It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Word from the Lord was rare in those days; revelatory visions were infrequent.
Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord; the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him.
Then the Lord came and stood nearby, calling as he had previously done, “Samuel! Samuel!”

There seems to be two ways of comprehending God.
One is the unseen, unknowable upholder of all things.
The other is the Word, that can be known.
Though it is probably not everything that the first God is, the second takes the title of Lord, and is so intangled with the first, that it would not be considered robbery to accept the aclaimation of being God, since the Word is what we have, as humans, to understand the will of God.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by DISRAELI
a case of; belief in divinity of Christ forced upon us by the NT,


where? i keep hearing this claim, but i never see any evidence to back it up


If you have half an hour to spare, I'm willing to go through some passages.

In the first place, Jesus makes statements in the gospels which are recognised and resented by his opponents as claims to divinity.

So in Luke ch5 v20, he says to a man; "Your sins are forgiven you".
The immediate response from his critics is (v21), "Who can forgive sins but God only?" This response is theologically sound; it is perfectly true that no-one can forgive sins except God. Nonetheless, Jesus does not withdraw his statement, but follows it up with the assertion (v24) that "The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." "Son of Man" is a label he gave himself. By claiming that he has the authority to forgive sins, he is necessarily claiming to be God.

In John ch5 v17, Jesus describes God as "My Father". His opponents immediately recognise (v18) that by calling God his Father, he was "making himself equal with God". Once again, Jesus does not question the assumption that the phrase "My Father" has this implication, nor does he stop using it. He accepts the suggestion that he is claiming to be equal with God. Nothing which is less than God can be equal with God, so Jesus is claiming to be "not less than God"; that is, he is claiming to be God.

In John ch8 v58, Jesus responds to his questioners by saying "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am" is a clear reference to the name or self-description given by God when speaking with Moses in Exodus. This is unmistakeable, because the Jews immediately recognise it as an allusion to the divine name, and that is the reason why they start throwing stones. If you question whether Jesus was claiming to be God in these statements, I must point you over and over again to the reaction of the Jews. They thought that was what he was doing.

The conclusion of this process is that in John ch20 v28 Thomas addresses him as "my lord and my God". If Jesus was not God, that was the moment for him to say so. In fact, if Jesus was not God, it would have been criminal for him to allow the misunderstanding to have gone uncorrected.

In addition, the New Testament transfers to Jesus some of the Old Testament descriptions which belong only to God. I have already mentioned "I Am". The power of judgement over the world, which is signified by the much-repeated phrase "The Day of the Lord", becomes, in the New Testament "The Day of the Lord Jesus." In 1 Corinthians ch2 v8, we see the remark that if the powers of the world had known what they were doing, "they would not have crucified the lord of glory". The "glory" is something which belongs only to God. Being "lord of glory" is something which belongs only to God. This is one of Paul's clearest statements that the one who was crucified is also the one who is God.

In Philippians ch2 v5, Paul asserts that Christ Jesus, before the Incarnation, was "in the form of God"- he did not see this as something that he should cling on to, but "emptied himself", allowing himself to be born as Man. Nothing which is less than God can be "in the form of God". So the claim that Christ was "in the form of God" is claiming that Christ was "not less than God"; that is to say, he was God.

In Colossians ch1 v19, the claim is made that "in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell". Nothing which is less than God can have "all the fullness of God". A claim that Christ has "all the fullness of God" is a deliberate claim that Christ is "not less than God"; that is to say, that he is God.

Consider also the long discussion at the end of John about the sending of the Advocate, the Holy Sprit. In John ch16 v7, Jesus says "II go, I will send him to you". We must bear in mind that the Holy Spirit of God is God himself. The Spirit of God is as much God as a man's spirit is the man (Paul draws this analogy in 1 Corinthians ch1 v11). No-one who is less than God can tell God what to do. No-one who is less than God can "send" God in the way that Christ is offering to send the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christ cannot be less than God.

In John ch5 v23, Jesus declares God's purpose "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father".
We honour the Father as God.
Therefore honouring the Son "even as" we honour the Father must necessarily involve honouring the Son as God.
If we regard the Son as something less than God, then we are not honouring the Son as we honour the Father.

In 1John ch2 v23, John asserts that "No-one who denies the Son has the Father". I put it to you that you find yourself in that situation if you deny the divinity of Christ. The previous verse shows you the implications of that.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I have to second miriam0566 on this one-


To try and explain that Jesus is his own father etc. etc...just leaves one completely confused. People use so many round about ways to try and explain this that eventually they confuse themselves, by talking in circles. In essence that leads me to believe that it is false.

I believe Jesus was the son of God- not God incarnate on earth...it just get's way to messy trying to make it fit the other way around, if you know what I mean.

In John 3:16- God says- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Definition of 'begotten' (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child"
biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"

No where in the Bible do they mention that God incarnated himself as Jesus. And that's a pretty important part, if you ask me.

I'll leave it at that- Miriam did a pretty good job of pleading the case..


[edit on 23/01/2010 by jinx880101]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jinx880101
I have to second miriam0566 on this one-


To try and explain that Jesus is his own father etc. etc...just leaves one completely confused. People use so many round about ways to try and explain this that eventually they confuse themselves, by talking in circles. In essence that leads me to believe that it is false.

I believe Jesus was the son of God- not God incarnate on earth...it just get's way to messy trying to make it fit the other way around, if you know what I mean.

In John 3:16- God says- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Definition of 'begotten' (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child"
biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"

No where in the Bible do they mention that God incarnated himself as Jesus. And that's a pretty important part, if you ask me.

I'll leave it at that- Miriam did a pretty good job of pleading the case..


[edit on 23/01/2010 by jinx880101]


Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 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.

Jesus = Emmanuel= GOD WITH US. JESUS IS GOD PERIOD!!!!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Abraham was living at a sacred spot of a grove of trees and was communing with Yahweh when a man shows up and startles him with a display of power. After he leaves, Abraham turns back to Yahweh and says, "Well that was terrifying, he must have been the messenger of God!"
So how is it that he felt comfortable enough hanging out with the Lord, and then is awestruck when an angel sent from heaven reveals himself?
There has to be some sort of dichotomy between the Lord, and God, which is never properly explained by the Bible.
So, if Jesus was I Am, I would be uninclined to make the broad assertion that in fact Jesus and God are the same person, and there is no argument that I am aware of that would push me to that point.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


It sounds as though you're recalling the "oaks of Mamre" story from Genesis ch18, but it doesn't seem to me that Abraham is actually more awestruck in the first part of the encounter than he was in the second. Would you look over the passage again?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Sorry about that. Mixed up the people. I was thinking of Gideon at Ophrah.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I was thinking of Gideon at Ophrah.


OK, looking at the Ophrah incident... How about this as a take on exactly what an "angel" is? Supposing we think of the angel, here, as the kind of visible manifestation of God that would be visible to human eyes? "The angel of the Lord" could relate to the Lord in the same way that, say, the President's television image relates to the President. Then the angel would be the Lord, for practical purposes, and it would be reasonable to fear him as such.

I tend to assume that what happened in v23 of that chapter was a different kind of communication- in the mind, perhaps?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus = Emmanuel= GOD WITH US. JESUS IS GOD PERIOD!!!!


so, his name means "God is with us" so that means that he is literally with us?

solomon giving a speech at the temple -
1 kings 8: [57] The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:

so is solomon saying that god is some human there in attendance?

2 chronicles 13: [12] And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Israel, fight ye not against the LORD God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper.

which human in that time do you suppose is god in human form?

psalms 46: [7] The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

isaiah 11:[10] Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

if you interpretation of "God is with us" is so literal, then what about these other scriptures? they arent talking about a future time when God WILL be with us. they said God IS with us, present tense in a time LONG before jesus.

"God is with us" is NOT literal. it is showing that God is protecting and helping is people.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I don't think Yahweh and Jesus are literally the same entity. Just like a man and woman are not literally the same entity in marriage.

But both are 'unified' and seen as 'one flesh.' That is the best I know how to explain it. Three entities (Father, Son, and Spirit), united as one. Just like a husband and wife are two entities united as one.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus = Emmanuel= GOD WITH US. JESUS IS GOD PERIOD!!!!


so, his name means "God is with us" so that means that he is literally with us?

solomon giving a speech at the temple -
1 kings 8: [57] The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:

so is solomon saying that god is some human there in attendance?

2 chronicles 13: [12] And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Israel, fight ye not against the LORD God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper.

which human in that time do you suppose is god in human form?

psalms 46: [7] The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

isaiah 11:[10] Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

if you interpretation of "God is with us" is so literal, then what about these other scriptures? they arent talking about a future time when God WILL be with us. they said God IS with us, present tense in a time LONG before jesus.

"God is with us" is NOT literal. it is showing that God is protecting and helping is people.


Jesus' name is Emmanuel which is interpreted just as the scripture says literally in black and white.GOD WITH US. Not God is with us. Do you not believe scripture? Mathew is referring to a person and that person is Jesus born of a virgin.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



I don't think Yahweh and Jesus are literally the same entity


Think about it. There can only be ONE true GOD. Both have claim to divinity.Choose wisely



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

. . .a different kind of communication- in the mind, perhaps?

I don't think so. Like in the Samuel story, there is a description of a physical presence.
I think my point was that it is difficult to pin down who exactly God is by reading the Bible.
Religion has been damaged by the tyranny of monotheism, that squashes the true nuances of what different representations of God is all about.
Jesus said it, no one has seen the Father. So who are all these gods in the Old Testament? Jesus has as much right to accept the title of God as any so-called god in the Bible, though it should never be forgotten that it is a title and the true reality of God is something beyond what we can understand, which is something like a perception that there must be a god, otherwise nothing could exist, much less our own selves.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
So, if Jesus was I Am, I would be uninclined to make the broad assertion that in fact Jesus and God are the same person, and there is no argument that I am aware of that would push me to that point.


i just want to note that "I AM" is a quotation only in english. jesus' statement (actually translated "I have been") is not a quotation of the the burning bush's ("I shall be that I shall be")



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus' name is Emmanuel which is interpreted just as the scripture says literally in black and white.GOD WITH US. Not God is with us. Do you not believe scripture? Mathew is referring to a person and that person is Jesus born of a virgin.


ok, if the statement is literal then explain this...

john 1:[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

if GOD WITH US so clearly shows that jesus is God, then why is John lying to us?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566


i just want to note that "I AM" is a quotation only in english. jesus' statement (actually translated "I have been") is not a quotation of the the burning bush's ("I shall be that I shall be")


Would you like to explain, then, why the Jews started picking up stones to throw at him? That is the standard response to blasphemy. They thought what he said involved a claim to be the Lord God of Exodus, and he did not deny it.

PS I assume you are consulting with your friends to find a response to my longer comments on the divinity of Christ, given in answer to your own question.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
In the first place, Jesus makes statements in the gospels which are recognised and resented by his opponents as claims to divinity.


the pharisees were out to get jesus. they knew he was the messiah, but they wanted him dead for whatever selfish reason. the pharisees would have loved it if jesus called himself god because they would be able to put him to death immediately.

instead when they jumped on something he said, he clarified and this would frustrate them.

jesus actually made it quite clear he was not god.


So in Luke ch5 v20, he says to a man; "Your sins are forgiven you".
The immediate response from his critics is (v21), "Who can forgive sins but God only?" This response is theologically sound; it is perfectly true that no-one can forgive sins except God. Nonetheless, Jesus does not withdraw his statement, but follows it up with the assertion (v24) that "The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." "Son of Man" is a label he gave himself. By claiming that he has the authority to forgive sins, he is necessarily claiming to be God.


the thing is, the ability to judge and to forgive was given to jesus.

john 5:[22] For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

verse 30 goes one to explain how jesus judges and what standard he uses.

[30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

jesus is not claiming to be god. he is saying that we was given a job by god.

* also note- verse 31-37 jesus is referring to his father as a separate witness. this would not be possible if they were the same person.


In John ch5 v17, Jesus describes God as "My Father". His opponents immediately recognise (v18) that by calling God his Father, he was "making himself equal with God". Once again, Jesus does not question the assumption that the phrase "My Father" has this implication, nor does he stop using it. He accepts the suggestion that he is claiming to be equal with God. Nothing which is less than God can be equal with God, so Jesus is claiming to be "not less than God"; that is, he is claiming to be God.


the verse does not say that jesus claims to be equal to god. he just doesnt argue with them.

however in other scriptures, he does may his position clear.

john 14: [28] Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

john 13:[16] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

im not going to quote all the scriptures where jesus says he was sent by god. it would fill the entire page. i will quote 3.

john 12:[49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

john 14: [24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

john 5:[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

clearly jesus is stating that he was sent by his father, but also that he is subjected to his father and his father's will.


In John ch8 v58, Jesus responds to his questioners by saying "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am" is a clear reference to the name or self-description given by God when speaking with Moses in Exodus. This is unmistakeable, because the Jews immediately recognise it as an allusion to the divine name, and that is the reason why they start throwing stones. If you question whether Jesus was claiming to be God in these statements, I must point you over and over again to the reaction of the Jews. They thought that was what he was doing.


this argument only works in english.

verse 58, when correctly translated is rendered "I have been". the reason for the confusion is the way koine greek renders actions that are present perfect (action that began in the past, and continues beyond our present). in koine, this tense is rendered in the present simple whereas the koine present perfect tense signifies an action that began in the past and finishes in the past (english past perfect).

even if jesus was claiming to be god, he would have said "I have been" since he did not stop existing until his death.

on the hebrew side, a similiar error occurs. "I AM THAT I AM" is commonly accepted to mean in english "I shall be what (or "that") I shall be"

so im sorry but there is substantial evidence that jesus was not quoting exodus.

was jesus' existence before abraham proof that he is god? well no, because jesus is called the firstborn of all creation. jesus WOULD have been alive before abraham as god's "only begotten" son.


The conclusion of this process is that in John ch20 v28 Thomas addresses him as "my lord and my God". If Jesus was not God, that was the moment for him to say so. In fact, if Jesus was not God, it would have been criminal for him to allow the misunderstanding to have gone uncorrected.


or maybe it wasnt a misunderstanding.

i have explained that "god" is not a title that is exclusive to GOD.

satan, jesus, humans, even wooden idols are referred to as gods throughout the bible. it literally means "mighty" one.

this is assuming that thomas wasnt simply using a expletive. ever use the phrase "oh my god!"?


In addition, the New Testament transfers to Jesus some of the Old Testament descriptions which belong only to God. I have already mentioned "I Am". The power of judgement over the world, which is signified by the much-repeated phrase "The Day of the Lord", becomes, in the New Testament "The Day of the Lord Jesus." In 1 Corinthians ch2 v8, we see the remark that if the powers of the world had known what they were doing, "they would not have crucified the lord of glory". The "glory" is something which belongs only to God. Being "lord of glory" is something which belongs only to God. This is one of Paul's clearest statements that the one who was crucified is also the one who is God.


titles in themselves dont mean they are the same person. if the title and descriptions were backed by testimony of jesus actually saying he was god, then i would say you case is airtight. but they arent. you have transfer of titles but then jesus saying he is not equal to god. he also makes clear that his and god's "will" are 2 different things.

in that context, a title provides no proof for your case.

for example, god can be a redeemer, but so can jesus. why it was jesus who died, it was god who sent jesus. so while jesus IS our redeemer, one could say that GOD is too.

i do want to address something you said though. "Being "lord of glory" is something which belongs only to God." in alot of your arguments, i see statements like these. would you agree that that statement is abit of an assumption? because the bible doesnt say that.

it does say that we shouldnt put god's glory to other things but if you do a simple word search in the bible foe the word "glory", its clear that god is not the only person with glory.

psalms 3:[3] But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

proverbs 20:[29] The glory of young men is their strength: and the beauty of old men is the gray head.

matt 6: 29] And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

god gives glory too...

john 17:[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

why would jesus need to be given glory from god if he was god?

this all having been said, is it unreasonable to say that there are different types of glory?


In Philippians ch2 v5, Paul asserts that Christ Jesus, before the Incarnation, was "in the form of God"- he did not see this as something that he should cling on to, but "emptied himself", allowing himself to be born as Man. Nothing which is less than God can be "in the form of God". So the claim that Christ was "in the form of God" is claiming that Christ was "not less than God"; that is to say, he was God.


again, i would like to note that you are making an assumption. " Nothing which is less than God can be "in the form of God"".

a form is a shape. likeness.

for example we are made in god's image. this doesnt mean that we are god, it simply means that perfect humans have certain attributes that god has. but that is not what it is what is being said here.

john 4: [24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

paul is clearly referring to jesus' prehuman existence. note that paul could have said that he WAS God, but instead he says "form of god" or "shape of god". if god is a spirit, then logically, jesus was a spirit too, the same way angels are spirits also.

another issue with phill 2:6 is the sloppy translation.

alot of people read this verse and jump to the conclusion that jesus was equal to god.

KJV - "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

but it actually reads more

NIV - "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,"

the last word in the greek lexicon "ἁρπαγμὸν" which is usually rendered "grasped" means "the act of seizing". so it wasnt that jesus had equality with god, but didnt hold on to it, its that he never had it in the first place.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

In Colossians ch1 v19, the claim is made that "in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell". Nothing which is less than God can have "all the fullness of God". A claim that Christ has "all the fullness of God" is a deliberate claim that Christ is "not less than God"; that is to say, that he is God.



demons "dwell" in people. this does not imply that the people are the demon does it?

matt 12: [45] Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

god dwells in us too.

john 14:[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

the word of christ "dwells"

col 3: [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

you are assuming that "fullness of god" implies jesus is god. but all its is saying is that God "dwells" in him

in the bible, when something more abstract (like the word of christ) or spiritual (like God or demons) dwells with you, it implies that your actions are affected by it. but it shows 2 parts. the dwelling and the dweller.

God " dwelling" in christ implies the opposite of your argument. it actually shows us that jesus and God are separate entities.


Consider also the long discussion at the end of John about the sending of the Advocate, the Holy Sprit. In John ch16 v7, Jesus says "II go, I will send him to you". We must bear in mind that the Holy Spirit of God is God himself. The Spirit of God is as much God as a man's spirit is the man (Paul draws this analogy in 1 Corinthians ch1 v11). No-one who is less than God can tell God what to do. No-one who is less than God can "send" God in the way that Christ is offering to send the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christ cannot be less than God.


again, you are operating on assumption. you assume that because jesus has the ability to send holy spirit, that this must imply that he is god. thing is, its part of jesus' job. a job given to him by God.

another key point that you are missing is that holy spirit is not a person. it is a force. while yes, the bible does sometimes describe it as a person (it also does this with sin and death and wisdom) holy spirit is liken more to water. often described as pouring or filling. even paul makes an analogy to holy spirit being wind that directs a boat.


In John ch5 v23, Jesus declares God's purpose "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father".
We honour the Father as God.
Therefore honouring the Son "even as" we honour the Father must necessarily involve honouring the Son as God.
If we regard the Son as something less than God, then we are not honouring the Son as we honour the Father.


honour - a showing of usually merited respect

how does showing jesus the same respect shown to God make him God?

also - go a few verses down to 31-37. jesus clearly identifies himself and his father as 2 separate witnesses.

vs 43- "I am come in my Father's name"

clearly in the context of the chapter itself, jesus is identifying himself as separate.


In 1John ch2 v23, John asserts that "No-one who denies the Son has the Father". I put it to you that you find yourself in that situation if you deny the divinity of Christ. The previous verse shows you the implications of that.


is says "denies the son". NOT "denies the son's divinity" a you have added in your comment.

And don't deny the son. i ascribe him the honor and position he deserves as God's "only begotten son", as "firstborn of all creation", as installed "king".

jesus always diverted glory to his father. how do you think he feels to see people give god's glory to him?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Would you like to explain, then, why the Jews started picking up stones to throw at him? That is the standard response to blasphemy. They thought what he said involved a claim to be the Lord God of Exodus, and he did not deny it.


the jews did not understand jesus. jesus was blatantly stating that he has existed for a long time, even before abraham.

how would this sound to a jew? did they think he was claiming to be god? possibly.

but it wasnt "I AM" (most common words in ANY language) that got them mad. it was the the fact that jesus was claiming to be alive before he was born human.

i explain this more in depth in my larger reply


PS I assume you are consulting with your friends to find a response to my longer comments on the divinity of Christ, given in answer to your own question.


actually i was looking for time which was provided for me by not being able to sleep



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Wow Miriam...you really did your homework!


I would just like to say thank you- there are more than a couple of things in there that I did not know before today...


Now I need to go and mark all those verses in case this topic ever comes up with my family in passing!




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join