Why do people believe Jesus is God? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why do people believe Jesus is God?

wisdomseeker

1st July 2005, 02:00 PM

~Heavens_Bride~

1st July 2005, 02:05 PM

Not quite sure of your question.

I believe Jesus IS God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. All co-equal and co-existing at all times together as ONE God. They are 100% God together, and seperate from eachother.

Jesus is not a created being...but has always been God and always will be. All things were Created through Jesus (john 1) and Jesus, as God, humbled himself to become man not expecting us to grasp His equality to God (Phillipians 2:6)

PapaLandShark

1st July 2005, 02:18 PM

The Trinity is a mystery. All definitions for it fail in some regard. The concept is just so boggling. True nonetheless. Three "personalities", One essense. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All One.

I'm going to go lay down now. Dizzy. :)

wisdomseeker

1st July 2005, 02:47 PM

repoland2

1st July 2005, 03:05 PM

I have had a feeling all of my life that God is the father of all including Jesus. So why is it that almost every person I meet thinks that God and Jesus are the same person? I am really confused that people can think this way. Is there anyone who can explain this to me.

Unfortunately, 'GOD' is a widely used, and not completely accurate term... Everyone uses God as the title for their 'GOD' whomever that may be.

Things of this nature are not explainable in the human jargon. These ideals are best 'seen' or 'felt' in the spirit, where a different kind of knowledge comes from.

Also remember that all explanations in the human format, are created that way specifically for US to understand. The Lord works His wisdom in the background and uses examples and human understanding to help us along with hints along the way.

Jesus' coming was an example of this. Sort of 'GOD4DUMMIES' sort of explanation of that which most of us tend to lack in the spiritual aspect.

The Lord is 'God'. The Father of all, then the Son and the Holy Spirit. Imagine like this... When you get married, you *assuming you are male* and your wife are joined as ONE flesh. Now you are no longer two different people, you are ONE person, 'joined at the hip' so to speak'. When you have a baby, that baby is ALSO flesh of your flesh. So, you are THREE people, with your own minds and personalities, yet you are ALL one flesh. I believe that is the comparison. Also, consider that when we as Christians 'die' and go to heaven, we are part of ONE body that is Christ. We are all our own people, with our own minds and personalities still, yet we are joined as one being.

I also believe that the Lord created marriage specifically for this purpose. To show the comparison between us and God and where we fit in the family.

gtsecc

1st July 2005, 03:07 PM

Some early Christians also had trouble understanding this idea.
They met at councils and developed This statement on the Trinity:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), the Son is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and the Holy Ghost is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). And yet they are not Three Gods (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), but One God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), the Son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm), is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and Man.

God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm), rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm), He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

New_Wineskin

1st July 2005, 04:04 PM

I can't explain it for someone else . I can only say that Jesus is *my* God regardless of whether He is anyone else's god .

Asaph

1st July 2005, 07:37 PM

It just doesn't get any clearer than this. For a born again Chirstian anyway. ;) :D

John 10:24-30
24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one."
NKJV

By the way, lest you should doubt, these folks had no doubt what so ever about what Jeus just said.

John 10:31-33
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
NKJV

Asaph

Reformationist

1st July 2005, 08:27 PM

The father(god) the son (Jesus) and the Holy spirit (Jesus after resurrection) seems to make more since than saying God is Jesus.

The Christian doctrine of monotheistic trinitarianism is, on casual observation, an oxymoron. Just to clarify, all are co-eternally and co-equally God, yet all are distinct persons of the Godhead. Also, the Holy Spirit is not "Jesus after the resurrection." He is a separate but equal member of the Godhead. All three members of the Godhead are homoousios, that is, "of the same essence." This particular bit of Church history is unique in that the Church had originally condemned the usage of the term homoousios in describing the relationship of the Son in the Godhead. However, when heretical views such as that of Arianism surfaced denying the eternal generation of the Son with the claim that the Son was homoiousios, or, "of like essence" but, in fact, a lesser deity than the Father, the Church, even at the risk of opening the door to other heretical viewpoints, determined contrary to their original stance against homoousios and established it as the orthodox viewpoint of Christian doctrine. The usage of this term was initially intended to emphasize the distinctiveness yet unified relationship between the members of the Godhead rather than call into question the divinity, oneness, and eternal nature of the Son within the Godhead. Over time, there have arisen some blatantly unorthodox views concerning the viability of tritheism, which is the doctrine stating there are three separate Gods, or Sabellianism, which is the belief that there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

Hope that helps.

God bless

savedbygracebre

2nd July 2005, 12:42 AM

This is a little verse that i believe we all know(especially if you've ever seen a field goal kicked on tv in football)
John 3:16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
That is a little heads up to my catholic brother in Christ -GTSECC-
Please don't spread doctrine that the infallible Word of God does not contain. I am referring to the last part of that extensive term paper you wrote on the Holy Trinity which is really not that complicated when you get into the word. I am referring to the tidbit about only catholics going to heaven and nobody else. I am catholic also, but the Word of God also stands alot stronger in my heart than whatever tradition might say. I believe in God-not man-made doctine, which has been written by men who were far less a christian than the great apostle Paul who also called himself the"chief of all sinners". Only asking you to humble yourself brother, that's all.

~Heavens_Bride~

2nd July 2005, 10:47 AM

I have heard about the trinty all of my life. I am just not sure that it means what everyone thinks it means. The father(god) the son (Jesus) and the Holy spirit (Jesus after resurrection) seems to make more since than saying God is Jesus.

Jesus seperates Himself from the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the HS. He said "The Father will send you another helper"...He did not say "The Father will send me back to help you"

I agree that all human attempts at defining the trinity fail. The egg, water etc...all fail in regards to the Trinity.

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 10:51 AM

Jesus seperates Himself from the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the HS. He said "The Father will send you another helper"...He did not say "The Father will send me back to help you"

I agree that all human attempts at defining the trinity fail. The egg, water etc...all fail in regards to the Trinity.

I agree. I also believe God has left it that way on purpose.

Asaph

gtsecc

2nd July 2005, 12:17 PM

-GTSECC-
Please don't spread doctrine that the infallible Word of God does not contain. I am referring to the last part of that extensive term paper you wrote on the Holy Trinity which is really not that complicated when you get into the word. I am referring to the tidbit about only catholics going to heaven and nobody else. I am catholic also, but the Word of God also stands alot stronger in my heart than whatever tradition might say. I believe in God-not man-made doctine, which has been written by men who were far less a christian than the great apostle Paul who also called himself the"chief of all sinners". Only asking you to humble yourself brother, that's all.

I did not write that.
That is the Athanasian Creed, written in response to people who read scripture, and came to some false beliefs about the nature of Christ and the Trinity, to clarify and correct their teaching.

So, naturaly when someone here reads scripture and is confused by the Trinity, I respond as Christians have always responded by pointing to this creed from the 5th century. Better their words than mine. And, you can becertain they found no conflict between the Bible and that Creed. They were not trying to "trick" people into thinking some sort of false teching. These were people who embraced martyrdom and faced death for their belief in Christ and zeal for spreading the Gospel.

StevenL

2nd July 2005, 01:42 PM

Jimmy West

2nd July 2005, 01:46 PM

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 02:50 PM

God and Jesus are one in spirit, but they exist in the physical as seperate. In other words, as God sits on his throne in Heaven, Jesus will be strolling through the countryside, amongst the beautiful flowers. Yet, they share a common spirit.

That's polytheism.

Asaph

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 02:58 PM

Let me explain...

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one. They are yet 3 distinct persons.

You are to believe what exists in the Nicene Creed and the Seven Ecumenicals. Read about the Seven Ecumenicals and the heresies that were denounced, so that you know what you shouldn't believe in.

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 03:04 PM

Jimmy West

2nd July 2005, 03:13 PM

That's polytheism.

Asaph

Oh, Thank You

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 03:23 PM

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 04:55 PM

Asaph, you forget that without the ecumenicals, then the Nicene Creed wouldn't exist. It was formed in the first 3 out of the 7 ecumenicals...

Someone cannot accept those things denied in the 7 ecumenicals as heresies and still be a Christian.

ROFL! No, I didn't forget anything. I just went to the rules page of the forum and saw that there was nothing there but the Nicene Creed. :D

I can accept the Nicene Creed as not teaching error, but to be honest, when I want to read something that tries to teach on the triune nature of God, I prefer the Athanasian Creed. I think it is a very beautiful piece of writing on a very difficult subject.

Asaph

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 05:28 PM

savedbygracebre

2nd July 2005, 07:25 PM

I did not write that.
That is the Athanasian Creed, written in response to people who read scripture, and came to some false beliefs about the nature of Christ and the Trinity, to clarify and correct their teaching.

So, naturaly when someone here reads scripture and is confused by the Trinity, I respond as Christians have always responded by pointing to this creed from the 5th century. Better their words than mine. And, you can becertain they found no conflict between the Bible and that Creed. They were not trying to "trick" people into thinking some sort of false teching. These were people who embraced martyrdom and faced death for their belief in Christ and zeal for spreading the Gospel.
OOPS , preparing to remove the foot from my mouth. My mistake by taking you out of context-hope you continue to have a glorious day with the Lord.
God bless:prayer:

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 07:41 PM

So you deny the 7 ecumenicals to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit? The things that were denied by the ecumenicals are all heresies and you cannot be a Christian and be a heretic at the same time.

Are you just dense or are you trying to bait me by putting words in my mouth I have not said? What is it?

I'm about sick of it I know that.

I am speaking of the rules of this forum. I have said that over and over yet you continue on.

Do you want to know what you can do with your 7 ecumenical whatevers?

I don't see them mentioned anywhere on the rules of this forum. Nowhere. Nada.

They are nowhere mentioned in my bible, nowhere, Nada.

Are you a catholic sock puppet or something? Why are you harrassing me?

Asaph

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 09:44 PM

Wow you are very angry and very very rude, I have no idea why. And i'm not harrasing you, i'm asking questions that's all.

Oh and BTW, i'm no catholic, i'm a protestant who is going to become orthodox in the future.

oh and also, you just broke forum rules, so much for going by the rules of the forums.

The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, wasn't canonized and compiled until the 2nd century A.D. That is 200 years after John died. And about 250 years after Peter and Paul wrote their letters. It wasn't till almost 250 years after John died and 300 years after Peter and Paul that it was accepted by everyone as completely canon...

Also, have you heard of the Apostolic Successor's?

These are the men which were followers and close friends of the Apostles, and also the men who were taught by those who knew the Apostles closely.

Their teachings aren't a part of the canon because they weren't God breathed, but they do all go by the beliefs of the Apostles and their teachings.

Yet the only letter of one of the Apostolic Successor's taht was included in the Canon was Mark's.

What does this have to do with the Ecumenical's you may ask...

You said that the Ecumenical's aren't included in the Bible... Yet neither are the letters of the men who listened and followed and personally knew the Apostles.

You are suggesting that you are ignoring the Ecumenical's and accepting the Nicene Creed just because it's in the forum rules. Yet if you reject the Ecumenical's you have to reject the creed. Because the creed was written in response to the heresies that were arising in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Have you heard of Nestorius? Or Arius? Or Origen? The ecumenical's were held to debate whether or not their teachings were heresies, and it was decided they all taught heresies.

Councils #1 to #7

1. First Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea), (325 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/325)); repudiated Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism), adopted the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed). This and all subsequent councils are not recognized by nontrinitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism) churches: Arians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism), Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian), and Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses) et al.
2. First Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople), (381 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/381)); revised the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.
3. Council of Ephesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus), (431 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/431)); repudiated Nestorianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism), proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (Greek, Η Θεοτόκος; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos)). This and all following councils are not recognized by Assyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East) Church.
4. Council of Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon), (451 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/451)); repudiated the Eutychian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches) doctrine of monophysitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism), described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Creed). This and all following councils are not recognized by Oriental Orthodox Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy).
5. Second Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople), (553 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/553)); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.
6. Third Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople), (680 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/680)-681 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/681)); repudiated Monothelitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism), affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills.

Quinisext Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council) (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, (692 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/692)); mostly an administrative council that raised some local canons to ecumenical status and established principles of clerical discipline. It is not considered to be a full-fledged council in its own right because it did not determine matters of doctrine. This council is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a part of VI ecumenical council, but that is rejected by Roman Catholics.

7. Second Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea), (787 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/787)); restoration of the veneration of Icons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon) and end of the first Iconoclasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm)
You also say you accept the Nicene Creed, and you suggest you don't accept/care about the Ecumenicals and accept the Athanasian creed...

The Nicene Creed was written in the first 3 ecumenicals.
The 7 Ecumenicals were written in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th centuries.
St. Athanasius was an attendant of the First Ecumenical.

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 10:02 PM

Wow you are very angry and I have no idea why. And i'm not harrasing you, i'm asking questions that's all.

Oh and BTW, i'm no catholic, i'm a protestant who is going to become orthodox in the future.

oh and also, you just broke forum rules, so much for going by the rules of the forums.

You are harrassing me and ignoring everything I have said and claiming I have said things I did not say.

I did report you and I would only hope that the mods have enough wisdom to prevent you from harrassing me further.

Asaph

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 10:09 PM

Asaph, i reported you, you were being rude, and accusing me of certain things, not only that, but you insulted me and called me a "catholic sock puppet". Your behavior isn't nearly within the lines of the forum rules.

I haven't ignored anything you have said, I have read it, and to most of them, i replied. I don't have to reply to everything you say.

Also, i'm not harassing you. You apparently aren't familiar with debating. I have asked you questions and am expecting you to try and defend your views.

I never insulted you, never called you a name, never was being rude and didn't every accuse you or put words in your mouth. What I read is what I read. By your posts, I detirmined what I had posted. I never put words in your mouth, what I said that you were saying is what I read from your own posts.

I'm not out to put words in your mouth and i'm not here to get you in trouble, you've done that yourself. I am here asking you questions and expecting you to defend your own views. In debating, you don't respond with hate, or rude comments. You should act civilized with respect to the other person and their views. I respect you because of your views even though I don't like them or agree with them.

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 10:13 PM

Asaph, i reported you, you were being rude, and accusing me of certain things, not only that, but you insulted me and called me a "catholic sock puppet". Your behavior isn't nearly within the lines of the forum rules.

I haven't ignored anything you have said, I have read it, and to most of them, i replied. I don't have to reply to everything you say.

Also, i'm not harassing you. You apparently aren't familiar with debating. I have asked you questions and am expecting you to try and defend your views.

I never insulted you, never called you a name, never was being rude and didn't every accuse you or put words in your mouth. What I read is what I read. By your posts, I detirmined what I had posted. I never put words in your mouth, what I said that you were saying is what I read from your own posts.

If that were true we would not be where we are now.

The mods will sort it out. You should not have attacked me.

Asaph

Asaph

2nd July 2005, 10:16 PM

BTW, to whom it may concern, please notice that I have not edited any of my posts. Not one.

Asaph

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 10:16 PM

I never attacked you, I never did and I never will...

You are directly accusing me of things I didn't do. You may have posted in a way to where your views weren't clearly made. The other person has to interpret what you are saying and what you believe by your words. If you don't make it clear, then say flat out what you believe.

There is a difference between debating and attacking. I have been trying to get you to debate, like I said, I want you to defend your views and tell me why you believe what you believe instead of insulting me and being rude as you did.

Asaph, I never delete anything from my posts, I edit my posts in order to add things. i'm not someone who wants to increase their post count (and i'm not saying your one of them) by not editing their posts. Someone who posts multiple times anytime they want to add something just is adding more to the clutter of the thread and making it tougher to sort through the many posts.

Like I'm doing right now, I'm editing this post and adding things, I don't delete.

From your post, i'm assuming your accusing me of deleting things I have said in order to appear the right in the situation, but I never do that. I only do it if I post it, and then immediately delete and change the things I wrote. I also only delete things from a post if requested by a mod.

repoland2

2nd July 2005, 10:27 PM

There is a difference between debating and attacking. I have been trying to get you to debate, like I said, I want you to defend your views and tell me why you believe what you believe instead of insulting me and being rude as you did.

With all due respect, this is why seeking confrontation can prove to be a problem. Usually, you don't need to find conflicts, they find you... and all too easily.

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 11:42 PM

I am grown up. I was doing as everyone else does in this forum. Debate. And that post wasn't for him but the mods. I wanted to make it clear that I didn't do the things he accused me of.

And BTW Jimmy that too is against forum rules and is utter flaming, but I can understand your frustration.

Either way he's on my ignore list.

StevenL

2nd July 2005, 11:50 PM

Actually 88, you'd probably do better to take that Orthodox stuff elsewhere. Maybe to ....hmm.... an Orthodox forum? I doubt you'll find many takers here. I certainly don't care much about Ecumenicals and such nonsense. And I don't have to follow anyone's set of creeds to be a Son of God. Blech. Always hate to see someone blunder off into man-made religious traps.

88Devin07

2nd July 2005, 11:56 PM

StevenL

3rd July 2005, 12:09 AM

Well, buddy, :), <<<<hypocrite.... I'm sure you've been convinced of that claptrap. And I hate it for you. May the Lord deliver you. But I'm not gonna argue against it. But no, it's not proven anywhere by any means by any stretch of the imagination.

Like I said, you'll do better with your own kind. God bless.

gtsecc

3rd July 2005, 12:11 AM

I can't understand why anyone would want to ignore the ecumenical councils. These people were just trying to clarify Christianity to people. Some folks seem to think that the Church was correct when it put forth the Bible, yet magically these same people were incorrect when they put forth a council.

repoland2

3rd July 2005, 12:21 AM

Can we please stop the arguing, this thread must end before it goes any further. This is seriously painful to read.

I know what someone is probably thinking about that last statement "Well then don't read it" and for those of you who think that way, I feel even worse for you. May the Lord pour His eternal LOVE upon you.

StevenL

3rd July 2005, 12:52 AM

Actually repoland, what is painful to read is that horrible fuzzy blue font you're posting with. :D Oh wait, maybe that's just my eyes.

repoland2

3rd July 2005, 01:28 AM

Actually repoland, what is painful to read is that horrible fuzzy blue font you're posting with. :D Oh wait, maybe that's just my eyes.

I pray this is better for you, and others who have the same issue. I would rather not change the font if I can help it. :)

StevenL

3rd July 2005, 01:32 AM

I pray this is better for you, and others who have the same issue. I would rather not change the font if I can help it. :)

Thanks, but you don't have to change it for me. It's just an old fella and fuzzy eyes thing. The dark fonts that are close together force me to get up closer to my monitor and I'm too comfortable sitting back here in my chair. Thanks for the consideration though. God bless.

New_Wineskin

3rd July 2005, 07:02 AM

Asaph

3rd July 2005, 08:12 AM

I am glad I am not a part of any of those clubs . Jesus is the only reason for *my* existance .

Same here NW. If I find myself defending a particular "club", I know I am not walking in the spirit.

The funny thing is, in my efforts to avoid a typical arguement, I got accused of all manner of things. :D

Asaph

jasperbound

3rd July 2005, 11:51 AM

I am glad I am not a part of any of those clubs . Jesus is the only reason for *my* existance .

Indeed. I'm the ultimate non-conformmist because I'm not part of any church, not even my own!

New_Wineskin

3rd July 2005, 11:57 AM

Indeed. I'm the ultimate non-conformmist because I'm not part of any church, not even my own!

That's great !! :)

Of course , if you were a member of one specific group , you would be forsaking the assemblies of those not in that group . And , people get into an uproar if one does "forsake the assembly" . :)

repoland2

3rd July 2005, 12:03 PM

Indeed. I'm the ultimate non-conformmist because I'm not part of any church, not even my own!

The Ultimate non-conformist. I am curious, what if the Lord wants you to pray to Him and ask Him what HE wants you to do?

Doesn't sacrificing of one's flesh to the Lord, mean complete conforming to His will?

I can understand that you would wish to keep yourself from conforming to the ways of the Human, but I personally ask that you not include the Lord in that. I'm sure you know deep down in your heart that the Lord rejoices in our fellowship of worship and praise, and that churches seem to be the most common way to do that.

repoland2

3rd July 2005, 12:06 PM

Thanks, but you don't have to change it for me. It's just an old fella and fuzzy eyes thing. The dark fonts that are close together force me to get up closer to my monitor and I'm too comfortable sitting back here in my chair. Thanks for the consideration though. God bless.

Well, I thank you for your understanding. I've recently descovered that the only reason I use the crazy font and color is to stand out from everyone else. I didn't quite like that about myself so I'm changing them for other reasons.

I am thankful that my reason, and your need for different fonts and colors coinside :thumbsup:

God bless you too! :amen:

jasperbound

3rd July 2005, 12:25 PM

That's great !! :)

Of course , if you were a member of one specific group , you would be forsaking the assemblies of those not in that group . And , people get into an uproar if one does "forsake the assembly" . :)

So, rather than forsaking part of the assembly, we're forsaking all of the assembly by not being part of any "church" (in the non-home sense).

New_Wineskin

3rd July 2005, 12:49 PM

So, rather than forsaking part of the assembly, we're forsaking all of the assembly by not being part of any "church" (in the non-home sense).

With regards to that Law , yes . But , I like to meet with a few here and a few there so that I am not forsaking anyone .

repoland2

3rd July 2005, 12:54 PM

With regards to that Law , yes . But , I like to meet with a few here and a few there so that I am not forsaking anyone .

I am curious my friend, why spend so much energy worrying about whether or not you are foresaking others and if they truely notice that you are doing so. Why not focus the energy on your relationship with the Lord, and the BEST way to do that, which only the Lord knows.

Prayer is power :thumbsup:

New_Wineskin

3rd July 2005, 01:05 PM

I am curious my friend, why spend so much energy worrying about whether or not you are foresaking others and if they truely notice that you are doing so. Why not focus the energy on your relationship with the Lord, and the BEST way to do that, which only the Lord knows.

Prayer is power

You have misread me . I don't spend any energy at all . I totally disagree with the Law of not forsaking . TOTALLY ! Righteousness isn't obtained from obeying the assembling Law .

I rest in the Lord and do not need to spend energy on the relationship . I don't need to worry if a group worships a certain way or not as you have suggested . My relationship is not harmed by how others worship . *That* would be using too much energy for me . I don't need to look for a group with which to meet . I am free from using any energy in that realm .

I am glad that we are on the same page that the relationship is the important thing . :)

StevenL

3rd July 2005, 02:14 PM

Well, I thank you for your understanding. I've recently descovered that the only reason I use the crazy font and color is to stand out from everyone else. I didn't quite like that about myself so I'm changing them for other reasons.

I am thankful that my reason, and your need for different fonts and colors coinside :thumbsup:

God bless you too! :amen:

Ahh.. much better! :thumbsup:

Reformationist

3rd July 2005, 04:10 PM

Quote: "Also, the Holy Spirit is not "Jesus after the resurrection"

"The last Adam became a Life-giving Spirit." 1 Cor 15:45

"The Lord IS that Spirit." 2 Cor. 3:17-18

Given these two sentences, the quoted point is debatable.

Unless you're contending that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person then it isn't debatable. It's called a trinity, not a duality. There are three distinct members of the Godhead, each "I" in relation to the others who are "You."

I doubt we'll resolve the "trinity" debate here. :)

What's the "trinity debate?" Is it that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person? :scratch:

God bless

Reformationist

3rd July 2005, 04:17 PM

Actually buddy, the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Orthodox Church. It has been the church since 33 A.D. and is still the Apostolic church, and that just isn't a blind claim, it's proven historically.

LOL! It amazes me that this is the same claim that the Roman denomination makes and you each stand by it as if its irrefutable. If it's "proven historically" then there wouldn't be any dissention from such a view. After all, one would only have to show the proof.

Contrary to your posturing, the reason I'm a Christian and that I can worship my Lord and Savior isn't because of your denomination Devin. It's because God alone is able.

God bless

Ceris

3rd July 2005, 04:20 PM

Thread Closed for Staff Review