JACOB WRESTLES WITH JESUS

[Jewjitzu]

Jesus along with the Father are identified as Almighty God in Revelation. It is as simple as connecting the dots.

1. Jesus is identified as “First and Last”.

Rev 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Who was dead. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. God doesn't die.

2. Jesus identified as “First and Last” in 1:17 is identified as “First and Last” along with “Alpha and Omega and Beginning and the End ” in vs 22:13. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

See above.

3.Jesus identified as “First and Last” along with “Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End” in 22:13 is identified as “Alpha and Omega”, “Beginning and the End” along with “Almighty” and “who is, and who was, and who is to come” in 1:8.

See above.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come”, “the Almighty.”

Referring to God who hasn't died.

4.We have Jesus identified as: First and the Last, Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and the End, The Almighty, and Who is and who was and who is to come.

The Almighty doesn't die.

5.Now here is the kicker, Jesus, the one identified as “Alpha and the Omega”, “Beginning and the End”, “the Almighty” and “who is and who was and who is to come”, is not the one identified as “who is and who was and who is to come” in vs 4.

1:4… Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come ... 5 and from Jesus Christ…

For vs 5 identifies Jesus separate from this individual in vs 4. Compound with the understanding that the terms “First and the Last, Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and the End” are exclusive terms, there cannot be more than one individual who is “First and the Last, Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and the End.”

Depends on the context. But here's the kicker, God is eternal and doesn't die, bleed, etc.

 

[Jewjitzu]

You would have to be omniscient to know that.
Care to share?

Omniscient? No.

Just some plain logic. People still die so Jesus' blood hasn't helped.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

What was God approving? Better attested or accredited. But so what? I don't disagree with Peter identifying Jesus as a man, and I do not have a problem with Thomas, John, Peter, and Paul identifying Jesus as God. You have a contradiction.

Sorry but when Peter said he was a man aproved by God that is no "so what" but a clear revelation that Peter didn't believe he was a God/man like you and your apostate cult believes and teaches.

Again.
Peter quotes Joel. Should ask your self why?
‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’
Who does Peter identify as Lord who's name has to be called, in the sermon.
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Acts 2:37 The crowd ask Peter what shall they do.

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off

Acts 2:38 Peter explain what it means to call 'on the name of the Lord" Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd asked for more instructions, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”


Acts 2:39 Peter closes this part of his sermon by stating that Joel 2:32 has come to pass. Note the promise is not to anyone in the future but to the men listening, their children and all afar off, quoting the second half of Joel 2:32 …'For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, “Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.”'

I don't need to ask myself why, for it is clearly revealed that Peter quoted Joel to reveal that the Spirit of God being poured out on that day of Pentecost was the fulfillment of Joels prophecy.

That it is for all men and women who call on the name of Yahweh through acknowledging that he has made Jesus as kurios and has given him a name over all other human beings in His Yahweh's stead.

Also, that it is no longer only for the Jews but now for all nations and that it is also only fulfilled through Christ as the one that God made Lord in his stead.

This is also why he went on to say what he did in that 36th verse, that God has made this same man Jesus whom you crucified both Lord (kurios) and Christ and which also agrees with Paul's words in Philippians 2:9-11 which you have yet to be about to fit into your false doctrines of Jesus being both God and man.

Philippians 2:9 for this reason (for his obedience unto death) God has highly exalted him and given him a name above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (Kurios) to the glory of Yahweh God the Father.

Therefore Yahweh God has placed his human Son Jesus as the Lord of all in his own place and thus Joel's prophecy is fulfilled through Jesus.

Therefore the only contradiction is from you and your cult, for you have no way around what Paul's words in Philippians 2:9 -11 that are in complete agreement with Peter's words in Acts 2:36

Instead of stomping, explain how Joel 2 does not apply to Jesus in the sermon. No one is disputing that Paul identified Jesus as a man.

The only one doing the stomp and raving and ranting here is you in your frenzied attempt to keep the sinking ship of your apostate false doctrine afloat.

Furthermore, I already revealed more than once how the Joel 2 applies to Jesus and could care less whether or not you accept it either, for I am not here to win friend and influence people nor as a hireling for false doctrine nor as a want to be hireling for false doctrine either.

Would of, could of, should of.
Oh wait. My bad. Peter does.
2 Pe 1:1 To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

I have already covered 2 Peter 1:1 and also Titus 2:13 and I am not going to do it again either, for you will soon enough find out just how bad your doctrine is and would you will receive as a recompense from God for preaching it also.

More imagination trying to pass off as scripture. Nothing in the text supports this.

You forgot 2:6 'equality with God'

LOL! if Jesus was eternally eqaul with God like you are twisting Paul's words to be meaning, then he would have always had a name above every other as having the name Yahweh God but Paul very clearly reveals in Philippians 2:9-11 that God rewarded him with a name above every other and one also unto which every knee will bow and every tongue confess to also.

Therefore Philippians 2:9-11 not only reveals how absolutely foolish and twisted your interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8 is but it also reveals the same about any other passages that you attempt use to prove that Jesus is God from also.

This does not disagree with me. God makes Jesus Lord and Messiah, and who calls on the name of the Lord is saved. Keep pointing out irrelevant facts.

Really. Paul seems to disagree with you.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of Lord shall be saved.”

Funny, one has to ask, 'why does Peter quote Joel then? Could have worded it different. The reason was to identify Jesus as YHWH in Joel.
If you disagree post your argument with support, less opinion.

I already explained it and more than once also but here it is again and I never grow tired of posting it to you either, for it is very clear and concrete proof that you are in apostasy from the truth with your false doctrines on this.


Philippians 2:

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Now then how about you explaining how Paul's words above could possibly work with your false doctrine that Jesus has always been Yahweh God and never ceased to be even while also becoming and remaining a man?

Remember this also, for God didn't reward a nature here but he rewarded a person and your own doctrines states that Jesus was one person with two natures and one being God and the other being man.

Therefore being and remaining Yahweh God, he would have always had what Paul in Philippians 2:9-11 told us that God rewarded him with because of his obedience unto death and which would have made about as much sense as a screendoor on a submarine.

So I will be waiting to hear how you will attempt to get around this in order to make if fit with your false doctrine.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Who was dead. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. God doesn't die.


See above.


See above.


Referring to God who hasn't died.


The Almighty doesn't die.


Depends on the context. But here's the kicker, God is eternal and doesn't die, bleed, etc.

The arguments on the first and last by trins are some of the most laughable, for the term first and last only means that there was none before and none after and this term can be applied to every single and individual human being ever to be born as well, for each is one of a kind and there is no other exactly the same either.

Therefore in Revelation 1:17-18 all that John is revealing here, is that Jesus was the only one who ever lived and then died and then was resurrected from death and hell to recieve the keys of death and hell in order for others to be raised from the death and hell through him and likewise.

In fact, when Jesus is called "the only begotton son of God" it means he is the first and last as such and therefore he is one of a kind.

Also, first and last and alpha and omega and beginning and end are all synonyms that mean the same thing, and which mean one of a kind and no one before and no one after and it is hardly a term only exclusive to God unless the context reveals otherwise like it would in Isaiah 44:6 and among a few other places in the OT as well.

Therefore when God in Isaiah says, no God was formed before me and there shall be none after me, it is the same as him saying "I am the first and last" period.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

What was God approving? Better attested or accredited. But so what? I don't disagree with Peter identifying Jesus as a man, and I do not have a problem with Thomas, John, Peter, and Paul identifying Jesus as God. You have a contradiction.

Again.
Peter quotes Joel. Should ask your self why?

‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’
Who does Peter identify as Lord who's name has to be called, in the sermon.
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Acts 2:37 The crowd ask Peter what shall they do.

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off

Acts 2:38 Peter explain what it means to call 'on the name of the Lord" Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd asked for more instructions, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”


Acts 2:39 Peter closes this part of his sermon by stating that Joel 2:32 has come to pass. Note the promise is not to anyone in the future but to the men listening, their children and all afar off, quoting the second half of Joel 2:32 …'For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, “Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.”'

Instead of stomping, explain how Joel 2 does not apply to Jesus in the sermon. No one is disputing that Paul identified Jesus as a man.


Would of, could of, should of.
Oh wait. My bad. Peter does.
2 Pe 1:1 To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

More imagination trying to pass off as scripture. Nothing in the text supports this.

You forgot 2:6 'equality with God'

This does not disagree with me. God makes Jesus Lord and Messiah, and who calls on the name of the Lord is saved. Keep pointing out irrelevant facts.

Really. Paul seems to disagree with you.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of Lord shall be saved.”

Funny, one has to ask, 'why does Peter quote Joel then? Could have worded it different. The reason was to identify Jesus as YHWH in Joel.
If you disagree post your argument with support, less opinion.

Now then, after you answer to my other post, and the question I gave you at the end of that post, suppose you also show us where in the rest of the whole of the Book of Acts do we see any place where the disciples were preaching and teaching that Jesus is God like you falsely believed Peter was in Acts 2?

Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be validated, so where did they in any other place in the book of Acts preach or teach that Jesus was God?

Also why dont we see Peter being arrested for preaching Jesus as God in Acts 2 either and why don't we see the disciples ever being arrested or martyred in Acts for preaching and teaching that Jesus was God?

Obviously because the Jews didn't take Peter to be meaning what you say he meant, and also because none of the disciples were ever teaching that Jesus is God either.

For that is never the issue with why they were arrested but instead it was always issues about the purpose of the Law of Moses instead.

 

[Tanachreader]

Sure, context limits it to Isaiah's time.

Eze 12:2
2 “Son of man, you live among rebels who have eyes but refuse to see. They have ears but refuse to hear. For they are a rebellious people.
Zec 7:11
11 “Your ancestors refused to listen to this message. They stubbornly turned away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing.
Jer 5:21
21 Listen, you foolish and senseless people,
with eyes that do not see
and ears that do not hear.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Eze 12:2
2 “Son of man, you live among rebels who have eyes but refuse to see. They have ears but refuse to hear. For they are a rebellious people.
Zec 7:11
11 “Your ancestors refused to listen to this message. They stubbornly turned away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing.
Jer 5:21
21 Listen, you foolish and senseless people,
with eyes that do not see
and ears that do not hear.

All context and times are in the times of the prophets.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Indeed, for the passage says that no man has seen God and not that no man has seen the Father.

Then in 1 John 5:20 it reads, "we know that the Son of God has come and given us an understanding of him who is True" and according to trin nonsense therefore Trins are saying that Jesus has come to give us an understanding of himself as him who is true but the Bible very clearly reveals this to be false.

Now then, it is obvious that there are two referents in 1 John 5:20 the one being the Son of God who came to give us an understanding of him who is True and which is the other The Father and True God.

Now then, all one has to do is consider the whole context of this letter, for at the beginning of the letter sets the precident for what the rest of the letter is saying and in the beginning of the letter John refers to Jesus as the eternal life that was with the Father and has been manifested to us.

So here you have the same two referents of 1 John 5:20 "this is The True God and Eternal life" and then if you consider these two passages below and the context of each, you get the truth about why John called Jesus the eternal life also.


John 5:26 "for just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also".

John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me will live because of me".


So the Father has imparted to Jesus his own zoe eternal life by filling Jesus with himself and therefore Jesus lives because of the Father and also becomes eternal life to us also who believe in God through him and that is why John also calls Jesus the eternal life in 1 John chapter 1 and 1 John 5:20 as well.

Its not that complicated.

A subordinate clause (or dependent clause) is a clause that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence because it does not express a complete thought.

What does the dependent clause 'even in His Son Jesus Christ" need to complete the thought? "And we are in Him that is true" or "This is the true God and Eternal Life." You pick.

The words "the righteousness of our God and Savior" are a title for Jesus whereas you cherry pick this appart and say that Peter was calling Jesus our God and Savior instead and which he wasn't.

Do you want proof of this, just read Jeremiah 23:6 and also Jeremiah 33:16 where both Jesus and Judah and Jerusalem are given the same title and which proves this completely.

Jeremiah 23:In his days (the days of the righteous branch) Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jeremiah 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.


Very clearly therefore both Jesus and Judah and Jerusalem and all those who become born again through Judah through Jesus, share in that title with Jesus and through Jesus and all that it means is that God's own righteousness is manifested through them by the Holy Spirit.

fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.

Just because both passages contain 'righteousness of' does not mean they are related.

But let's put this Hebrew interpretation of Greek nonsense to rest.

Below are Sharp constructs. Tell us why theses could not be titles.

Rom. 15:6 … the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 15:24 … to [the] God [and] Father after destroying …
2Cor. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord …
2Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, …
Eph. 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all
Phil. 4:20 To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.

But you would argue against Titus 2:13 being a title.

Titus 2:13 … the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

 

[Towerwatchman]

Not according to Scripture. Jesus denied being God and said the Father is the only true God.

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Really??? That is not a denial.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Your Bible doesn't have John 17:3 in it?

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Concerning Jesus denying being God... He never denied being God. He didn't have to. Everyone, whether they believed Jesus was the Messiah or not, KNEW Jesus wasn't God. To claim to be God would have been ludicrous.

Your interpretation of Jn 17:3 makes Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1. Do you accept that?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Not all Christians believe that.

What specifically are you alluding to?
We believe Jesus is God, created all from nothing, therefore creating a body in which He can fully experience humanity while remaining fully God is reasonable.

The verses I posted plainly contradict the Trinitarian understanding of John 20:28. There are other explanations for Thomas' statement that do not contradict the rest of the Bible.

Let's put a couple to the test.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
"only" modifies 'true God' not the Father. Therefore Father= True God. But True God ≠ The Father.
Also you are making Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1.

John 20:17 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.

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Corinthians 8:6 If the reference that the Father being “one God” proves that Jesus is not God, then by the same logic the reference that Jesus is “one Lord” means that the Father is not “Lord”. Matt 11:25 Jesus refers to the Father as God and Lord. It is illogical to conclude from this vs. that Jesus is not God as to conclude that the Father is not Lord.

As to the rest it does not contradict the Trinity. We believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.

I did not post a self-contradicting statement.

Yes you are making a contradicting statement. If someone claims that in Jn 20:28 Thomas is calling Jesus God; and you post evidence that Jesus is not God without addressing Jn 20:28 you have posted a contradicting statement. You have to address Jn 20:28.

No, he is not. He could have been acknowledging God AND the Lord Jesus Christ, or he may have seen God "in" Jesus because Jesus said if you've seen him you've seen the Father.

Nothing in the passage supports this.
The passage is simple, literal and explicit.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

The Trinity isn't in the Bible.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible? What does that prove? The word Bible is not in the Bible. What we have is accumulative support that points to the Trinity.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Actually, you're wrong. It's evident from Tanakh someone born from a womb isn't God. It's irrational to think god created himself in a womb.

You play both sides of the fence when it suits you, and you sit on the fence when it suits you. Notice you argued Christianity within Christian parameters and now retreat to Tanakh. Rather dishonest.

It shows Hebrews made up this theology and is unsupported by the original source. That's important to know.

No it does not. Why because Psalms does not mention 'son'? No. You don't get to set the standard.

The point is the original believers in Jesus rejected the NT, especially Paul. That's important to know.

And how do you come to this conclusion? Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT. So Paul rejected his own writings? Paul identifies Luke's gospel in 2 Cor.

2 Cor 8:18 And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, 19 and not only that, but who was also chosen by the churches to travel with us with this gift, which is administered by us to the glory of the Lord Himself and to show your ready mind,

In what way? They were consistent in Torah, ie, Zechariah 7:12, guided by the spirit. This is how we identify false prophets.

The Sadducees who are from the Jewish community rejected them. Does that equate to them being false?
Follow your logic, if some from the community such as Nazarenes reject the NT alludes to the NT being false; then following the same logic the Sadducees rejecting the Prophets alludes to them being false also.


In other words, if someone claims that X is false without evidence, does not make it false.

Ebionites - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pay attention to what you write.
Your claim.
The Jews believed he was a regular Joe.
Nope, just the gospel according to the Hebrews. Paul they rejected.

Your support. '...while rejecting Paul as a false apostle and an apostate from the Law...'

How do you claim the Jews believed xxx, and when asked for support, google the above about the Ebonites? Rather poor scholarship and character.
Claim the whole rejected Paul and post support that part rejected Paul.

Not dying for one. Ushering the messianic kingdom, bringing his own sacrifices to the temple, etc.

Based on what?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Move the comma, then it makes sense and fits with the rest of scripture.

Move the comma where?

 

[shroom]

Your interpretation of Jn 17:3 makes Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1.

Jesus isn't mentioned in John 1:1.

Do you accept that?

...

 

[shroom]

What specifically are you alluding to?

I'll point them out for you.

We believe Jesus is God,

Not all Christians believe Jesus Christ is God.

created all from nothing,

Not all Christians believe Jesus Christ did the creating.

therefore creating a body

Jesus certainly didn't create his own body...

in which He can fully experience humanity

Not all Christians believe that God experienced humanity. He doesn't need to. He's God.

while remaining fully God is reasonable.

Many Christians think It's completely illogical and unreasonable.

Let's put a couple to the test.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
"only" modifies 'true God' not the Father. Therefore Father= True God. But True God ≠ The Father.
Also you are making Jesus a false god in Jn 1:1.

It's been covered.

John 20:17 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.

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God.

Don't you believe it's a relationship between God and God?

If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God

The Bible never says Jesus Christ is God. It says the Father is the only true God.

Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has.

Well, he is the Son of God, God's Messiah. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. His relationship with God is understandably closer than ours.

That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.

No it's not. The fact remains, Jesus Christ has a God.

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Corinthians 8:6 If the reference that the Father being “one God” proves that Jesus is not God, then by the same logic the reference that Jesus is “one Lord” means that the Father is not “Lord”. Matt 11:25 Jesus refers to the Father as God and Lord. It is illogical to conclude from this vs. that Jesus is not God as to conclude that the Father is not Lord.

It's been covered.

As to the rest it does not contradict the Trinity. We believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Yes, but the Bible never teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. It never teaches that God is a Trinity, triune, multi-personal, tri-partite, or any such thing. The Father alone is God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God's human Messiah.

Yes you are making a contradicting statement. If someone claims that in Jn 20:28 Thomas is calling Jesus God; and you post evidence that Jesus is not God without addressing Jn 20:28 you have posted a contradicting statement. You have to address Jn 20:28.

Nothing in the passage supports this.
The passage is simple, literal and explicit.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

It's been covered.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible? What does that prove? The word Bible is not in the Bible. What we have is accumulative support that points to the Trinity.

The concept of God being a Trinity is not in the Bible. It's read INTO the Bible because you were taught that God is a Trinity.

 

[shroom]

Move the comma where?

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

 

[Tanachreader]

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

You mean that makes sense?
Verily I say unto thee yesterday
How about
Verily I say unto thee tomorrow

 

[shroom]

You mean that makes sense?

Yes. Jesus loved that thief, and emphatically wanted him to know that he would be saved. Both Jesus and the thief died that day. Three days and three nights later, God raised Jesus from the dead. The thief is still dead, awaiting resurrection into the kingdom. In our vernacular, Jesus might have said something like "I'm telling you right now that you'll be in paradise!"

Verily I say unto thee yesterday
How about
Verily I say unto thee tomorrow

No, those don't make any sense.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Is paradise the kingdom?

BTW, it's interesting you've highlighted today.

????

We see in Psalm 2:7 -

7I will proclaim the decree
spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son;
today I have become your Father.

Since Christians love quoting Psalm 2 in support of Jesus, doesn't this show then that Jesus is finite?

Quotation from the Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.

Ps 2:4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
"You are MY son, is stated here to show the kings right to rule. Today refers to the coronation day vs 6. I have begotten you, refers to the installation in the royal office. As it applies to Jesus in Heb 1= “He shall be My Son," describes the inauguration of Jesus as King, just as it applies to the king in Psalms 2.

Accomplishing what needed to get done the first time.

Care to specify?

All men are in God's image.

Why are you changing the subject. You claimed that 'us' in Gen 1:26 is God and Adam. Gen 5 disagrees with you. Consistency counts. If your idea is correct Gen 5 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his and God's likeness, after his and God's image , and named him Seth.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Good question. Via his family tree lineage. Just like the NT tries to verify Jesus'.

We see in Zechariah 12:12-14, shows that the end days, the house of David are there with their wives.

How do you know the person will be correct 1900+ years after the records were destroyed by the Romans in 70AD?