"genuine faith"

[Newbirth]

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.

So you are saying that everyone else was wrong until JPS 1999 came along? According to JPS 1999 what does divine beings mean? Does it mean God beings?
How does JPs 1999 translate Judges 8:33?

I suppose you have many divine beings/ God beings and many Gods.

 

[Newbirth]

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

No it is what the text says...

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 .

Jesus was born the natural way. To put it bluntly Jesus came through his mother's vagina the same as every other man except Adam. Can you prove otherwise?

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)

Paul was referring to two men not a man and a God. Do you see the second man?
You took that line out of context...
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Jesus was reborn at his baptism being filled with the HS. At his resurrection he was made a quickening spirit. believers who are reborn receive the HS and at their resurrection they become alive in the spirit. The same as Jesus...49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
You keep on proving that Jesus is not god and your doctrine is nonsense.

 

[Newbirth]

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.

Then prove that God was born a child. Since you are claiming that it is my imagination show me where God was born a child.

 

[Newbirth]

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?

no mention of incarnate

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

Did Jesus come through his mother's vagina? Yes or No?

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.

It is not my fault that you are confused. God said he did not reveal himself as YHWH before .Ex 6:3
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].

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?

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].

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.

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].

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)

So where does it say YHWH is Jesus? Someone created the world by Jesus. Who is the someone?

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

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].

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.

This is Ex 6:3
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].
God did not make himself known by that name therefore they did not know him by that name.

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

nope...
This is Ex 6:3
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].
God did not make himself known by that name therefore they did not know him by that name.

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.

So the the thing must be the same thing not something else.

There is around a seven hundred year English tradition of translating it as LORD.

Translating what as LORD? First of all how do you translate someone's name ? If you change a person's name they wouldn't know when you are calling them would they?

You know, according to the Holy Spirit led Apostolic tradition of translating it as kurios.

You are the true example of dumb. Is kurios a name?

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.

Poor excuse... It is not just a word it is the NAME of Almighty God and it was replaced with Adonai.

 

[Newbirth]

To accommodate that tradition when the reader came across it he pronounced it as Adonai.

Which if the translators had any respect they would have used the name 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?

Are you that dumb ? how does one pronounce Adonai as LORD. Do you actually see capital letters when you speak?

Is it because your leaders don't want you all to learn Hebrew and the other Biblical languages?

Who cares what the motive was?

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

It says they did not know him by the name YHWH. I said they did not know him by the name YHWH...explain the lie.

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.

Where did I insist Elohim means God? If you look at a lexicon you would see where translators deliberately used the word God to replace Elohim. The term Elohim is generic and used to identify any person of power. it was used to identify Moses and Baal.

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.

No I am not. You simply lack understanding.

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.

babble

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

To those who have understanding. Which you lack

See above and the post to which you replied.

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.

How about Fool?

With certainty there were some OT references translated into 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.)

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.

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.

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)

I just led you to water but you refuse to drink. In a multitude of water the fool is thirsty.

 

[BJ Bear]

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

That response is proof that it is not a Scripturally informed response.

Once again the thieves and robbers, the unbelievers, are again out to kill Jesus, the incarnate LORD, because He healed a man, told him to pick up his cot on a sabbath day, and called God His own Father. John 5:1-17.

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (Joh 5:18, KJVA)

The response of Jesus is found throughout the rest of chapter five so here is a main point to consider, especially considering the context in which it is found. “21. For even as the Father raises the dead, and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whomever He wills. 22. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23. so that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. The one not honoring the Son does not honor the Father who has sent Him. 24. Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes the One who has sent Me, has everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (Joh 5:21-24, LITV)

So the sinless one, the Son, who shared with the Father the glory of the one God prior to the creation of anything that has been created, John 17, as God incarnate is still to be honored with the same honor as the Father.

You don't

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

God sent his Son, the Word that was with God, and was God, and through whom all things were created. That is why Jesus did not deny the claim of the unbelievers that He is equal to God, the Father.

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

You have misread Scripture and what I posted. It is one thing to understand that Jesus is the Son of God in a way that all other men are not. And it is another thing to call it blasphemy that Jesus says He is the Son of God in that unique way.

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

Which means that being God He shares the one glory and honor of God, see John 17 and John 5 (above).

Stop trying to change the topic

That is another Scripturally uninformed reply because demonstrating the deity of Christ, the incarnate LORD, for all men, for you, is the genuine faith presented and delivered in the Scriptures.

What you were asked to do was to verify the truth of the interpretive key given by Jesus when He opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, the TANAKH or OT. See Luke 24:44ff and you too will learn that the Scriptures testify of Him.

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?

Directing you to Scripture according to it's content and immediate context isn't expressing an opinion.

On the other hand, denying what Scripture plainly says, even in the wooden literalistic manner you seem to be looking for, because of your preconceived misinterpretation of Scripture is illogical and a gross error.

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?

Because it isn't part of the wooden literalistic answer you were looking for, and according to the context of the passage and the rest of Scripture it doesn't alter the assertion of Jesus that He is God, He is I AM.

Therefore he is not God.

Therefore he is not God.

Therefore he is not God.

Therefore he is not God.

All of your objections to the deity of Christ are Scripturally uninformed and obtuse. Here's how you can know that they are Scripturally uninformed and obtuse.

Starting in Genesis 1, it was God, elohim, who created the heavens and the earth or all things.

It was God, elohim, who said let us make man in our image, in our likeness Genesis 1:26.

It was the LORD, YHWH, who said let us go down and confuse their language, Genesis 11:6-7.

Scripture repeatedly identifies who constitutes the us of the one LORD God. But someone has convinced you that God's word can't be trusted as it is given in it's immediate context so you must impose your reasoning which you have accumulated from the creation upon the Creator and His revelation.

Qaa

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?

That is an illogical and Scripturally uninformed conclusion and objection. Who sent Moses to the Israelites? “And God [elohim] said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, you shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.” (Exo 3:14, LITV) See what was quoted of Jesus in the post to which you replied.

 

[BJ Bear]

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

Nonsense. You only proved once again that the immediate context of Scripture is irrelevant to your method of interpretation. You quoted words in a letter to previously baptized Christians about what occurs in baptism as if it were the administration of baptism to an unbaptized person.

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 point is that the command to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit was to the already baptized disciples not to the unbaptized.

When Peter tells those mockers whose hearts had been pricked, "be baptized," the former mockers know they are passive in baptism and rely on the previously baptized disciples of Christ to obey the command of the risen LORD in this regard. And they were baptized by the previously baptized disciples of Christ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Think a minute about the command to the body of Christ, the baptized disciples of Christ, in Matthew 28. And remember that with many other words Peter exhorted those at Pentecost who were later baptized.

Those many other words would have been in accordance with making disciples by baptizing and teaching them to observe all that the risen LORD, Jesus, had commanded.

Your out of context interpretation would have the body of Christ, previously baptized disciples of Christ, not observing what the risen LORD had commanded them with regard to the administration of baptism and not observing with regard to teaching those being baptized all that the LORD had commanded them.

Your false interpretation would make the Apostles the sons of hell, people who denied the deity of Christ and that the one baptism from God saves.

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.

Of course those passages teach Jesus is the Son of God, God.

Let's look at Matthew 1 a little closer because you brought up Emmanuel. Verse 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.” (Mat 1:20, LITV) Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, John 1.

Verse 21, “And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” (Mat 1:21, LITV) Jesus told the sons of hell, the unbelievers that if they don't believe Him then believe on the works that He does from the Father, “37. If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me. 38. But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may perceive and may believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (Joh 10:37-38, LITV)

Verses 22-23, “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 1:22-23, LITV)

So to sum it up, Joseph is told that Jesus' father is God, He will called God-is-salvation, Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins, and all this happened so that words of the prophet would be fulfilled: The virgin's son will be called God-with-us, Emmanuel.

In opposition to that plain teaching of Scripture you know Jesus is not God because you are not your daddy. That reasoning is nothing more than illogical out of context nonsense because you are denying God's word so that it fits your experience and reason as a creature who was not fathered by the Holy Spirit, did not and cannot save your people from their sins, were not born of a virgin and called God-with-us in fulfillment of the prophet's word.

Just as Jesus receives gifts because He is the Son of Man, John 5:26-27, so He has a God because He is the Son of Man.

 

[BJ Bear]

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.

Once again you are taking a passage out of context in order to try and overturn the clear witness of Scripture. It is an illogical practice and leads to piling error on error.

If one would continue reading 1 For 15 from your citation one would find that Jesus is life giving spirit because He is from heaven. “45. So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. Gen. 2:7 46. But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual. 47. The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7” (1Cor 15:45-47, LITV)

The word that was with God, and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1. Adam didn't exist until he was made from dust and God breathed life into him.

Nothing here proves that jesus is God.

The context makes it plain that Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate. Unlike all men who are born in the natural way He is sinless, He is the one the Father sanctified and sent into the world. You know, .the one from heaven,from above. Everybody else regardless of sex, age, or mental acuity is not. They will not enter heaven.if they are not born from above in baptism.

God's word is performative. When He says let there be light there was light. When He says people are born from above in baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Spirit they are born from above.

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

Nonsense. That is just foolish reasoning which is contrary to what Scripture says. It is based upon your thought that because you are not your daddy Jesus can't be God.

The scriptural witness is God said let us make man in our image. The LORD said let us go down and confuse their language, etc. And the Word that was with God, and wax God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

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.

Nonsense. The Messiah or Christ is the Son of God, that is, the Word that was with God, and was God became flesh and dwelt among us.

It is the sons of hell who denied the deity of Christ, that He was the Messiah, and denied His salvation applied in baptism.

Jesus is the resurrection and life. When a person denies Him and baptism into Him they only have their sins to present to God.

 

[Newbirth]

Once again you are taking a passage out of context in order to try and overturn the clear witness of Scripture. It is an illogical practice and leads to piling error on error.

Was Jesus referred to as the last Adam? Yes or no?

If one would continue reading 1 For 15 from your citation one would find that Jesus is life giving spirit because He is from heaven. “45. So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. Gen. 2:7 46. But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual. 47. The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7” (1Cor 15:45-47, LITV)

Did you not see the second MAN? It does not say second God does it?

The word that was with God, and was God, was made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1. Adam didn't exist until he was made from dust and God breathed life into him.

So what is your point? The second Adam was a man ...you just posted it.

The context makes it plain that Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate.

That is false...God said of Jesus, this is my beloved son. If Jesus was God incarnate then God was lying. And that would make Jesus a liar also since Jesus said God was his father.

Unlike all men who are born in the natural way He is sinless,

That does not make him God. The men who will be resurrected and go with Jesus will also be sinless. Does that make them God?

He is the one the Father sanctified and sent into the world.

Therefore he is not God since God is his father.

You know, .the one from heaven,from above.

Which one? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? yes or no? No man came down from heaven.

Everybody else regardless of sex, age, or mental acuity is not. They will not enter heaven.if they are not born from above in baptism.

Just as Jesus was...You just proved that Jesus was a man.

God's word is performative. When He says let there be light there was light.

So are the words of believers.
Mark 11:23

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

When He says people are born from above in baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Spirit they are born from above.

Where did he say that?

Nonsense. That is just foolish reasoning which is contrary to what Scripture says.

Your comment above is foolish reasoning which is contrary to the scriptures

It is based upon your thought that because you are not your daddy Jesus can't be God.

So what is your thought? That Jesus is his daddy therefore he is God?

The scriptural witness is God said let us make man in our image. The LORD said let us go down and confuse their language, etc. And the Word that was with God, and wax God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

How does that make any sense? Us means more that one...Are you saying that there are more than one Gods because God said us?
God created beings before man was created... US does not mean another God.
Eze 28
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Nonsense. The Messiah or Christ is the Son of God, that is, the Word that was with God, and was God became flesh and dwelt among us.

Therefore he is not God... The son of God is not God as you keep claiming.

It is the sons of hell who denied the deity of Christ,

Then you are one of them. You keep telling me that Jesus is God. Jesus was a man.

that He was the Messiah, and denied His salvation applied in baptism.

Jesus is the Messiah

Jesus is the resurrection and life. When a person denies Him and baptism into Him they only have their sins to present to God.

Yes Jesus died and was resurrected. God cannot die can he?

 

[BJ Bear]

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.

Nothing here proves that jesus is God.

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

To see that all of the above and all that is below is scripturally uninformed silliness just continue reading from 1Cor 15:45, the passage you cited.

“46. But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual. 47. The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7” (1Cor 15:46-47, LITV)

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.

Again, your claim is scripturally uninformed nonsense. The Lord God incarnate is the Messiah/Christ just as John, Paul and the rest of Scripture testify.

This a link to a podcast based on the book Objections Overruled. It is a chapter which addresses the objection that Jesus never claimed to be God, or something to that effect. It is around fifteen minutes long and uses passages that most people will readily understand.

If anyone is interested in other topics covered in bite sized chunks from the book then click here or on the tag on the page labeled Objections Overruled.

 

[Newbirth]

To see that all of the above and all that is below is scripturally uninformed silliness just continue reading from 1Cor 15:45, the passage you cited.

“46. But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual. 47. The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7” (1Cor 15:46-47, LITV)

How is the scripture refuting your nonsense scripturally uninformed?

Again, your claim is scripturally uninformed nonsense. The Lord God incarnate is the Messiah/Christ just as John, Paul and the rest of Scripture testify.

How so? you are telling me that a passage in the scripture is scripturally uninformed then post something that is not written in the scriptures. Nowhere does the scriptures say ...The Lord God incarnate is the Messiah /Christ...in fact that is the same as saying God is his son Jesus. Which would make God a liar since he said about Jesus ...this is my beloved son

This a link to a podcast based on the book Objections Overruled. It is a chapter which addresses the objection that Jesus never claimed to be God, or something to that effect. It is around fifteen minutes long and uses passages that most people will readily understand.

If anyone is interested in other topics covered in bite sized chunks from the book then click here or on the tag on the page labeled Objections Overruled.

I already proved to you that Jesus cannot be God ...A man cannot be his own father.

 

[BJ Bear]

Your response shows that you have itching ears.

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

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

and that is an echo of what scriptures?

This is an echo of what scriptures?


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

So what scripture does this line echo?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

That is an amusing response which ignores the context of the statements made. It also once again doesn't address the scriptural ignorance regarding Christ of the people who cooked up the errors which you and your co-religionists assert.

Here is another section of Scripture in which Jesus is plainly proclaims He is God.

“61. But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of the heaven. Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13 63. And tearing his garments, the high priest said, Why do we still have need of witnesses? 64. You heard the blasphemy. What does it seem to you? And they all condemned Him to be liable, even of death.” (Mar 14:61-64, LITV)

If a person denies that the above is a proclamation of the deity of Christ then it is likely that the person doesn't understand the context. See Daniel 7, particularly verse 13.

Against the multiple clear witnesses of the deity of Christ presented in this thread is your irrelevant claim that you know you are not your daddy. It is irrelevant because when you compare yourself to your father you are making a comparison of like things, men conceived in the usual way, Christ does not fit that category.

The true faith is outside of us, it is given rather than something we muster up or do. See above for it's revelation.

 

[Newbirth]

That is an amusing response which ignores the context of the statements made.

There is no context in the scripture that shows Jesus to be God... Didn't god say about Jesus ..This is my beloved son?

It also once again doesn't address the scriptural ignorance regarding Christ of the people who cooked up the errors which you and your co-religionists assert.

Who cooked up God said about Jesus ...this is my beloved son? You have to explain who spoke from heaven and said Jesus is his son...

Here is another section of Scripture in which Jesus is plainly proclaims He is God.

“61. But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of the heaven.

Jesus You are funny...The question was ...Are you the son of God? It was not are you God.....the answer was I am... It was not I am God

Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13

Nothing in these verses say Jesus is God.

63. And tearing his garments, the high priest said, Why do we still have need of witnesses? 64. You heard the blasphemy. What does it seem to you? And they all condemned Him to be liable, even of death.” (Mar 14:61-64, LITV)

Jesus simply said he is the son of God...Are you saying that Jesus was lying?

If a person denies that the above is a proclamation of the deity of Christ then it is likely that the person doesn't understand the context. See Daniel 7, particularly verse 13.

The context is about him being the son of God...Which he said he is...This has nothing to do with Dan 7...

Against the multiple clear witnesses of the deity of Christ presented in this thread is your irrelevant claim that you know you are not your daddy.

What do you mean by deity? If you mean Jesus is a God and his father is a God then you have more than one God

It is irrelevant because when you compare yourself to your father you are making a comparison of like things, men conceived in the usual way, Christ does not fit that category.

How so? Is not the Christ a man?

The true faith is outside of us,

if it is outside of you then you don't have it

it is given rather than something we muster up or do.

If it is given then you have it.....Paul says God gave it to every man
Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

See above for it's revelation.

That is your personal revelation

 

[BJ Bear]

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?

According to Scripture there is one God who will not share His glory with another. According to Scripture, John 17, the Father and Son have a common glory. So to the person who actually believes what Scripture says, to whom the Bible isn't only a prop, isn't like the plastic food on a movie set, the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

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

The Nicene doesn't claim to be Scripture. However, citing it is a convenient method of communicating a set of doctrines which rightly reflect Scripture between those who have a right understanding of Scripture and the Creed.

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

No, you are confused. The point made was and still is that the word trinity isn't in Scripture or the Nicene Creed. The word trinity is a convenient method of further condensing and communicating a right reflection of Scripture to those who have a right understanding of Scripture and the Creed. The word trinity will not be understood correctly by those who are so illogical as to claim that Jesus cannot be God because they know they are not their own daddy.

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

You were directed to the actual Scriptures, John 1. Do you not know what the Christian Scriptures are?

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

Matthew 28:19 is in most Bibles. Is it not in yours? If it is then you should know that the substantive meaning of the point being emphasized was not changed.

For the record, “19. Going, then, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.” (Mat 28:19-20, LITV)

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?

The one God prepared the body. “5. For this reason, coming into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You prepared a body for Me. 6. You did not delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins." 7. "Then I said, Lo, I come, in the heading of the Book, it was written concerning Me, to do Your will, O God." LXX-Psa. 39:7 -9; MT-Psa. 40:6 -8 8. Above, saying, "You did not desire nor were pleased with sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins," (which are offered according to the Law), 9. then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first in order that He may set up the second; 10. by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb 10:5-10, LITV)

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 were the one attempting to use the Athanasian creed in an illogical and false manner to support your doctrine in this post. That misrepresentation and error was subsequently corrected in this post.

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

Of course you have been denying what it says. The baptized disciples of Christ baptize in the singular, that is, "in the name of."

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

Here is a definition of echo from dictionary-dot-com.

"
verb (used with object),ech·oed, ech·o·ing.

1. to repeat by or as by an echo; emit an echo of:The hall echoes the faintest sounds.
2. to repeat or imitate the words, sentiments, etc., of (a person)."

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.

Baptizing, "in the name of," is singular.

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

See above.

End of part 1.

 

[Newbirth]

According to Scripture there is one God who will not share His glory with another.

And???

According to Scripture, John 17, the Father and Son have a common glory.

Where does it say they have a common glory? Please cite the verse

So to the person who actually believes what Scripture says, to whom the Bible isn't only a prop, isn't like the plastic food on a movie set, the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You have not shown any scripture that says Jesus and his father share a common glory.

The Nicene doesn't claim to be Scripture.

Because it is not scripture.

However, citing it is a convenient method of communicating a set of doctrines which rightly reflect Scripture between those who have a right understanding of Scripture and the Creed.

That is nonsense. You seem to be saying the scripture needs the nicene for people to understand.

No, you are confused. The point made was and still is that the word trinity isn't in Scripture or the Nicene Creed.

Actually you are the confused one... because you are arguing for a trinity that is not mentioned in the scripture or in the Nicene creed

The word trinity is a convenient method of further condensing and communicating a right reflection of Scripture to those who have a right understanding of Scripture and the Creed.

No it is not. It is utter confusion. Scripture says the father is the only true God Jn 17:1-3....The Nicene creed says quote'
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible." unquote

There is no mention of a trinity and it is very simple language. Afterward it says God from God...therefore it is saying two Gods. Go read it yourself.

The word trinity will not be understood correctly by those who are so illogical as to claim that Jesus cannot be God because they know they are not their own daddy.

Trinity means three, what is there to understand?

You were directed to the actual Scriptures, John 1. Do you not know what the Christian Scriptures are?

No mention of "christian scriptures" in the bible...You just keep making up stuff.

Matthew 28:19 is in most Bibles. Is it not in yours? If it is then you should know that the substantive meaning of the point being emphasized was not changed.

For the record, “19. Going, then, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.” (Mat 28:19-20, LITV)

There is no record of the apostles doing that nonsense...In fact the baptized only in the name of Jesus in the bible.

The one God prepared the body. “5. For this reason, coming into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You prepared a body for Me. 6. You did not delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins." 7. "Then I said, Lo, I come, in the heading of the Book, it was written concerning Me, to do Your will, O God." LXX-Psa. 39:7 -9; MT-Psa. 40:6 -8 8. Above, saying, "You did not desire nor were pleased with sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins," (which are offered according to the Law), 9. then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first in order that He may set up the second; 10. by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb 10:5-10, LITV)

No mention of a trinity in that passage. Since God prepared the body then the body is not God...

You were the one attempting to use the Athanasian creed in an illogical and false manner to support your doctrine in this post. That misrepresentation and error was subsequently corrected in this post.

The Athanasian Creed is false and illogical on its own.

Of course you have been denying what it says. The baptized disciples of Christ baptize in the singular, that is, "in the name of."

In the name of Jesus.

Here is a definition of echo from dictionary-dot-com.

"
verb (used with object),ech·oed, ech·o·ing.

1. to repeat by or as by an echo; emit an echo of:The hall echoes the faintest sounds.
2. to repeat or imitate the words, sentiments, etc., of (a person)."

Then echo the scriptures , not the creeds.

Baptizing, "in the name of," is singular.

They baptized only in the name of Jesus. There is no record showing a trinity baptism.

See above.

End of part 1.

nothing to see

 

[Our Lord's God]

According to Scripture there is one God who will not share His glory with another. According to Scripture, John 17, the Father and Son have a common glory. So to the person who actually believes what Scripture says, to whom the Bible isn't only a prop, isn't like the plastic food on a movie set, the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The glory which You have given me I have given to them that they may be one, just as We are one. 17:22

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one. 17:22

The disciples are given the same glory?

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one. 17:22

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one. 17:22

Baptizing, "in the name of," is singular.

Reading comprehension is again required.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me...
Therefore
go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of...

Your objective is not to spin the text to get the result you want but to actually understand what it intends to say.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Here is another section of Scripture in which Jesus is plainly proclaims He is God.

“61. But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of the heaven. Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13 63. And tearing his garments, the high priest said, Why do we still have need of witnesses? 64. You heard the blasphemy. What does it seem to you? And they all condemned Him to be liable, even of death.” (Mar 14:61-64, LITV)

If a person denies that the above is a proclamation of the deity of Christ then it is likely that the person doesn't understand the context. See Daniel 7, particularly verse 13.

Yes it certainly IS clear that you have no idea what is going on.

First, you are quoting a text with a well known textual corruption. Cherry picking is evidence of nothing.
Second, Jesus is alluding to Daniel 7 where Daniel is prophesying a son of man coming into the presence of his God.
Third, Jesus is talking about his exaltation where God will seat him at His right hand giving him all authority in heaven and on earth

Where is there anything indicating that "Jesus is God." Nowhere. Your vain imaginations did that.

 

[Newbirth]

The glory which You have given me I have given to them that they may be one, just as We are one. 17:22

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one. 17:22

The disciples are given the same glory?

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one. 17:22

The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one just as We are one. 17:22

Well his argument is that God does not share his glory therefore since Jesus has glory from God Jesus must be God... Now he has to explain what believers are with that same glory...

Reading comprehension is again required.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me...
Therefore
go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of...

Your objective is not to spin the text to get the result you want but to actually understand what it intends to say.

It does not look good for him since there is no record of the apostles using that method.

 

[BJ Bear]

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.

The one name is singular because it refers to the one God. If a person knows that the Bible is authoritative and has something to say to him then he will pay attention to what it actually says.

For example, that person will pay attention to the prepositions in John 1. The prepositions indicate a distinction of persons in the one God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh 1:1, LITV)

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One reveals Him .” (Joh 1:18, LITV)

The Word that was with God and was God after being made flesh, or after the incarnation, was still with God and was God in the bosom of the Father and reveals Him.

Read Matthew 28:18-19 again in light of John 1 and the rest of Scripture and you will understand why the baptized disciples of Christ were told by Christ to baptize in the singular name of the one God, that is, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Read John 17 again and you will see that Christ, the incarnate LORD, in accordance with John 1, Matthew 28, and the rest of Scripture is speaking of being glorified with the one glory of the one God which He had with the Father before there was a creation. It is the time of His glorification in His death at the cross and His resurrection for the sin of the world, see John 3:16.

In John 17, to know the true God is to know the Father and the Son, the Son whom He has sent.

The genuine faith, or true faith, is outside of us and given to us. It isn't something sinful men muster up, generate, or do.

“Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3, LITV)

End part 2.

 

[Newbirth]

The one name is singular because it refers to the one God.

Then the person who is speaking is referring to the one God the father, sine he said in Jn 17 his father is the only true God.

If a person knows that the Bible is authoritative and has something to say to him then he will pay attention to what it actually says.

God is authoritative. The bible was written by man and translated by man. The bible is not God.

For example, that person will pay attention to the prepositions in John 1. The prepositions indicate a distinction of persons in the one God.

A real thinking person will pay attention to the context of the words of Jesus. Jesus never said he and his father are persons in God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh 1:1, LITV)

This does not say Jesus and his father are persons in God...

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One reveals Him .” (Joh 1:18, LITV)

This does not say Jesus and his father (whom you call persons ) are in God. Which God are you claiming that Jesus ans his father are persons in?

The Word that was with God and was God after being made flesh, or after the incarnation, was still with God and was God in the bosom of the Father and reveals Him.

The scripture does not say that. Neither does it satisfy your claim that Jesus and his father are persons in your God.

Read Matthew 28:18-19 again in light of John 1 and the rest of Scripture and you will understand why the baptized disciples of Christ were told by Christ to baptize in the singular name of the one God, that is, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Why should I read the scripture in light of your misunderstanding? You are telling me that Jesus and his father and the HS are persons in the one God. Or that that three persons make up the one God.

Read John 17 again and you will see that Christ, the incarnate LORD, in accordance with John 1, Matthew 28, and the rest of Scripture is speaking of being glorified with the one glory of the one God which He had with the Father before there was a creation. It is the time of His glorification in His death at the cross and His resurrection for the sin of the world, see John 3:16.

I have read it many times and i am yet to see anything that you are claiming.I see Jesus saying his father is the only true God and I see the apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus. In fact Paul says we are baptized into Jesus' death. You seem to be saying that we are baptized into the death of the father and the HS also?
Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

In John 17, to know the true God is to know the Father and the Son, the Son whom He has sent.

So did the true God the father who you claim is a person in God send God Jesus who is another person therefore not the true God in God.

The genuine faith, or true faith, is outside of us and given to us.

You are not making any sense...There is one faith and God gave every man the measure...If God gave every man the measure of fait who is it outside of the man?

It isn't something sinful men muster up, generate, or do.

I never made that claim. But Paul said God gave every man the measure of faith. Do you deny that God gave every man the measure of faith?

“Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3, LITV)

Jude is referring to the faith of the original apostles. He is telling believers to strive to have faith as the original apostles by building their faith.
Jude 20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,