Bill
Bill

January 1st, 2016, 4:53 am #11

You continue to reject passages that unequivocally link God and Jesus together as one Lord. Since the Scriptures say that Jesus is Lord or Lord Jesus and that God is also Lord or Lord God, they both cannot be independent Lords, since the Scriptures say there is only one Lord. So, God and Jesus MUST be the same. There is no other way around it. Jesus as the Son of God, God as the Father, Jesus as Lord, God as Lord -- all designations for the Same. ONE. Divine. Being.

Happy New Year!

Quote
Share

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

January 1st, 2016, 6:40 am #12

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]No, I reject your rejection of the numerous passages [count them again] that unequivocally state "the God and Father of Jesus Christ."

So, you did not find "Lord Jesus" in the Old Testament? I didn't think you would.

So, when Jesus said, "It is written..." you did not understand that he was QUOTING scripture: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" in reference to God? He was not quoting scripture about himself. (11) confirms that -- you will not find "Lord Jesus" in the O.T.

I shouldn't be the one to remind you that you do not comprehend the meaning of the conjunction "and"; but I should now.

Happy New Year!!![/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 1st, 2016, 7:21 am #13

Yes, when Jesus rebuked Satan for tempting Him, he quoted Scripture, but He used that Scripture to refer to Himself as God. Jesus often quoted from the Old Testament, because that was the only Scripture available in His day. The New Testament had not yet been written. So, when Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus said with Scripture not to tempt God, why would Jesus say that if He were not God? If Jesus were not God, He would have simply said something like, "Do not tempt me, Satan." Instead, Jesus used Scripture to tell Satan that it was wrong to tempt Him, because Satan knew that Jesus was God.
Quote
Share

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

January 1st, 2016, 7:52 am #14

[color=#000000" size="4" face="TIMES]Yes, when Jesus rebuked Satan for tempting Him, he quoted Scripture [correct], but He used that Scripture to refer to Himself as God [speculation]. Jesus often quoted from the Old Testament, because that was the only Scripture available in His day [correct]. The New Testament had not yet been written [correct]. So, when Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus said with Scripture not to tempt God [correct], why would Jesus say that if He were not God [assumption]? If Jesus were not God, He would have simply said something like, "Do not tempt me, Satan." [That's what you wanted the Scripture to say.] Instead, Jesus used Scripture [correct] to tell Satan that it was wrong to tempt Him, because Satan knew that Jesus was God [incorrect; Satan knew he was "the Son of God" -- check the passage]. [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Humility
Humility

January 2nd, 2016, 4:10 am #15

There is only one Lord: "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).

The Shema is a primary prayer recited in the synagogues:

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD OUR God is ONE LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:


Jesus identified the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites: speakers, singers, instrument players. They knew that if they could get Jesus to DENY the Shema they would have him so trapped that they had a right to have Him executed. Jehovah is the ONE TRUE Elohim. They have many gods (the Jews) but Jehovah is OUR Elohim. Lord-God is the sure way to repudiate the authority of the "gods" people just made up.

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord OUR God is one Lord:


Jesus just said with blinding truth that HE was not but THE Lord is OUR God and there is only ONE JEHOVAH. And no Jew was so ignorant as to make and IDOL thinking that Jehovah was THREE PERSONS about the size of Jesus.

While men bowed to Jesus as physical "worship" Jesus said:

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love THE Lord THY God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.


That does not give room for ANY even token disciple to sing a praise song:

We worship the Father
We worship Jesus
We worship the holy spirit.

Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is NONE OTHER BUT HE.


Denying that father-son relationship, says John, makes one an antichrist. The Scribe says there is NONE (exclusive) OTHER (exclusive) but HE (not they). False teachers gladly say that Jesus Christ was too ignorant not to know that the Scribe was lying and no one understood the truth truth until WE dredged the "trinity" by quoting passages hoping people will not read.

Watched a program today about the Puritans: getting access to the printed Bible suddenly made them aware that they didn't need the clergy: the clergy in turn got as many murdered as possible. The historian noted that Western Civilization was the result of not trusting one person to be our mediator in song and sermon.

Would the discussants please tell me the difference in being God and being divine.

If Jesus is not God, then is he divine?

Are you just saying that God should refer to the Father, and that the son is divine?

Please clarify.

Are you saying that Jesus is just human?
Quote
Share

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

January 2nd, 2016, 5:12 am #16

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]An excellent question!!! Thanks! (I think I've covered this before -- just can't place where I posted it.)

Briefly, we look at the definition of "divine":

"Divine" is commonly defined as: of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being; addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; sacred; proceeding from God or a god; godlike; relating to or coming from God or a god; of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god; etc.

By definition, yes, Jesus is divine. But we must distinguish between the expression "pertaining/relating to" and the word (verb) "is":

-- There are numerous references in Scripture that identify Jesus as "the Son of God," the "mediator," etc.
-- There is not a single reference in Scripture stating (or implying) that Jesus IS God.
-- There are numerous passages (see initial post) that state: "the God and Father" OF Jesus Christ.
-- Yes, God should refer to the Father only: John 6:27; I Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 2:11; I Thess. 1:1; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; I Peter 1:2; II Peter 1:17; II John 1:3; Jude 1:1.
-- [We can expound further if necessary]

Yes, Jesus is human: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5).

Yes, Jesus is divine, not because he is God (no scripture for this) but because of the following:

(1) He is "the Son of God" [numerous, numerous references in Scripture;
(2) He was crucified, shed his blood and is our Savior;
(3) He is our mediator as a man (God is not the mediator between God and men; but Jesus is...);
(4) He is sitting at the right hand of God;
(5) There more reasons for his being divine [but I must post this now].[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Humility
Humility

January 2nd, 2016, 5:54 am #17

Your explanation is satisfying.

Some were denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh in 2 John. Some of the Gnostics were saying that Jesus was just "spirit" and not "flesh."

The belief in the bodily existence of Jesus was referred to as the "teaching of Christ" or "doctrine of Christ."

Most everyone I think are referring to the Father when they use the word "God."

However, is there any place in the Old Testament that refers to God as "the Father"? It is consistent with New Testament writing to refer to the "Father" since there is a "Son."

Offspring of divinity was not considered identical with the source of the offspring in many ancient writings. It was common to refer the Word, or Logos, as an emanation from God.

The Word then is an emanation, so the Spirit could be considered an emanation. There might be some confusion concerning the Holy Spirit as a product of the Word, when Christ Himself is reflected as the Word. John 1.

Would you say that Jesus is the Word, and his moral teachings (Words) are either the vehicle of the Spirit or are the Spirit? I see some overlap between Spirit and Word.
Quote
Share

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

January 2nd, 2016, 7:03 am #18

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Yes, referring to God as the Father is significant. That should eliminate the misuse of the expression "God the Son" and the expression "God the Holy Spirit." When the Trinity creed declares:

(1) God the Father
(2) God the Son
(3) God the Holy Spirit


... the only scriptural expression of the three listed is "God the Father" -- the passages/references are already mentioned above. There is not a single reference in the entire Bible to the other two.

Speaking of "emanation," this is especially true in regard to the WORD (LOGOS) of God. In the creation event, you will notice in Genesis 1 the number of times "GOD SAID" -- whatever and whenever God SAID or SPOKE, it was an emanation from God ("proceedeth out of the mouth of God"). Since Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have something in common (i.e., "in the beginning"), I believe that what "GOD SAID" is the LOGOS (the WORD) of God which became flesh.

The coming of the Messiah was only prophesied in the O.T., and the prophecy was fulfilled only 2000 years ago -- the LOGOS (the WORD) of God becoming flesh (John 1:14). Please understand, readers, that the WORD (LOGOS) was in the beginning with the God and "the word" was not "the God" but "of God" or "godlike" based on the proper translation of John 1:1. Simply: it wasn't "God the Father" but rather "the LOGOS (WORD) of God" that became flesh (John 1:14).

You are correct that there is no reference to "God the Father" in the O.T. for the reason you've already given -- the Father-and-the-Son relationship which the book of John clearly explains. The LOGOS (WORD) of God [not God Himself] becoming flesh did not occur in the O.T. period.

In regard to "the Spirit" (by definition of the word "spirit" as "wind, breath, power, mind," etc.), IT was active in the creation event. As "power" Genesis 1:2 clearly specifies -- "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." On the day of Pentecost, we see the power or "wind" as a force when the kingdom (the church) was established (Acts 1,2). There is no indication of the "spirit OF God" in the entire Bible as a person.

No, we are not "the spirit of God." Each human being has "a spirit." "The spirit of man," obviously, should not be mistaken for "the spirit of God." But in either case, the "spirit" is not another person.

(More to say, but I must post....)[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

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

January 3rd, 2016, 12:37 am #19

If Jesus is the only begotten son of God then the historic scholars and Alexander Campbell are correct that God is a literal "father" at the same time that Jesus because a son. Only after Jesus' baptism was He confessed as God's Son. His physical nature came through Abraham-David.

Rom. 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom. 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit OF holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If Jesus existed even before He was prophesied as Messiah He would not be a God person or "people." The Word or LOGOS is God's Regulative or governing principle: it is exercised through speaking. To debunk the pagan Hermes or Kairos, God's logos excludes human reasoning, personal experiences, singing, playing instruments or acting.

The Word or Logos was a literal member only of the pagan trinity as Hermes, Mercury or Kairos.
To contradict the pagan theology, the Word is defined as what one speaks in wordS defining God's Ruling principle.
Jesus did not originate but articulated what the Father breathed (spirit) into Him. Only when He speaks what He hears is He the audible-visible WORD of God in the same sense that He is the LIGHT of God.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent SPEAKETH the words of God:
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and HATH given all things into his hand.


God the Father breathed and gave the Son all things and the Son speaks only what He hears. His Disciples are likewise NOT OF this World so that they speak what Jesus conveyed and are hated and despised: a MARK.

Therefore, Jesus could say in contrast to human food, "My Words are Spirit and they are Life." The connection seems to be that God's Spirit or Mind is carried only by the Words (Logos).

What Alexander Campbell Affirms but the "progressives" repudiate: John Mark Hicks tries to make Alexander Campbell into a "closet trinitarian."

1. In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity
for the same reasons they object to the Arians and Socinians.

They object to these, because their views derogate in their judgment from the eternal glory of the Founder of the christian religion.

They will not allow the Saviour to have been a creature, however exalted, because they conceive this character is unbecoming him, and contrary to the scriptural statements concerning him. They wish to give him more glory than they think the Arians are willing to do.

Now I object to their making him and calling him an "Eternal Son" because I think that if he were only the Son of God from all eternity, he is entitled to very little, if any more glory, than what the Arians give him.

I wish to give him more glory than the Calvinists give him. They are as far below his real glory, in my judgment, as the Arians are in their judgment.

2. But in the second place, I have an insuperable objection to the Arian and Calvinistic phraseology--On the doctrine of the first relation existing between the Father and the Saviour of Men,

because it confounds things human and divine,
and gives new ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers.


The names Jesus, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else. They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time.

To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on either of these theories.

There was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar.

The relation that was before the christian era,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
was not that of a son and a father,
.....terms which always imply disparity;
.....but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration.
.....The relation was that of God,
.....and the "WORD OF GOD."

This phraseology unfolds a relation quite different from that of a father and a son--a relation perfectly intimate, equal, and glorious.

This naturally leads me to the first sentence of John. And here I must state a few postulata.

1. No relation amongst human beings can perfectly exhibit the relation which the Saviour held to the God and Father of All anterior to his birth. The reason is, that relation is not homogenial, or of the same kind with relations originating from creation.

All relations we know any thing of are created,
such as that of father and son.

Now I object as much to a created relation as I do to a creature in reference to the original relation of God and the WORD of God.This relation is an uncreated and unoriginated relation.


Note again, that the Word or Logos is God's Regulative Principle always spoken. If Jesus existed at the time He would not be a GOD PERSON but only God's Principle of Governing the universe.</font>
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on January 4th, 2016, 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 3rd, 2016, 6:14 pm #20

Your explanation is satisfying.

Some were denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh in 2 John. Some of the Gnostics were saying that Jesus was just "spirit" and not "flesh."

The belief in the bodily existence of Jesus was referred to as the "teaching of Christ" or "doctrine of Christ."

Most everyone I think are referring to the Father when they use the word "God."

However, is there any place in the Old Testament that refers to God as "the Father"? It is consistent with New Testament writing to refer to the "Father" since there is a "Son."

Offspring of divinity was not considered identical with the source of the offspring in many ancient writings. It was common to refer the Word, or Logos, as an emanation from God.

The Word then is an emanation, so the Spirit could be considered an emanation. There might be some confusion concerning the Holy Spirit as a product of the Word, when Christ Himself is reflected as the Word. John 1.

Would you say that Jesus is the Word, and his moral teachings (Words) are either the vehicle of the Spirit or are the Spirit? I see some overlap between Spirit and Word.
Some people declare that Jesus cannot be God, because the Bible does not explicitly say, "Jesus is God." Of course, the Bible also does NOT explicitly say, "Jesus is not God," yet those people conveniently ignore the latter. Even though the Bible refers to God as the Father and to Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of man, God and Jesus have a common link -- they are the "Lord":

What the Bible says about Jesus as the Lord:
--"the Lord Jesus" (Luke 24:3).
--"Jesus is the Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3).
--"Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)" (Acts 10:36).
--"Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).
--"the Lord Jesus" (Rom. 14:14).

What the Bible says about God as the Lord:
--"the Lord thy God" (Matt. 22:37).
--"The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).
--"the Lord our God" (Acts 2:29).
--"the Lord God" (1 Peter 3:15).
--"Lord God Almighty" (Rev.4:8).

The Bible recognizes only one Lord:
--"The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).
--"one Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6).
--"One Lord..." (Eph. 4:5).

The Bible refers to God as the Lord; the Bible refers to Jesus as the Lord. Yet the Bible says there is only ONE Lord. How can God and Jesus both be the Lord? The answer is simple: God and Jesus are one and the same Being. The Bible need not say, "Jesus is God" or "God is Jesus" or "God the Son" or "God and Jesus are one and the same," as man would have it, for God and Jesus to be the same Being. With humans, the father cannot be the son, neither can the son be the father; but with God/Jesus, Who is supernatural and transcends all human limitations, all that and more are possible. Human genetics do not apply to Him. The evidence is all too clear that God and Jesus are One and the same.
Quote
Share