanasian creed.

No, you are not. You can find the text of the Athanasian Creed here. There is no use of the indefinite pronoun with the word God as you have posted.

Bro you said echo.Don't try to sell me your opinion. Just echo the scripture.

You have repeatedly denied what Matthew 28:18-19 says in this regard so a few explanatory words are necessary.

If you have a problem with anything I said just pass it through the echo test. I am not interested in your opinion.

Passing your words and the words of your co-religionist through the echo test is how it was determined that you were using words in an alien manner. That is why simple definitions of some words have been posted.

Again don't give me your opinion just give the scripture I posted the echo test...

You have been given the text, Matthew 28:18-19, repeatedly but you have chosen to deny it based on an unconventional understanding of the word name. Posting a simple definition from a dictionary is intended to show you the conventional use of the word in order to better understand the text

Where is the echo test site your passage so it can be echo tested.

Matthew 28:18-19 should be in your Bible. If it is not then you can look it up at biblegateway-dot-com.

Echo test please...

It was given in the post to which you replied. Again, read John 1.

Very good your comment passed the echo test. Nowhere does it say Jesus is God. In fact you can glean from the passage that Jesus has a Father. I can't recall God having a father in the scriptures, can you? In fact the echo test of verses prior proves that Jesus' father is the only true God.
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

That is again a misunderstanding of the text. The Father isn't the Father from old, or the everlasting Father apart from the Son. The glory of which Jesus speaks is the common glory He had with the Father before the creation was, before the Kosmos was. It is as John said in chapter 1,

“1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (Joh 1:1-5, KJVA)

Also, please note verse four and then see John 5:25-27. In that way a person can better understand the statement of Jesus in John 5:26-27. In the beginning, before anything created was, in Him was life, 1:4. It is only because He is the Son of Man that he receives gifts, see John 5:26-27.

 

[BJ Bear]

There is no mention of a Lord God incarnate in the scripture therefore you are not a truth teller. Seems like you are a son of hell.

You've got backwards. Jesus called those who denied his divinity and who denied that the one baptism from God saves the sons of hell who were making their proselytes twice the sons of hell that they are.

Btw, there is no law or command against using more than one name or description of God at a time.

 

[BJ Bear]

And you are one of the misled

So says someone who denies the divinity of Christ and that the one baptism from God which saves. It has already been demonstrated that those are two key doctrines of the sons of hell in Scripture.

 

[Newbirth]

PART 1

I've been having trouble posting so the reply is broken into parts.

This is where the rubber hits the road and the reason I have been emphasizing what Scripture says to all men, proclaiming the faith to all men, rather than write about an unmoored faith, an abstract faith, which can be interpreted according to a man's fancy or Imagination.

Your response shows that you have itching ears.

John 3:16 is indeed a summary of the gospel to those who believe what John wrote. However, to those twist and deny what John wrote in the first three chapters they turn it into something other than a summary of the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, to and for you.

Jn 3:16 is not a summary of anything. It is Jesus telly us why he came.

Yes it does, but to those who don't understand it or who have learned to misinterpret the fix is to be Scripturally catechized, taught to echo what Scripture says.

So why don't you echo what the scriptures say?

This is where the rubber hits the road and the reason I have been emphasizing what Scripture says to all men, proclaiming the faith to all men, rather than write about an unmoored faith, an abstract faith, which can be interpreted according to a man's fancy or Imagination.

and that is an echo of what scriptures?

John 3:16 is indeed a summary of the gospel to those who believe what John wrote. However, to those twist and deny what John wrote in the first three chapters they turn it into something other than a summary of the objective true good news of Jesus Christ to and for all men, to and for you.

This is an echo of what scriptures?

Doesn't scripture already say what it means?

Of course it does...You are telling me to echo the scriptures but you are not following your own advice.

Yes it does, but to those who don't understand it or who have learned to misinterpret the fix is to be Scripturally catechized, taught to echo what Scripture says.

So what scripture does this line echo?

I'm an adult convert to Christianity and indiscriminately attended different churches. Unfortunately, different churches had different claims and doctrines.

That is not echoing the scriptures. Echo this...
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

While I was trying to figure out which end is up regarding the churches and doctrines I ran into some Lutherans. My questions usually started with, "I heard," or, "I read." A Lutheran pastor put me out of my questioning mode by telling me, "It isn't what the guys on the radio or tv say it is. It isn't what the books say it is. It isn't what I say it is," and while looking up at me over his glasses and gently poking me in the belly he said, " It isn't even what you say it is. I want you to go home, read the Bible, and come back and tell me what it says.

You are funny What part of the scriptures is that echoing? You should Echo this...
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

That was great advice and it wasn't long after taking it and comparing what I was hearing and reading to what Scripture says that I stopped listening to the radio/tv and stopped reading other books.

So sincs you stopped listening to the Tv guys and reading other books.And you only follow the scriptures now, pleasr show me where the scriptures say that God is a trinity or Jesus is God. Only the scriptures no other books or other teachings.

Later another Lutheran pastor gave me another bit of good advice. He told me you can't know what Scripture means until you know what it says. The way to learn what Scripture says and means is to read a section of Scripture and ask yourself, "What does it mean?"

How could that be good advice when you didn't know what it meant in the first place? When you don't know something usually the worst person to ask what it means is yourself.

If what you think it means is different from what it says then go back and read it five more times and then ask yourself, "What does this mean?" If it is different from what it says then repeat the process until what I think it means matches what it says.

You think that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is wisdom?

That is because you don't believe what John and the rest of the Scriptures have to say about the one God according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given.

Now you are telling me what I believe. How do you know what I believe? In Jn 17 Jesus said the father is the only true God. I believe the father is the only true God. Does John say there is another true God? If so where?

The true faith is outside of us. It is revealed, given to us in the word alone, the word with the water (baptism), and the word with the bread and wine (Christ's body and blood). Some people believe it and receive it with joy through faith and others do not.

Those words do not echo the scriptures. You said the Lutheran told you to read the bible whree does the bible say...The true faith is outside of us?

Those are trinitarian Gods not mine.

You are a trinitarian are you not? You believe in the trinity...Don't you?

The one who has the Son has the Father. The one who does not have the Son does not have the Father. 1 John.

Yes there is a father God who sent his son Jesus. The father is God the son Jesus is not God.

 

[Newbirth]

PART 2
You have been given numerous examples of Jesus being proclaimed God in the Scriptures, but so far you have chosen to deny them. That is on you.

So how many Gods do you have? You have the father is God and Jesus is God. I count two Gods there. How many do you count?

Btw, if you check out the Nicene Creed sometime you will find that the word trinity and any of it's derivatives are not there.

Do you accept the Nicene creed as scriptures? I don't.

When you complain about the word trinity or one of it's derivatives you're complaining about a theological shorthand term rather than the Scriptural witness it is recognized to represent in a single term.

There is no scriptural witness relating to a trinity. YIt seems like you didn't take the Lutheran's advice

That has been done multiple times in the discussion. Again, read John 1.

You mean not echoing the scriptures? I said you should echo the scriptures as you said. Do you know what echo means?

Are you kidding? How many times has Matthew 28:18-19 been referenced or alluded to in this thread? It is baptize in the name..., rather than baptize in the names ..

Echo it sir ...don't add words to give it your meaning...

Here is a simple definition of incarnate from dictionary-dot-com.

incarnate:

adjective

embodied in flesh; given a bodily, especially a human, form:a devil incarnate.

So who was given a human form? You seem to be saying that someone gave God a human form. Who gave God a human form?

No, you are not. You can find the text of the Athanasian Creed here. There is no use of the indefinite pronoun with the word God as you have posted.

Are you telling me that you use the Athanasian creed to support your doctrine? Did you take the Lutheran's advice or not? That being said. Why does the Athanasian creed forbid you to say three Gods when they list three Gods?

You have repeatedly denied what Matthew 28:18-19 says in this regard so a few explanatory words are necessary.

I never denied what it says. I said none of the apostles did it

Passing your words and the words of your co-religionist through the echo test is how it was determined that you were using words in an alien manner. That is why simple definitions of some words have been posted.

It seems like you don't know what an echo is. You brought up echo.

You have been given the text, Matthew 28:18-19, repeatedly but you have chosen to deny it based on an unconventional understanding of the word name. Posting a simple definition from a dictionary is intended to show you the conventional use of the word in order to better understand the text

Matt 28:18-19 does not say anything about sharing a name. You are reading it into the text. You said echo the scriptures not add to it.

Matthew 28:18-19 should be in your Bible. If it is not then you can look it up at biblegateway-dot-com.

No matter where I read it from it still does not say anything about sharing names.

It was given in the post to which you replied. Again, read John 1.

No echo...just crickets

That is again a misunderstanding of the text. The Father isn't the Father from old, or the everlasting Father apart from the Son.

Are you serious? The father isn't the father of old? So how many fathers are you talking about ?

The glory of which Jesus speaks is the common glory He had with the Father before the creation was, before the Kosmos was. It is as John said in chapter 1,

Who cares clearly Jesus is not his father God

“1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (Joh 1:1-5, KJVA)

And you don't see a contradiction?

Also, please note verse four and then see John 5:25-27. In that way a person can better understand the statement of Jesus in John 5:26-27. In the beginning, before anything created was, in Him was life, 1:4. It is only because He is the Son of Man that he receives gifts, see John 5:26-27.

You are not making any sense...Jesus is a son not a father, sons are off springs of their fathers.

 

[Newbirth]

So says someone who denies the divinity of Christ

What do you mean by divinity? Do you mean Jesus is a God ? like his father is God?

and that the one baptism from God which saves.

We are baptized into the death of Christ. God did not die did he?
Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

It has already been demonstrated that those are two key doctrines of the sons of hell in Scripture.

What you teach are doctrine of hell. You teach Jesus is a God and that God died.

 

[Newbirth]

You've got backwards. Jesus called those who denied his divinity and who denied that the one baptism from God saves the sons of hell who were making their proselytes twice the sons of hell that they are.

what do you mean by divinity? You are yet to say what you think it means. Believers are baptized into the death of Christ. Jesus died God did not die.

Btw, there is no law or command against using more than one name or description of God at a time.

I never said there was. My point is there is only one God the father. Your claim is that there are three Gods that share the same one name.

 

[BJ Bear]

I never claimed any of those things...John wrote what Jesus said...17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

One or more of those things is necessarily true when the passage is used and abused in the manner you have done. You know, taking it out of context and twisting it in order to try and deny what another passage says.

Do you deny that Jesus said those words?

He said them according to His divinity in being the active agent in ascending to the Father rather than being a passive object in being ascended by the Father.

And He said that according to His divinity in consistently distinguishing His relationship to the Father from the relationship of all others to the Father.

Nothing. The passage proves that Jesus and his disciples are brethren...
Matthew 12:50

There you go again, taking a passage, Matthew 12:50, out of context in order to deny what another passage says.


How can you know this for sure? Ask yourself what is the immediate context of each passage. Obviously, Matthew wasn't writing of Christ's resurrection and ascension as in John 20.

Your objections are illogical at best.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

John 10:18

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

It does not nullify...
John 10:18

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

It wasn't presented as a nullification of John 10:18 because Jesus receives things from the Father because He is the son of man rather than He receives things from the Father because He is not the Son of God, see John 5:26-27.

No it does not, Jesus shows that he and his disciples are brethren...He said "go to my brethren"
Hebrews 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

There you go again, attempting nullify the clear meaning of a passage by taking another passage out of context to try and say that the first passage doesn't mean what it says.

The distinction is between the Lord's relationship to the Father from that of all others to the Father. Obviously, the relationship written of in Hebrews 2 is with regard to Jesus with brothers rather than that of a common relationship to the Father.
.
Remember, ,” “5. For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. the One having given Himself a ransom on behalf of all, the testimony to be given in its own time. (1Ti 2:5-6, LITV)

His brethren were already baptized he told them to wait for the HS...Your claims are not written in the scriptures...They fail the echo test...

Yes they were baptized and they had received the Spirit from Jesus prior to Pentecost, see John 20:22. What they were told to wait for was a particular manifestation of the Spirit.

Therefore Jesus has a God. Since there is only one God and jesus is not his own father then Jesus cannot be God.

There you go again, taking a passage out of context in order to try and say that another passage doesn't mean what it says according to it's immediate context.

The relationship between Jesus and God remains distinct from the relationship of all others to God. Jesus having a God because He is the Son of Man doesn't exclude Him from being God, the Word incarnate.

Then you are since you claim that Jesus is God and therefore not the Messiah.

That is an illogical and scripturally uninformed assertion because it is the Messiah who is named mighty God, Everlasting Father, etc., see the Isaiah references previously given.

You deny the father and the son by claiming the father is the son, therefore you are the anti christ

Nonsense. I neither claimed that the Father is the Son or that the Son is the Father. What I will claim because Scripture plainly says it is the one who has seen the Son has seen the Father, see John 14:9.

You deny them both in favor of a trinity...Your God is a trinity is he not?

The word trinity is just a shorthand term for the Scriptural witness regarding the one God. See the Nicene Creed in order to verify that the word trinity does not appear in it.

 

[Newbirth]

One or more of those things is necessarily true when the passage is used and abused in the manner you have done. You know, taking it out of context and twisting it in order to try and deny what another passage says.

I posted the passage as is...Did Jesus say he was ascending to his God ?Yes or No?.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[Newbirth]

He said them according to His divinity in being the active agent in ascending to the Father rather than being a passive object in being ascended by the Father.

it does not matter bro...The father is still his God

And He said that according to His divinity in consistently distinguishing His relationship to the Father from the relationship of all others to the Father.

It does not matter whatever you say God is still his father. You cannot change that. Jesus is seated at the right hand of his father.

 

[Newbirth]

There you go again, taking a passage, Matthew 12:50, out of context in order to deny what another passage says.

It says exactly what it means...50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Are we Jesus's brethren? yes or no?
Hebrews 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

How can you know this for sure? Ask yourself what is the immediate context of each passage. Obviously, Matthew wasn't writing of Christ's resurrection and ascension as in John 20.

It does not matter, believers are Jesus' brethren. Do you deny this?

Your objections are illogical at best.

No one cares about your opinion. If you have an argument to make then make it. Are believers Jesus' brethren? Yes or No?

 

[BJ Bear]

Are you daft? How could Jesus make himself God ? How could Jesus be equal to his father when he said "my father is greater than I"? God is the father of Jesus therefore God made Jesus. Did you go with your mom to make yourself?

As funny as that was to read, it seems that you are not aware that poiew is correctly translated as make. Here is the passage in the LITV. “The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (Joh 10:33, LITV)

Jesus made no distinctions in Ps 82...The word is elohim and it means mighty one.lllll

Jesus did make a distinction when Psalm 82 was applied to men born in the natural way and when it applied to Him.. You know, just like when it is used of the LORD God it is in a different context than when it is used of men born in the natural way.

The word is elohim meaning mighty one.

How do You know? The JPS 1999 translates it as, "divine beings," in Psalm 82:6, as, "God," in Exodus 1:20, etc. As always, when interpreting a passage the immediate context rules.

That is a contradiction. You cannot be with someone and be that someone. You cannot be with your father and be your father...

You and I and the rest of humanity cannot because we are humans who were born in the natural way. However, Scripture is revealing something something outside the creation, something which we would have no knowledge of or experience to understand if it were not revealed to all men in Scripture.

You seem to misunderstand that God the father sanctified Jesus his son, therefore Jesus cannot be God who is his father.

No, that is just your story told from the perspective of what you have learned or think you have learned from created things.

The Scriptural witness is uniformly against your imaginative attempt to dissolve or erase the distinctions in Scripture between the LORD Jesus and all other men who were born in the natural way or were created through Jesus .

Here is the Paul writing of Jesus, the last Adam. “The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven.” (1Cor 15:47, LITV)

el is from the word elohim it means mighty one. It is not a name . Eternal Father is not a name . YHWH is the only Name God gave, all other titles are given by men

You are back to using the word, "name," in an unconventional manner and imagining rules or laws about it to try and impose upon others. See the previously posted definition of the word, "name," so that you can avoid remaining in lockstep once again with the sons of hell.

“6. And answering, He said to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, hypocrites; as it has been written: "This people honors Me with the lips, but their heart is far away from Me; 7. and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Isa. 29:13” (Mar 7:6-7, LITV)

Are you saying that son is God being born? A father can give his child his name but that does not make the child the father. Your claim is nonsensical.

You are again reading Scripture in an out of context manner. Isaiah was led to reveal something about the coming Messiah, God incarnate, rather than something about a man or men born in the natural way.

God was never born a child. You should name your son BJ Bear and your son will be you. If you think your son is you maybe when he gets old enough you wouldn't have a problem with him having relations with his mom since you believe sons are their father.

That is just another illogical, out of context attempt to place your reasoning and imagination above what God has revealed or says in Scripture about the LORD, Jesus, from heaven.

 

[BJ Bear]

What writings of Moses? Where does it say Moses wrote it?

The Torah or Pentateuch are Hebrew and Greek designations, respectively, for the five books of Moses. Don't you know that Moses wrote of the incarnate LORD, Jesus?

Jesus told the unbelievers, “45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one accusing you, Moses, in whom you have hoped. 46. For if you were believing Moses, you would then believe Me; for that one wrote concerning Me. 47. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (Joh 5:45-47, LITV)

If you want more references to Moses then use a concordance or Bible study search engine

How could Moses be writing his thoughts? Was Moses there in Genesis? Gen 17:1 clears up your misunderstanding

That was your claim. Previously, you wrote:

"Who do you suppose wrote Genesis? Assuming it was Moses God had already revealed to him that his name is YHWH. Since Moses had no interaction with Eve, he would have written it as it was revealed to him. YHWh." In this post.​

Confusion is a common result when people use and abuse Scripture to tell and support an imaginative false story rather than read and understand Scripture according to it's God-given perfect immediate context.

Gen 17:1 shows YHWH to be the same Elohim...https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/17-1.htm.
The point is that Abraham did not know him by the name YHWH

So? Abram didn't write Genesis or any of the other books of Moses, and he didn't walk and talk with YHWH in the same way as did Adam and Eve, right?

What other direction?

If someone were to say that YHWH created the heavens and the earth it wouldn't exclude elohim from having created the heavens and the earth.

You are saying that YHWH is Jesus. The text does not say that YHWH is Jesus. Heb 1 is clear that God YHWH made the worlds by his Son Yeshua

We already went over the Hebrews passage. So long as a person understands the KJV, and those translations which follow it's translation tradition, translation of aiwn as worlds rather than ages to mean this world or creation and the world or creation to come then there is no problem.

“All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.” (Joh 1:3, LITV)

How does that help your position? The CJB renders it the same...
CJB
When Avram was 99 years old Adonai appeared to Avram and said to him, “I am El Shaddai [God Almighty]. Walk in my presence and be pure-hearted.

YHWH appeared to Abraham and said he is God Almighty.

In Ex 6:3
When he appeared to Moses he said...
CJB
I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai, although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai].

See above regarding Hebrews 1, Genesis 1, and John 1.

You deliberately missed Ex 6:3... What does your JPS say in Ex 6:3?

No, you just overlooked or ignored what I posted re. Exodus 6:3. Read it again, and by your own measure stop lying and being shameless.

Lying by omission is still lying.

That would mean that by your measure you are calling yourself a liar and shameless. See again the post to which you replied.

Lord is not a translation of YHWH

That is an illogical objection. Let's start with a simple definition of the word translation from dictionary-dot-com:
noun

1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

There is around a seven hundred year English tradition of translating it as LORD. You know, according to the Holy Spirit led Apostolic tradition of translating it as kurios.

Let's look at how illogical and obtuse the claim of yourself and your co-religionists is in this regard. There is a word, YHWH, in which a tradition arose of not pronouncing it. To accommodate that tradition when the reader came across it he pronounced it as Adonai.

So how is it that you and your co-religionists find it something to quibble about if English speaking Jews and other English speakers pronounce it as LORD? Is it because your leaders don't want you all to learn Hebrew and the other Biblical languages?

Yep and that is true unless you are calling Moses a liar and God a liar...Did you read EX 6:3?

Oh no! By your measure you are lying again and being shameless! Again, see the post to which you replied regarding Exodus 6:3.

Quote where I said or implied that they aren't definitive references to God. You are shameless.

Just look at the post that I am replying to. Above you were insisting that elohim means God, and in another recent post you were claiming that elohim means mighty ones without reference to any other meanings, and in still others you were claiming that Jesus did not make a distinction in applying elohim to those to whom the word of God came and the one whom God sanctified and sent into the world.

In short you are claiming and denying the same things regarding elohim and other names of God. I characterize that practice as making non definitive assertions.

Of course they did and of course you do...What name did the KJV give you? And what name do you call YHWH?

The KJV is a translation. In reading it the average person will learn that God is self-existent. That is why you haven't been able to demonstrate that the use of word LORD or another name of God in English is, "wrong," or that there is a law or commandment against using the word LORD or any other name of God.

Where does the bible say the scripture is God breathed? You keep making unsupported false claims.

??? “Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16, LITV)

I cited Ex 6:3 it appears that it does not exist in your version of the bible.

See above and the post to which you replied.

LORD is not a translation of YHWH. So why would it be adequate or accurate? That is like some one with a foreign language calling BJ Bear,Fool and saying it is an adequate and accurate translation

It would depend on the intended meaning of the word in the foreign language. I have no problem when people call me Bjorn, Baer, Oso, etc.

What did the Apostles and Evangelists translate to Greek?

With certainty there were some OT references translated into Greek.

How do you know that the original language of the epistle was Greek? Is eloi eloi lama sabachthani Greek?

There is a substantial body of earliest evidence that is in Greek and not Venutian or Martian and not in another language.

Yes and no, it is a transliteration of Aramaic characters and into Greek characters. (An Aramaic speaking person who didn't at least know Greek characters would not understand it.)

Again you are assuming that Matthew actually wrote it and did so in Greek. Was the apostle Matthew a Greek?

You quoted Mark, not Matthew.

There is no earlier or contemporary existing evidence to the contrary. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who can communicate in two or more languages.

It is not Greek is it?

Since it was transliterated and translated into Greek it wouldn't make a substantive difference. A Greek speaker could say the words in either language and those Greek speakers familiar with Scripture would understand it.

Still no mention of baptized Christians. You seem to have an understanding problem.

The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. A change in language doesn't signal a change in identity or religion.

“And finding him, he brought him to Antioch. And it happened that many of them were gathered to them in the church a whole year. And they taught a considerable crowd. And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.” (Act 11:26, LITV)

 

[Newbirth]

As funny as that was to read, it seems that you are not aware that poiew is correctly translated as make. Here is the passage in the LITV. “The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (Joh 10:33, LITV)

You didn't answer the question dummy. How did Jesus make himself God?

 

[Newbirth]

Jesus did make a distinction when Psalm 82 was applied to men born in the natural way and when it applied to Him.. You know, just like when it is used of the LORD God it is in a different context than when it is used of men born in the natural way.

Jesus was born the natural way. What is your problem?