Who is Jesus? Son of God or God?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Jesus was a man. Jesus was also the Father in flesh. He was both.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet
But here in reality, why would a omnipresent god not be able to "speak" directly to its "subjects", does this not raise a red flag to you?


Why would it? There are millions who feel that he does "speak" directly to them, who are you to say that they're wrong and you're right? What do those millions have that you do not? (And no, for our purposes, claiming "self-delusion" is not an option
)


Well for starters, If the supposed god did speak directly to the populace this conversation would be more in your favor..without the laughing icon.

Obviously I lack the favor of the passive aggressive "laughing icon"


The "laughing icon" is attached to the statement that "self-delusion" is not a valid response.

The question remains, though -- what do the millions have that you do not? Because an omnipotent God (not omnipresent) can, obviously, speak directly to whomever he wants, and those millions testify that he does, as least as far as they are concerned, so if he ain't talkin' to you, what's your guess as to why?

That's a bit of a rhetorical question, I'm afraid... I don't expect you to have a reasonable answer.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus was a man. Jesus was also the Father in flesh. He was both.


Didn't I see you arguing with NOTurTypical in another thread the exact opposite claim?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Dear lonewolf1979,

If I clone myself, is it me or is it my son? If I am born identical twins, is it me or my brother? Do you differentiate based on the physical or the spiritual? What is the difference between me and anyone else?


I don't know enough about clones to make a valid arguement sir, that remains a philospophical debate that can go on forever. I can't presume to make a statement about something i have no knowledge of.


Dear lonewolf1979,

Then you presume there is no answer or merely that you cannot answer it. There is surely an answer. I shall assist. If we are one in spirit then we are of the same. If we are one in flesh, we may or may not be one of spirit; but, we are certainly not guaranteed to be. Which then is the essence of God, the physical or the spiritual. If it is the spiritual then why cannot he materialize in any form he wishes while remaining himself? I am a father, a son and a brother. Yet, I am still me. If I have different jobs and different responsibilities that are dependent on the people I am dealing with, does that make me different people? Atheists used to argue that it was impossible to have a baby without having sex, they denied immaculate conception. Based on today's science, only a fool would say such a thing because we have had millions of test tube babies. I hope that helps clarify what I am asking.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by scmoG
To the OP. You know what annoys me? People who don't even hear God, pretending as if they know Him. There are always people to address their opinions about God, but that same "God" they speak, they never have experienced. Which is why we need the Holy Ghost. Don't speak about God as if ye know Him, but you bare NONE of the signs of being His child.


It's not nice to troll. It's also foolish to call the OP out when many of the verses you posted above bear out his contention.

I guess that makes you a foolish troll. Isn't there a bridge you need to be under?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Dear lonewolf1979,

If I clone myself, is it me or is it my son? If I am born identical twins, is it me or my brother? Do you differentiate based on the physical or the spiritual? What is the difference between me and anyone else?


I don't know enough about clones to make a valid arguement sir, that remains a philospophical debate that can go on forever. I can't presume to make a statement about something i have no knowledge of.


I was banned for having "non-English" script in my avatar until I changed it, why have you not received the same treatment?

My non-English language in my avatar simply said: :God of Renewal" in Greek...


I have no idea.

Line 2.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus was a man. Jesus was also the Father in flesh. He was both.


Didn't I see you arguing with NOTurTypical in another thread the exact opposite claim?


No, I was teaching against the trinity in the other thread. The trinity teaches the Father was not manifest in flesh.
edit on 25-7-2012 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus was a man. Jesus was also the Father in flesh. He was both.


Didn't I see you arguing with NOTurTypical in another thread the exact opposite claim?


No, I was teaching against the trinity in the other thread. The trinity teaches the Father was not manifest in flesh.


Okay, well, it's off topic here, so I'll let you continue on with that notion elsewhere (sadly, Autowreck's thread was closed for topic drift.)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet
But here in reality, why would a omnipresent god not be able to "speak" directly to its "subjects", does this not raise a red flag to you?


Why would it? There are millions who feel that he does "speak" directly to them, who are you to say that they're wrong and you're right? What do those millions have that you do not? (And no, for our purposes, claiming "self-delusion" is not an option
)


Well for starters, If the supposed god did speak directly to the populace this conversation would be more in your favor..without the laughing icon.

Obviously I lack the favor of the passive aggressive "laughing icon"


The "laughing icon" is attached to the statement that "self-delusion" is not a valid response.

The question remains, though -- what do the millions have that you do not? Because an omnipotent God (not omnipresent) can, obviously, speak directly to whomever he wants, and those millions testify that he does, as least as far as they are concerned, so if he ain't talkin' to you, what's your guess as to why?

That's a bit of a rhetorical question, I'm afraid... I don't expect you to have a reasonable answer.


My more than reasonable response would be: That your god does not exist, and never has existed. You and your kind are a example of political engineering.

Just for clarification: a person with a god backing them should never be "afraid" or ask a rhetorical question.
edit on 25-7-2012 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





If we are one in flesh, we may or may not be one of spirit; but, we are certainly not guaranteed to be. Which then is the essence of God, the physical or the spiritual. If it is the spiritual then why cannot he materialize in any form he wishes while remaining himself? I am a father, a son and a brother. Yet, I am still me. If I have different jobs and different responsibilities that are dependent on the people I am dealing with, does that make me different people?


Indeed the Father can and did manifest himself into the physical, thats the entire point of the OP. Jesus said his words were spirit because they came from the Father. The Father was in Him and He was in the Father, but unlike the other prophets before him, the Father only told them what to say, but Jesus? Well the Father was actually in Him and was literally him, so that when he told Philip and Thomas if they had seen him they had seen the Father, he was talking both spiritually and physically. It's not necessarily true that to see God's face was to die, he made many physical manifestations to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Hagar, Moses, Manoah and his wife (Samson's parents) and probably Solomon, they saw him face to face and survived.

Having different jobs does not make you different people. In terms of trinitarian logic we see Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet each aspect is the same Deity. Common trinitarian logic states that there are 3 seperate entities in one God. I am merely making a case that it could be that he's all of them. Humans are in his Image, and we have Body, Spirit and Soul. If you talk about my body, that is me, if you talk about my mind, thats is my Soul, what encompasses my personality and my knowledge and memories, if you talk about my Spirit that is the energy that powers my body. Yet if you refer to any one part you are still talking about me, not someone else. Old Testament scripture makes a pretty good case that ther eis only one God, one Holy One of Israel, that he is both the Soveriegn God and the Inheritor of the generations of Israel. From John 1:1 we see that In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with (insert God's name here) and the Word was (insert God's name here), so HE was always there.
edit on 26-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
My more than reasonable response would be: That your god does not exist, and never has existed. You and your kind are a example of political engineering.


So your claim would be that the millions are delusional, but, as you have intellectually dismissed that which cannot be proven to not exist, you are the intellectual and logical superior to the millions who believe?

You are welcome to demonstrate to me how you are able to draw an absolute conclusion ("your god does not exist, and never has existed") from your non-absolute observations. That's called irrationality, Ace



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by willrush
 





i mean everything was made by god, but anything that was made by god, could not be god..... is that agreeable?


Scripture in both OT and NT clearly indicates that Jesus (not his human form) pre-existed and is and always has been God. The man Jesus was just one representation of the eternal Deity Himself, there were many times, as i mentioned above where he made many physical appearances to people all the way from Adam to Gideon, and he made those appearances again to his disciples when he revealed who he is in John 14. In all the gospels he alluded to his identity, but he allowed his disciples to come to that realization on their own, otherwise they would have rejected him if he told them "I am God" at first sight they would have thought he was crazy, so he gave them what all jews require to believe, he gave them signs and wonders.
edit on 26-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Dear lonewolf19792000,



Common trinitarian logic states that there are 3 seperate entities in one God. I am merely making a case that it could be that he's all of them. Humans are in his Image, and we have Body, Spirit and Soul.


This is where we will disagree. My body is not 100% of me but it is 100% from me. A paradox, it is 100% of me; but, I am more than it is. I am not just my body though it is only of me. My finger is of me; but, it does not encompass me. My relationship with my brother is not the same as my relationship with my father; but, I am still completely me. Our perspective of God can be impacted by our relationship with him. He gave us free will so that we could participate in that dance, in creating that relationship. It takes two to tango, so to speak. He remains him; but, the approach he takes is dependent upon the relationship we have with him and it will appear to be different for each and everyone of us as he made us all unique. Something to consider perhaps.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet
My more than reasonable response would be: That your god does not exist, and never has existed. You and your kind are a example of political engineering.


So your claim would be that the millions are delusional, but, as you have intellectually dismissed that which cannot be proven to not exist, you are the intellectual and logical superior to the millions who believe?

You are welcome to demonstrate to me how you are able to draw an absolute conclusion ("your god does not exist, and never has existed") from your non-absolute observations. That's called irrationality, Ace


You can continue to use rhetorical phrases and attempt to confuse the readers..

But it all come down to common sense..

Have you personally seen/spoken with your god? and if not, why not?

Many of these millions you claim to have have experienced this have only done so on a metaphorical level. which equates to a belief in FAITH. Faith does nor ever has equated to fact. Of which I have none, you will not convince me other wise. If that upsets you have your god speak to me about it.

A "god" does not need the defense of a mortal, let it speak for it's self. If indeed it exists.
edit on 26-7-2012 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet
Have you personally seen/spoken with your god? and if not, why not?


How is this about me, Ace? You're the one who is making the claim, not me.

You have stated, clearly, that "your god does not exist, and never has existed" -- setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you don't know who my God is, explain how you are making an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations. This isn't a matter of rhetoric, this is you making an impossible claim, but passing it off as truth, which means that you're lying, which means that you need to address that before the discussion can move forward.

How are you, alone among all humanity, able to make this claim and state it as fact? Share with us YOUR omniscience!
edit on 26-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet
Have you personally seen/spoken with your god? and if not, why not?


How is this about me, Ace? You're the one who is making the claim, not me.

You have stated, clearly, that "your god does not exist, and never has existed" -- setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you don't know who my God is, explain how you are making an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations. This isn't a matter of rhetoric, this is you making an impossible claim, but passing it off as truth, which means that you're lying, which means that you need to address that before the discussion can move forward.

How are you, alone among all humanity, able to make this claim and state it as fact? Share with us YOUR omnipotence!


I can see that you have reduced you argument to unmovable claims...

A full circle if I may.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mileysubet
Have you personally seen/spoken with your god? and if not, why not?


How is this about me, Ace? You're the one who is making the claim, not me.

You have stated, clearly, that "your god does not exist, and never has existed" -- setting aside, for the moment, the fact that you don't know who my God is, explain how you are making an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations. This isn't a matter of rhetoric, this is you making an impossible claim, but passing it off as truth, which means that you're lying, which means that you need to address that before the discussion can move forward.

How are you, alone among all humanity, able to make this claim and state it as fact? Share with us YOUR omnipotence!


I can see that you have reduced you argument to unmovable claims...

A full circle if I may.


No, I've just asked you to sustain your claim. Either retract it or defend it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by chadderson
 


"9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." - Jeremiah Ch17

"12) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." - Proverbs Ch14

To add, if God Himself said that if you deny the Godhead, you are an antichrist and will die in your sins, then just what does that say to people who think that Jesus was just a man sent from God? We are told;


"23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Romans Ch3

"10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." - 1 John Ch1

and we are told THIS about Jesus:

"5) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." - 1 John Ch3


SO, if God says that we ALL are sinners and for arguments sake, Jesus was just a "man", that would make both God and Him a liar, which is impossible;


"18) That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:" - Hebrews Ch6

If Jesus was just a man, not only would He not be capable of being worshiped, because God says;

"8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah Ch42

"11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another" - Isaiah Ch48

But He would not be able to die for our sins, for He would then be a sinner Himself. God knew (of course) that the ONLY way that we sinners could be saved (because we are imperfect), was to send one that WAS perfect and because we are sinners by nature, Jesus COULD'NT have been "just a man". Only the PERFECT GOD could save us and because of the sins of the world, He came in flesh to show us the way. The way to Him and how to live according TO Him. Thus He hung on the cross and gave us a NEW chance for salvation...and that is, through obedience to the Holy Ghost, God's Spirit. The fact that we are sinners, departs God from us, as we are told:

"2) But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." - Isaiah Ch59

So due to sin increasing over time, God could not communicate among us as He used to. What's the solution? God giving His Spirit to His children. He then dwells within His people and guides His people and His people are a manifestation of Him (not like Jesus though) and it's through His people that God then reveals Himself to those who aren't with God.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TTAA2012
 


It's bad to assume, for I was not talking ABOUT the OP, but rather those who claimed to know "Jesus isn't God".



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


There is plenty in the bible that clearly show that Jesus was NOT God.


I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.
-John 5:30


Here is a breakdown of the verse...

I can do nothing on my own = Jesus was an ordinary human being.

I judge as God tells me = Jesus was taking orders from a separate entity.

I carry out the will of the one who sent me, = Jesus was 'sent' , and therefore cannot be the same as the one who sent him.

not my own will. = Jesus placed Gods will above his own.


So, how can you possibly think Jesus does as God tells him and YET be God?






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join