Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 21st, 2014, 5:13 am #31

We also know that Jesus is God because:

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (John 14:9 KJV).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30 KJV).

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matt. 1:23 KJV).

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phl 2:5-6 KJV).


According to Jesus, you see Jesus = you see God the Father.

Jesus = Emmanuel = God with us.

The Word (Who was with God and was God in the beginning) became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus became flesh and dwelt as God among us.

Only one heavenly being became flesh and dwelt among us.

Therefore, Jesus = the Word = God.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times](1) John 14:9 -- Jesus is not the Father; the Father is not Jesus.

(2) John 10:30 -- Jesus and his Father are united (not 2 = 1).

(3) Matt. 1:23 -- "God with us" is the meaning of "Emmanuel."

(4) Phl 2:5-6 -- "Being in the form of God" does not equate to "is God."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 21st, 2014, 5:28 am #32

Some people are unable to comprehend the fact that God has the supreme ability to manifest Himself in more than one way. Back to John 1: The Word was with God and the Word was God in the beginning, meaning that the Word not only was present with God, but the Word was also God at the same time. If the Word was God, then God and the Word are obviously identical. Then God/the Word manifested Himself as a human man, who took on the name "Jesus," or God/the Word in the flesh. So if the Word and God are identical, and if God as the Word became Jesus, then God, the Word, and Jesus are also identical, one and the same. Thus, the Word and Jesus are simply different manifestations of God. After all, Jesus said that he who had seen Him had seen the Father, and that He and the Father are ONE.

God/the Word/Jesus in heaven became Jesus the man on earth. So for the benefit of Donnie and everyone else in doubt, yes, "Jesus became Jesus," just in a different manifestation.

God = Jesus = the Word is a perfectly believable equation, IF you can refrain from placing physical limitations upon God and IF you can believe that with God, all things are possible. Unfortunately, not everyone has enough faith to do that.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What don't you understand about "LOGOS" (the Word) and "THEOS" (God)?

What don't you understand that Jesus is not referenced in John 1:1?

What don't you understand about "the Word" [LOGOS] -- and not "God" [THEOS] -- becoming flesh 2000 years ago?

You, Bill, cannot change the truth to say: "And THEOS became flesh."

"Physical limitations" is not the issue here. Neither is faith."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 21st, 2014, 5:43 am #33

God/Jesus used the SAME wording about Himself when He talked to Moses in the Old Testament and when He talked to the Jews in the New Testament: "I AM". Those two words mean the same thing on both occasions: "I am eternal. I am forever."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]"I AM" is God the Father.

"God the Father" (referenced at least 20 times in the Bible)

-------------------- is not the same as -----------------------

Jesus Christ as "the Son of God" (referenced at least 50 times) ... and only in the New Testament.
[/color]

Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

December 21st, 2014, 5:49 am #34

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What don't you understand about "LOGOS" (the Word) and "THEOS" (God)?

What don't you understand that Jesus is not referenced in John 1:1?

What don't you understand about "the Word" [LOGOS] -- and not "God" [THEOS] -- becoming flesh 2000 years ago?

You, Bill, cannot change the truth to say: "And THEOS became flesh."

"Physical limitations" is not the issue here. Neither is faith."[/color]
Oh, but FAITH IS the issue. If you don't have faith that all things are possible with God (and apparently you don't), then it's rather impossible to believe that God can be Jesus and the Word all at the same time. That's putting restraints on God, physical or otherwise. You're saying that God can only manifest Himself in one way and no more. That's finite and FALLIBLE human thinking. The New Testament says otherwise. You just can't see that.

Hey, it's obvious that we have different views about all this and we're not going to resolve anything further. We think we're both right, and that's fine. Frankly, I don't see this as a "salvation issue," meaning I really doubt that our salvation rests with whether or not we believe God = Jesus = the Word. Whereas you reject the equation, I gladly endorse it. We do know that God IS, Jesus IS, and the Word IS. That's enough.

So, since this thread is about whether Christians can observe holidays, and since Christmas is almost here, I'll just wish Donnie, Ken, and all the readers at CM a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 21st, 2014, 7:31 am #35

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Hey, I have faith that all things are possible with God. But faith does not alter the truth that it was the Word (LOGOS) in the beginning that became flesh 2000 years ago. Let's not change that truth at your convenience.

"I don't see this as a 'salvation' issue" -- I think I've heard that before. That simply means, based on our discussion, that to you "God the Father" is also Jesus Christ, "the Son of God." [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Just
Just

December 21st, 2014, 2:08 pm #36

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]You forgot to name your source or link, Justice.

While I may not completely agree with Arius, he was much closer to the Scripture/truth than Constantine, the Pope, the Trinitarians, or any of the councils during his time.[/color]
Oh well, might as well go in style! Pedaling Arianism

http://www.rhoadescar.com/cycle-car.html
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

December 21st, 2014, 5:47 pm #37

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times](1) "I AM" is a name, God's name. Otherwise, "I am hath sent me unto you" would be grammatically incorrect. Rather, God the Father sent Moses to the Israelites. It was not Jesus of Nazareth who sent Moses to the Israelites.

(2) Context, Bill, in John 8:51-59. Jesus was definitely speaking of both: (1) God the Father and (2) Jesus himself as the Son of God. "I AM" being in reference to God the Father, Jesus simply said: Before Abraham was "I AM"; and Jesus did NOT say: "I was before Abraham."

Bill, I think you really do understand the difference between:

(1) Before Abraham was "I AM" [God]
---------------- and -----------------
(2) I was before Abraham.
[/color]
Don't expect too much, DONNIE.

Jesus existed and the PLAN existed in the Mind of God: Jesus didn't exist before He existed.

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham?
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
.....Before Abraham WAS, I AM.


AM never means God: He AM without respect to time. Jesus was the IMAGE of God in TIME and therefore He is god (Eloyhim) as a Prophet like Moses, but He is NOT Jehovah.

AM ISEimi I.ibo, In Prose eimi serves as FUTURE. to erkhomai, I shall go, SHALL come. to come or go,

Erkhomai loci, come to, arrive at, which comes or passes to a person by BEQUEST
, conveyance, arrived at that time of life,


For disciples, this is explained by Peter. HE was in the Mind of God BEFORE Abraham as the SEED of the woman destined to STOMP the SEED (sperm) of the Devil and of CAIN meaning a MUSICAL NOTE OR MARK.

1Pet. 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world,
but was MANIFEST in these last times for you,


I AM is used of God but it does not mean Jehovah. Notice that that the WORD or Logos is something JEHOVAH puts in the mouth of His PROPHETS such as the Prophets by the Spirit OF Christ (Messiah)

Deut. 18:18 I will raise up a PROPHET among their countrymen like you, and I will put My WORD (dabar, logos)s in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

Fulfilled
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

A WORD or the PLAN of God is something HE puts in the MOUTH of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus SPEAKS that Word but He is NOT the PLAN or "patternism" of the New World View of Ecumenical for which Jesus doesn't even pray.</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Just
Just

December 21st, 2014, 8:21 pm #38

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]You forgot to name your source or link, Justice.

While I may not completely agree with Arius, he was much closer to the Scripture/truth than Constantine, the Pope, the Trinitarians, or any of the councils during his time.[/color]
Donnie, I'm not sure why I am here defending mainline COC doctrine against you and Ken. Maybe the joke is on me? I think you are on the wrong path for sure this time. Read the Jackson and Waddey articles at your leisure. Wayne Jackson issues a strong warning you may want to read and heed.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 22nd, 2014, 5:57 am #39

Oh well, might as well go in style! Pedaling Arianism

http://www.rhoadescar.com/cycle-car.html
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Yours may be a good idea. Pedaling is a good exercise. Comparing and contrasting Arianism and Trinitarianism should be a good mental exercise. Should we wonder which came first between the two? Undoubtedly, the Scripture came first. And both Arianism and Trinitarianism should be matched against what the Scripture teaches.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

December 22nd, 2014, 6:35 am #40

Donnie, I'm not sure why I am here defending mainline COC doctrine against you and Ken. Maybe the joke is on me? I think you are on the wrong path for sure this time. Read the Jackson and Waddey articles at your leisure. Wayne Jackson issues a strong warning you may want to read and heed.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Justice,

We should be defending the truth.

I'm not unaware that both Jackson and Waddey , along with many others in the brotherhood, agree with Trinitarianism (since its invention and approval by the Roman Catholic Church and the Councils a few centuries after the apostolic age).

The popularity of the Trinity Creed since its inception cannot be underestimated. While the majority of preachers of the 20th-21st century era may believe in the Trinity Creed, I believe it is significant to learn if our Restoration forefathers held the same Trinity view. It is even more significant to learn and know what the Holy Scripture really teaches regarding the "Trinity Creed."

Trust me when I tell you that I was once fully a Trinity Creed follower -- and that following was not ever going to change (I thought).

That's what we're here to do -- study and rightly divide the word of truth, regardless of what Dr. William Crump says and believes. He's failed to realize that CM is not forcing anyone to believe certain doctrines. We present; we discuss; we debate -- that's the extent of this discussion board.

That I may disagree with Jackson and Waddey on certain issues is not a problem to me. Needless to say, no two individual Christians agree on everything. Neither of them is the final authority, nor is anyone of us. The Scripture is the final authority.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share