Is John 17:3 or the Trinity a doctrine of Christ? [Archive]

edpobre

30th August 2001, 01:01 AM

Josephus,

You wrote: I kind of have a curious question, ed: I don't mean to hijack this thread, but my question is a good one: do you have a personal relationship with God? I mean, does he like, speak to you? Has he answered your prayers? Doctrine is great and all, but our relationship with God shouldn't be locked inside the ivory tower of apologetics, right? I mean, how exactly is God real to you? Or have you ever considered that?

Anyone can say they have a personal relationship with God. As a matter of fact, this is the standard answer I get from people who know that John 17:3 is a doctrine of Christ but refuse to acknowledge it because of their fanatic belief in the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.

This is like saying I have a personal relationship with Madonna because I talk to her every night before I go to bed and I dream of her almnost every night. The question is, does Madonna even know I exist?

Does God acknowledge that you have a personal relationship with Him? The only way to find this out is through His WORD, the Holy Bible. The reason God sent Jesus is to redeem those under the law that they may receive adoption as sons (Gal. 4:4-5).

In other words, after God got angry at ancient Israel, nobody was a son of God until God sent His Son. Thus, one who has not been redeemed by the blood of Christ does not have any relationship with God.

Col. 1:13-14 says that redemption and forgiveness of sins can be found only in the kingdom of God's son. That kingdom is the church that Christ purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28 Lamsa), the church the Christ gave his life for (Eph. 5:25). And everyone who has been reconciled to God are found in one body (Eph. 2:16) which is the church and Christ is its head (Col. 1:1:cool: .

God does not hear the prayers of those whose sins have not been forgiven. This is what the Bible says in Isaiah 59:2. I find no basis for your saying that God answers your prayers my friend. Anyone can make things up and I believe you are only fooling yourself into "making-believe" that God answers your prayers.

This kind of false security which doen't have any Biblical basis at all only leads to eternal condemnation.

Ed

LouisBooth

30th August 2001, 01:18 AM

"Anyone can say they have a personal relationship with God. "

Umm...so? I can say I'm the president of the US..but that doesn't make it so.

"The question is, does Madonna even know I exist?"

Exactly ed, that's why it takes TRUE FAITH.

funny you should bring up gal 4 in gal 3 Paul says this, "Before this FATIH CAME..and also says You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus..

"Col. 1:13-14 says that redemption and forgiveness of sins can be found only in the kingdom of God's son. That kingdom is the church that Christ purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28 Lamsa), the church the Christ gave his life for (Eph. 5:25). And everyone who has been reconciled to God are found in one body (Eph. 2:16) which is the church and Christ is its head (Col. 1:1 ."

I agree Ed, but NOWHERE in there does it mention the words church of Christ ;)

Josephus

30th August 2001, 01:26 AM

Yes, but my question is, do you?

If I'm a heathen, then I want to know how you know your religion is right - maybe because I want to believe, but I need to know if it's really true, that is, if you have experienced what I hope does exist: real personal two way communication relationship with God. If you're not getting it, then I want no part of it because ed, that is what I'm after. Not some rulebook. If you're telling me you don't have that with God, then everything that you're saying is just about as good as claiming Allah is true because it's in the Koran. If your religion (indeed your relationship with God) isn't any more real than an Muslim's, then why as an unbeliever should I even bother going your way if I can "get" the same "nothing" from the Koran?

So simple question: yes or no - do you or do you not have a deep personal two-way communication love relationship with your God?

If you can't be honest with that question and answer with a simple yes or no, then I suggest you consider leaving this board because no one is going to believe your version of the truth until you prove by your own testimony that what you say is true. As an unbeliever, I want a testimony, ed, not words on paper. Words are good, but if I can't know that this Jesus and Father you talk about is real to you, and how -then your ultimatly responsible at this moment in time for my rejecting of the truth.

I know of no evangelist or missionary who has gone and witnessed about Jesus without having a personal experience and knowledge of what they are talking about. You would be first I know, if this describes you. So, I just wanna know: do you or do you not have a personal two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father or Jesus? If so, I'd like to know how you know. If not, then I'd like to know how you may think why.

<><
a seeker of the truth from the one God sends...if that is you ed, then give me the truth I need and prove Jesus to me through you.

Josephus

edpobre

30th August 2001, 10:03 PM

Josephus,

You wrote: As an unbeliever, I want a testimony, ed, not words on paper. Words are good, but if I can't know that this Jesus and Father you talk about is real to you, and how - then your ultimatly responsible at this moment in time for my rejecting of the truth.

No wonder you are easily fooled by pastors and evangelists who fool people by pretending to have personal relationship with God and Jesus despite what the Bible say aboiut them. There is no use talking to you if you regard the Bible as only words on paper.

You wrote: I know of no evangelist or missionary who has gone and witnessed about Jesus without having a personal experience and knowledge of what they are talking about. You would be first I know, if this describes you. So, I just wanna know: do you or do you not have a personal two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father or Jesus? If so, I'd like to know how you know. If not, then I'd like to know how you may think why.

I have never believed pastors and evangelists who say that they talk to God in their dreams. I have never believed pastors and evangelists who say they have a personal two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father or Jesus based on what they perceive - NOT on what the Bible says.

Listen to what God says to these people: "Thus says the Lord of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophet who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, NOT from the mouth of the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:16).

The only way that one may have two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father is by becoming an adopted son of God. And the only way one can be related to Christ or have union with him is by becoming a member of his body, the church.

Your testimonies are lies. You, the pastors and the evangelists you talk about, have not become adopted sons of God because you have not been redeemed by the blood of Christ (Gal. 4:4-5). Your sins have not been forgiven so God does not listen to your prayers (Isaiah 59:2).

You are not related to Christ either because you have not entered the church, his body of which he is the head (Col. 1:1:cool: . The church ws purchsed by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28 Lamsa). It is only INSIDE the church of Christ that redemption by Christ's blood is found, the forgiveness of sins (Col.1:13-14).

I am a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, Christ's true body or church in these last days. As such, I have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and have received adoption as son of God. As son of God, I am heir of God and joint-heir with Christ. This is my testimony and I'm sure about it because God says so and it is written in the Bible.

Ed

LouisBooth

30th August 2001, 11:49 PM

umm..ed you're not making any sence...

" I have never believed pastors and evangelists who say they have a personal two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father or Jesus based on what they perceive"

"The only way that one may have two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father is by becoming an adopted son of God. "

These are contradictions.

"I am a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo"

Wow ed, so I have to go to that specific church to be saved? What about people that have died BEFORE the chruch of Christ demoination came into exsistance?

lucypevensie

30th August 2001, 11:59 PM

Edpobre--"The only way that one may have two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father is by becoming an adopted son of God."

Lucy--In what way do you communicate with God one on one? Do you mean that's ALL you do to have one-on-one communication--become an adopted son of God? What then? How does one maintain one-on-one communication? Josephus has given multiple examples of how he and God communicate with one another. How do you do it? If I were to choose between yours and Joe's christianity, I'd have to say that joe's is so VERY tangible--It is not a false perception of mine that I see Josephus has a deep relationship with God. I am not blind--I know when things "just happen" and when things look suspiciosly super-natural, and when you have a miraculous string of events happen, like what happened to Joe on his trip I think we would be wise to at least consider that there may be something special between Josephus and God. (How's that for a run-on sentence?) Don't you agree?

I know that a relationship with Christ is not something to "sell" ie. whosever looks the most appealing is the one we should follow. However the Bible does say that by their fruits you shall know them. Joe's "fruits" look pretty realistic to me.

Josephus

31st August 2001, 12:36 AM

Ed, alright. You've convinced me. I'm going to seek out my nearest Church of Christ (though one doesn't exist - I'm sure if I call a pastor they'll let me start one here because I want to get saved TODAY, because God knows I could die tomorrow).

I'm dead serious ed. I believe everything you say. I am now fully convinced of what I should believe and that everything you say is correct, and I think I should call someone to let them know that I've been converted. Can I be saved this instaneously, or do I have wait a grace period before I can find a church to join? What if I die tomorrow? How soon can I be saved? And will these voices in my head telling me to do good things stop?

edpobre

31st August 2001, 11:58 PM

LouisBooth,

Ed: " I have never believed pastors and evangelists who say they have a personal two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father or Jesus based on what they perceive"

"The only way that one may have two-way communication and deep relationship with the Father is by becoming an adopted son of God. "

LB: These are contradictions.

Of course they are! Pastors and evangelists say they have a two-way communication with God based on what they like to believe. The Bible says one has to be redeemed by Christ's blood before his sins forgiven in order for one to be reconciled to God. And one becomes an adopted son of God only after one is reeemed and one's sins are forgiven and reconciled to God..

You wrote: Wow ed, so I have to go to that specific church to be saved? What about people that have died BEFORE the chruch of Christ demoination came into exsistance?

Only the Iglesia Ni Cristo Louis not just any church of Christ denomintion. The Iglesia Ni Cristo is the one and only true church of Christ and it is not a denomination of any existing church.

Ed

edpobre

1st September 2001, 12:06 AM

Lucy,

Unless one has been redeemed by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God in one body (Eph. 2:16), one cannot receive adoption as son of God (Gal. 4:4-5).

And unless one's sins are forgiven, God does not listen to one's prayers, God hides His face and won't listen (Isaiah 59:2). Thus, there cannot be any two-way communication or deep relationship.

I don't blame you for falling for Josephs' fairy tales of God answering his prayers. False teachers, like con artists are good at this. Thus why lot of people are victimized by false teachers and con men.

God gave you intelligence to know what leads to eternal life and what leds to eternal damnation. Use it wisely.

Ed

LouisBooth

1st September 2001, 02:41 AM

"And one becomes an adopted son of God only after one is reeemed and one's sins are forgiven and reconciled to God.."

Exactly, but you said that they do the same things ;) so you where contradicting yourself.

"The Iglesia Ni Cristo is the one and only true church of Christ and it is not a denomination of any existing church."

So does the church name have to be in spanish too or is that a mix of languages..maybe some latin? What's the regualtions on home many pews you have to have ;) So all current churches are wrong since its not the demoination of any one church?

You still didn't answer my quesiton about what about all the people before the church of christ came into exsistnace, because that's what you advocate..you have to go to "my" church.

edpobre

2nd September 2001, 11:14 AM

LouisBooth,

You wrote: Exactly ed, that's why it takes TRUE FAITH.

funny you should bring up gal 4 in gal 3 Paul says this, "Before this FATIH CAME..and also says You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus..

What does "faith in Christ" mean Louis? What does it take to have TRUE FAITH? I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about.

Ed: "Col. 1:13-14 says that redemption and forgiveness of sins can be found only in the kingdom of God's son. That kingdom is the church that Christ purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28 Lamsa), the church the Christ gave his life for (Eph. 5:25). And everyone who has been reconciled to God are found in one body (Eph. 2:16) which is the church and Christ is its head (Col. 1:1 ."

LB: I agree Ed, but NOWHERE in there does it mention the words church of Christ

Does it mention YOUR church either? Do you belong to the church that Christ built?

Ed

edpobre

2nd September 2001, 11:57 AM

LouisBooth,

Ed: "The Iglesia Ni Cristo is the one and only true church of Christ and it is not a denomination of any existing church."

LB: So does the church name have to be in spanish too or is that a mix of languages..maybe some latin? What's the regualtions on home many pews you have to have So all current churches are wrong since its not the demoination of any one church?

Do you think the church that Christ built was called by a name in English? Common sense tells us that it must have been called by a name in the language of the place where it was built. Apostle Paul called members of this church "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16) presumably in the language that was in use in Paul's place of ministry at that time.

The true church of Christ is called Iglesia Ni Cristo in the place where the church re-emerged as designated by God.

You wrote: You still didn't answer my quesiton about what about all the people before the church of christ came into exsistnace, because that's what you advocate..you have to go to "my" church.

What happened to the people who rejected Noah's invitation for them to enter the ark? Were they saved from the flood? Ancient Israel was the only nation of God. God commanded Israelites not to inter-marry Hitites, Amorrites, Caananites, Jesubites whom God considered as NOT His people. Do you take that against God Louis?

I am in these boards to share the truth about God's plan of salvation, which involves: 1) doing His will of gathering together everything in one body, the church (Matt. 7:21; Eph. 1:9-10); and 2) entering the flock by Christ to be saved (John 10:9).

The church or body of Christ in the first century ceased to exist after the apostles died. Between the time that the Catholic church took over and the time that the church or body of Christ re-emerged at the place and time designated by God, everyone was apart from Christ, without hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12).

Today, that re-emerged body or church of Christ is the Iglesia Ni Cristo in whom there is redemption through Christ's blood, the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:13-14). This is where people of all races, nationalities, color and gender are gathered and reconciled to God (Eph. 2:16).

Toward this end, everyone is invited to enter this flock by Christ's doctrines in order to be redeemed by the blood of Christ and receive adoption as sons of God (Gal. 4:4-5). As children of God, members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo are heirs of God (Gal. 4:7) and co-heirs of Christ (Rom. 8:17) in God's promise of inheritance.

I take personal pleasure in extending to you this invitation my friend.

Ed

edpobre

2nd September 2001, 12:07 PM

Josephus,

You wrote: Ed, alright. You've convinced me. I'm going to seek out my nearest Church of Christ (though one doesn't exist - I'm sure if I call a pastor they'll let me start one here because I want to get saved TODAY, because God knows I could die tomorrow).

The Iglesia Ni Cristo is the only true body or church of Christ. You can find this church in 70 countries and the true gospel is preached in about 120 languages. Perhaps there is one locale church near the place where you reside. Check it out before it is too late. As you said, you could die tomorrow. John Kennedy, Aahliya, Princess Diana, they all died unexpectedly.

You wrote: I'm dead serious ed. I believe everything you say. I am now fully convinced of what I should believe and that everything you say is correct, and I think I should call someone to let them know that I've been converted. Can I be saved this instaneously, or do I have wait a grace period before I can find a church to join? What if I die tomorrow? How soon can I be saved? And will these voices in my head telling me to do good things stop?

If you are truly serious about your salvation Josephus, I suggest you look into the yellow pages under "Churches" and look for the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Talk to the minister assigned therat and you will get all the answers you need to know.

Ed

Josephus

2nd September 2001, 05:47 PM

Last I heard, there weren't any "Yellow Pages" in Afgahnistan. What if I want to move to Afgahnistan? Heck, what if I was in Afghanistan already? Does God care that all people there have access to the Inglesia Ni Christo? Or just God care that they simply recieve Him as their Lord and Savior?

Heck, what if I lived on the space station, or was assigned to live on Mars for the duration of my life? Do I just go ahead and invent an Inglesia Ni Christo while I'm there - especially if I'm the only member?

Ridiculousness doesn't seem to suit an infinite God. I prefer to lean on the side that God makes his salvation available to everyone, even when a preacher isn't around. This is promised to everyone on the planet, the American Indians, African tribes, remote jungle villagers, - all people who thoughout time it was not physically possible for them to hear the gospel message - are you saying that God predestined them for hell? Or is the bible correct in saying that "no one is without excuse" for knowing God? Romans 1:20.

edpobre

2nd September 2001, 07:56 PM

Josephus,

You wrote: Last I heard, there weren't any "Yellow Pages" in Afgahnistan. What if I want to move to Afgahnistan? Heck, what if I was in Afghanistan already? Does God care that all people there have access to the Inglesia Ni Christo? Or just God care that they simply recieve Him as their Lord and Savior?

Only the Bible can give you answers to your questions my friend. The Bible says Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:2:cool: . The Bible says Christ gave his life for the church (Eph. 5:25). The Bible says Christ is the savior of the church (Eph. 5:23). Jesus says he who enters the fold by him will be saved.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo is that church my friend. There are Iglesia Ni Cristo members all over the world trying their best to share what I'm sharing with you in this board. You reject what I'm saying and go to a place where you cannot meet any Iglesia Ni Cristo member, you won't have a second chance. If Jesus comes tonight, all I can say is tough luck, you blew it!

However, if you could show me where in the Bible it says that one can be saved by simply recieving Jesus as our Lord and Savior, then I would simply go back to my old Baptist friends and have a party.

You wrote: Heck, what if I lived on the space station, or was assigned to live on Mars for the duration of my life? Do I just go ahead and invent an Inglesia Ni Christo while I'm there - especially if I'm the only member?

You are lucky you are not on Mars and you were given the opportunity to learn about the true church of Christ. You don't have to invent any church because it is already existing. All you have to do is learn everything you want to know about it then make an intelligent decision. You have nothing to lose.

You wrote: Ridiculousness doesn't seem to suit an infinite God. I prefer to lean on the side that God makes his salvation available to everyone, even when a preacher isn't around. This is promised to everyone on the planet, the American Indians, African tribes, remote jungle villagers, - all people who thoughout time it was not physically possible for them to hear the gospel message - are you saying that God predestined them for hell? Or is the bible correct in saying that "no one is without excuse" for knowing God? Romans 1:20.

The Bible tells us that there are only two classes of people. Those who are INSIDE the church of Christ (they are called IN Christ) and those OUTSIDE the church of Christ (they are called the WORLD). Those who are OUTSIDE, God judges (1 Cor. 5:13).

Those who are INSIDE or IN Christ will meet Jesus in the air and will be with him forever (1 Thes. 4:16-17).

Your belief that God makes His slvation available to everyone even without a preacher is false. Apostle Paul asks in Rom. 10:14-15, "How then shall they call on him whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"

But don't worry about the WORLD in remote areas my friend. Jesus promised that "...this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the WORLD as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matt. 24:14). Jesus' promise does not say that ALL the WORLD will believe the gospel and will be converted before the end comes.

The gospel has been preached to you. You are not expected to believe before the end comes.

Ed

ZoneChaos

3rd September 2001, 02:25 AM

Many people on this board have shown you just that, but your belief in your church has blinded you from seeing it.

You say "Show me where..." I say we have.. re-read all these posts.

You don't have to invent any church because it is already existing.

Give the man a cigar!!! Ed, look at what you wrote there, my friend.

The "Church", aka, the Body of Christ existed long before the "Inglesia Ni Christo". Who invented what here? the church existed before your fancy title... so why seperate yourselves by adopting the title? The fact that your church hase a "name" suggests that your church hasn't always existed, but rather came about as a result of a disagreement in the existing Christian Faith and Doctrine. By creating a seperate body of people apart from the Chruch, you have proven that your church is not valid.

"...this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the WORLD as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matt. 24:14).

Ed, you are really showing your lack of knowledge of the Bible here. Fist, in your previous post you say that the belief that God can reveal Himself to anhone, regardless of them being preached to is false. You can beleive that if you want, though the Bible teaches otherwise.

Second, you then try to use Matt. 24:14 to defend the satement you make, but Matt. 24:14 is not talking about "now". Matt 24 is talking about what is to come, during the endtimes, during Tribulation. Matt 24:14 does not apply to now, it does not apply to pre rapture... and thus does not support your view.. wich invalidates your view that a person must be "preached at" in order to be saved, becasue it no longer has the backing of scripture. :(

LouisBooth

3rd September 2001, 06:14 AM

"What does "faith in Christ" mean Louis? What does it take to have TRUE FAITH? I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about."

I know exactly what I'm taking about ed. To have true faith is to truely belive and that is only between you and God, no one else can tell but they can make an "informed" guess.

"Does it mention YOUR church either? Do you belong to the church that Christ built?"

What's your point here ed? I never said you had to belong to my specific church. YOU did. So that's not a "good" response to my question. oh..and Yes I do.

"The true church of Christ is called Iglesia Ni Cristo in the place where the church re-emerged as designated by God."

Umm.well then you should have a hebrew or greek name..don't think those are either..;) Besides, Paul never advocated that you had to be part of a specific church, only that you have faith in Christ. Just look at the beginning of his letters.

"Do you take that against God Louis"

Okay, you totally dodged the question Ed. Answer it please.

"The church or body of Christ in the first century ceased to exist after the apostles died. Between the time that the Catholic church took over and the time that the church or body of Christ re-emerged at the place and time designated by God, everyone was apart from Christ, without hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12). "

Okay so EVERYONE between those time periods of your church went to hell? Whatever ed, give me a break, that is false teaching at its best.

"I take personal pleasure in extending to you this invitation my friend."

Thanks Ed, but I'm already saved, by faith alone, though Christ's blood I have already been sactified in the eyes of God. I am saved ;)

Josephus

3rd September 2001, 02:27 PM

What I find rather insulting, but later I come to understand it as ignorance on your part, is that you Ed honestly believe my experiences are fairy tales concocted for the sake of whatever you think I may be making them up for.

Time and again I've offered to mail you proof of these experiences, pictures, recordings, journals, emails, account information, and so much evidence you'd have to be one blind skeptic to dismiss it as all a hoax. But you seem to have a distate for peope showing you proof of the truth you can not deny - like the constant reminder I give you to respond or refute the Zech 12:10 post and imaged evidence of the actual Hebrew of that text - and it's just one of many texts I have. If you can't handle that one piece of proof, then I suppose you can't handle anything else I send you. Until you respond to the Zech 12:10 post - doesn't matter if you agree with it or not - I just want you to acknowledge it, then you have lost my respect in using normal logical proof-text processes to convince you of the truth.

If this is the case - that you will refuse to acknowledge the very proof you seek with Zech 12:10, then how can I even be sure you will acknowledge the truth of the answer to your most recent challenge? I can prove by scripture that we are not saved by being a member of some physical church. I have imaged texts proving that the Israelites and GENTILES were forgiven for their atonement ONLY by and because of the "Day of Atonement" sacrifice (it too is in the Hebrew), and not by their identity as Jews, or their identity as Gentiles. We have a precedent. I can also show you that the Ethiopian Eunich Peter baptized probably didn't have an Ingelsia Ni Christo to go to! And you forget the theif on the cross. In my bible, God plays no favorites or hold people higher than others - God is totally fair, and if the theif is an "exception" to many things regarding salvation (like baptism, praying the sinners prayer, being a member of the church, and other traditions), then I don't believe God is fair because if what you are saying is true concerning HOW to be saved, then here is proof God showed favortism to the theif in and now He justs lets everyone else follow some strange routine to be saved, and the theif gets into heaven a much easier way than we will. Heck, even ABRAHAM was credited as RIGHTEOUS because of his faith in God. If the Gentile Abraham can be saved from eternal death by being made righteous by his own faith, then why not others on the planet?

So before I even BEGIN to discourse with you about your most recent challenge, how about you answer mine first?

What do you have to say regarding the Hebrew text for Zech 12:10, ed?

edpobre

4th September 2001, 11:19 PM

Josephus,

You haven't even replied to dmmjr's query whether it is the Hebrew text you read or the English text under it.

The RSV, TEV AND TLB translations are Bibles too Josephus. And they don't agree with wht you are reading. What you are reading is a mistranslation.

If it is God talking in Zechariah 12:10, then He is Spirit according to Jesus (John 4:24). And if God is Spirit, can a spirit be pierced?

It was Jesus whom they pierced. We know fully well that by all accounts, Jesus bled when he was pierced. Therefore, it was not a Spirit that was pierced but a man who had flesh and bones.

Don't you believe anything that Jesus said Josephus? Do you really think that anyone who doesn't believe what Jesus says will be saved?

Ed

LouisBooth

4th September 2001, 11:24 PM

"If it is God talking in Zechariah 12:10, then He is Spirit according to Jesus (John 4:24). And if God is Spirit, can a spirit be pierced"

If he "puts on flesh" yeah he can..See John chapter 1.
YOu assume too much ed, in OT it is clearly shown that God reveals himself in a tangable way. a burning bush, a column of fire, the list goes on and on....a column of fire isn't spirit...can you see a spirit ed? Moses saw the trail of God's robe..

Josephus

5th September 2001, 01:33 AM

FYI, here is my response to drmmjr in the other thread, ed. You must have missed it. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner:

drmmjr, I can not read hebrew very well, but I understand letters, and being a Messianic Jew, it comes with the territory in that our pastor offers Hebrew classes. Zech 12:10 was one such verse he used as an example, and later with my own research I once looked up the hebrew words specifically written to see and understand what it was I thought was very confusing: that somehow it can only be translated as Me, and then somehow (and illogically) the pronoun switches to Me:

aleph lamed yud (on Me)

ayin lamed (kamatz) yud vav (for Him)

The kamatz changes the tense altogether - and in the original Hebrew before the vowel kamatz was invented, a dot is listed above the lamed, also changing the tense. Many translators that choose to reject it do so on the basis of it not making sense and they reason that it was copyer error. But what those particular scholars fail to realize is that all the texts we do have, there is a dot above the lamed that changes the tense in all the copies available. Of course this tense doesn't make sense if you have a bias concerning doctrine, but the copeyer that put it there obviously didn't put their bias into it as it it probably remained confusing for him, but for him to change the scripture one little jot would amount to blasphemy on his part as he copied it.

<><
Ryan

edpobre

6th September 2001, 07:14 AM

LouisBooth,

You wrote: If he "puts on flesh" yeah he can..See John chapter 1.

YOu assume too much ed, in OT it is clearly shown that God reveals himself in a tangable way. a burning bush, a column of fire, the list goes on and on....a column of fire isn't spirit...can you see a spirit ed? Moses saw the trail of God's robe..

You say "you assume too much ed". You don't even know what "assume" means.

Do you say I assume too much when I say that God is Spirit and cannot be pierced? Do you say I assume too much when Jesus himself shows his Apostles that it was he whom they pierced by showing his scars? Do you say I assume too much when it was Jesus "the one whom they pierced" who says tht he is "ascending to HIS Father and to YOUR Father and to HIS God and YOUR God?

On the other hand, you assume too much Louis. It is not God who became the burning bush or the column of fire. If God could create the heavens and the earth and everything on it (without becoming the heavens and earth himself) why do you assume that God MUST become a burning bush or a pillar of cloud to make himself tangible? The Bible says we see God through the works of His hands.

If God the Spirit became Jesus the flesh whom they pierced, who was the voice who said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" on two occasions?

Clearly, by your assumption, there are two separate and distinct Spirit-Gods. Yet why do you keep denying that there are really two Gods by your assumption?

Ed

edpobre

6th September 2001, 07:44 AM

Josephus,

You wrote: The kamatz changes the tense altogether - and in the original Hebrew before the vowel kamatz was invented, a dot is listed above the lamed, also changing the tense. Many translators that choose to reject it do so on the basis of it not making sense and they reason that it was copyer error. But what those particular scholars fail to realize is that all the texts we do have, there is a dot above the lamed that changes the tense in all the copies available. Of course this tense doesn't make sense if you have a bias concerning doctrine, but the copeyer that put it there obviously didn't put their bias into it as it it probably remained confusing for him, but for him to change the scripture one little jot would amount to blasphemy on his part as he copied it.

Thanks for responding Josephus. Your post reveals the following:

1) The Hebrew you are reading is NOT the original manuscript afterall. It is a Hebrew text copied from an original;

2) You admit that the dot above the lamed changes the tense and this does not make sense;

3) You admit that the dot above the lamed could be a copyer error;

4) You admit that there are two assumptions on why there are two contrasting versions of the verse: one, that Bible scholars reject what the copyer did because it does nt make sense and it could be copyer error; and two, that although it doesn't make sense (even to the copyer), the copyer did put the dot anyway; and

5) All Bibles were translated from this copied Hebrew text that you are talking about.

The fact is, you are assuming that the copyer is right and the Bible scholars are wrong because they put their bias concerning doctrine that: 1) God is spirit and cannot be pierced; and 2) it was God the Father speaking about Jesus, His son.

You take the translation that doesn't make sense because you put your bias into it that God became Jesus who was pierced. And again I say, your bias is against what the Bible teaches.

Ed

LouisBooth

6th September 2001, 11:55 PM

"? Do you say I assume too much when Jesus himself shows his Apostles that it was he whom they pierced by showing his scars? "

So? It clearly shows that God inserted himself into our reality to be an example and died a sacrifical death for our sin. No one other then God could do that, no one else was good enough.

"It is not God who became the burning bush or the column of fire. "

who was it then Ed? was it noah or abraham?

"why do you assume that God MUST become a burning bush or a pillar of cloud to make himself tangible"

Because that's what he did Ed. He did that because 1. we cannot see him in all his glory (God the father) for we would die instantly (physically) What do you think moses saw on the mountain ed? When God passed by him and he hid in the cleft of the rock? Hmm? What did he see? Must be something "tangalbe" because you can't see something that's not.

"If God the Spirit became Jesus the flesh whom they pierced, who was the voice who said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" on two occasions? "

Jesus was not just flesh ed ;) the biblical term used for flesh is the "bad" spirit in us all. If you mean he became physical flesh, yes you are right, but then again after he rose he wasn't like us at all..not the same "flesh"
Do you think God saying son had something to do with God the father having sex with marry and Jesus was produced? Do you think that is how it happened ed?

"Clearly, by your assumption, there are two separate and distinct Spirit-Gods. Yet why do you keep denying that there are really two Gods by your assumption?"

No there are not ed. I am not a polytheist. I think this is the part you don't understand. Would you like me to use an anology to try and clearify..think about an egg...it has 3 parts, but it is still just ONE egg.

edpobre

8th September 2001, 12:50 PM

LouisBooth,

You wrote: Jesus was not just flesh ed the biblical term used for flesh is the "bad" spirit in us all. If you mean he became physical flesh, yes you are right, but then again after he rose he wasn't like us at all..not the same "flesh"

You are wrong Louis. After Jesus was raised by God from the dead, he told his apostles to touch his scars and said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)

And as if that's not enough, Jesus asked for food and they gave him a piece of broiled fish and he ate! (Luke 24:41-42).

You wrote: Do you think God saying son had something to do with God the father having sex with marry and Jesus was produced? Do you think that is how it happened ed?

I'm used to this kind of smoke screen Louis. Protestants do it all the time. God's saying that Jesus is His son does not have anything to do with how Jesus was begotten or as you say produced (as God coming out of the production line? - LOL!). Jesus is the son as differentiated from the Father.

The voice from heaven (above) says Jesus is his son (twice - once in Matt. 3:17 and again in Matt. 17:5) and Jesus prays to the one in heaven and calls him Father (John 17:1). Jesus continues praying and says: "And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU (referring to the Father - verse 1), the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ whom YOU (again referring to the Father) have SENT." (John 17:3)

I wrote: "Clearly, by your assumption, there are two separate and distinct Spirit-Gods. Yet why do you keep denying that there are really two Gods by your assumption?"

Your reply: No there are not ed. I am not a polytheist. I think this is the part you don't understand. Would you like me to use an anology to try and clearify..think about an egg...it has 3 parts, but it is still just ONE egg.

Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg.

On the contrary, Jesus teaches that the only true God is the Father (one part - NOT three). Your other part (Jesus) is a man (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:3; 1 Tim. 2?:5).

Clearly, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of Christ. It is anti the doctrine of Christ as recorded in John 17:3.

Ed

White Knight 777

8th September 2001, 01:13 PM

since it seems that most went off on other subjects that had little, if anything to do with the question.

Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

My Bible and history correctly teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is manmade. The Trinty doctrine did not exist during the time of the early church. It became official doctrine after the Harlot took over.

The remarks that the True Church 'disappeared' after the first century is only partially correct. It disappeared from public view, but did not cease to exist.

There is a BIG difference.

While on earth, Christ was human, composed of flesh and blood, but this in its self, does not negate the fact that He was part of the God family, incarnate.

WK

Michael

8th September 2001, 02:02 PM

I think I'll enjoy getting to know you. :)

ZoneChaos

9th September 2001, 02:16 AM

Oh, and back to the original question: Trinty or chapter 17? I'll take both.

Welcome to the KT WK ;)

edpobre

9th September 2001, 11:11 AM

WK,

You wrote: My Bible and history correctly teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is manmade. The Trinty doctrine did not exist during the time of the early church. It became official doctrine after the Harlot took over.

When you say "after the Harlot took over" do you mean the Catholic Church which introduced and affirmed the Trinity doctrine and the deity of Jesus?

You wrote: The remarks that the True Church 'disappeared' after the first century is only partially correct. It disappeared from public view, but did not cease to exist.

There is a BIG difference.

You say the true church disappeared from public view but did not cease to exist. Where was the true church all these time then? And what BIG difference does it make?

You wrote: While on earth, Christ was human, composed of flesh and blood, but this in its self, does not negate the fact that He was part of the God family, incarnate.

When you say Jesus was part of the God family, what do you mean? And where in the Bible does it say "God family?" What does "incarnate" mean?

John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. The Trinity doctrine says the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost IS the only true God. Which of these is a doctrine of Christ? Please clarify your stand on this.

Ed

White Knight 777

9th September 2001, 02:13 PM

One: Yes.

Two: The True Church went underground. A good read of what happened to them, scripturally, is covered in Rev 2 and 3. The BIG difference that I refer to, is that the Church and her daughters that were in full view, is the apostacing group that STOLE the name of Christ and some of the doctrines of Christ, and then paganized them, to conform to the ancient Babylonian religion. The True Church is indeed a very small group, just as Christ addressed them to be. They were never to grow to become a major institution. In fact, they were to remain so small that Christ had to assure them that even the gates of hell (death) would not totally overcome them.

Three: The real beginning of the Bible as far as historical events are concerned, is found in John 1:1-3,1414 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It is obvious to those that have an eye to see, and an ear to hear, that the Word spoken of here, is Jesus Christ. He is said to be WITH God and also WAS God. This clearly shows at least TWO personages.

Christ existed prevously as a separate person with the Father, even before His human existence.

Jn.1:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

It also states that all things were made BY Him. When one adds the fact that Christ came to REVEAL the Father and in addition stated to the Jews (as a nation, now and previous) that you (the Jews) never saw or knew the Father, it becomes obvious to the logical mind that the God of the OT was not the Father, but Christ as the living Word of God.

This is confirmed in the scripture that states that the Rock that followed them in the wilderness, was Christ.

In the re-creation account (for this was not the orginal creation) it is derived that the Word is the One that spoke and it was done, this is confirmed by John 1:3.

Four: Eph 3:15 mentions a family in heaven. John in the beginning verses also reveals a FAMILY relationship and composition. Christ is the Son OF God, who has a FATHER.

Is it any wonder why the Human Family, also is based on the same family relationship?

The word 'God' is a uniplural, such as family, team, etc., it does not mean just one personage. It is ONE FAMILY, just as mankind is ONE FAMILY. In this family, the God family, is now only composed of two personages; the Father and the Son.

Therefore, John 17:3 which points to the HEAD of that family, could also be worded:

Jn.17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (family), and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Just as our own physical sons are part of our family, and their surnames are the same as ours, Christ is very much God as the Father is God, but just like us in our physical families, the Father's authority and power, is much, much greater.

Why, oh why, can't so many see this?

Perhaps, Rev. 12:9

WK

edpobre

11th September 2001, 11:05 PM

WK,

You wrote: The True Church went underground. A good read of what happened to them, scripturally, is covered in Rev 2 and 3.

Up to when did the true church remain underground?

You wrote: The BIG difference that I refer to, is that the Church and her daughters that were in full view, is the apostacing group that STOLE the name of Christ and some of the doctrines of Christ, and then paganized them, to conform to the ancient Babylonian religion.

Where was the true church all the time that this church and her daughters were in full view?

You wrote: The True Church is indeed a very small group, just as Christ addressed them to be. They were never to grow to become a major institution. In fact, they were to remain so small that Christ had to assure them that even the gates of hell (death) would not totally overcome them.

Where in the Bible does it say that they were never to grow to become a major institution? On the contrary, the Bible teaches that at one time, 3,000 were baptized and added to the church in one single day (Acts 2:41). And when persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem, they were all scattered throughout Judea and Samaria except the apotles (Acts 8:1).

You wrote: The real beginning of the Bible as far as historical events are concerned, is found in John 1:1-3,14.

You're wrong WK. John 1:1-3, 14 is not the real beginning of the Bible. The Bible is the term ascribed to both the Old and New Testaments together. The Jews referred to the OPld Testament as the Holy Scripture.

The Old Testament contains the WORD of God regarding the enemy of satan (Gen. 3:15); the seed of Abraham (Gen. 17:7); a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:1:cool: ; and a son whose name shall be called Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

John 1:1 is John's description of the WORD of God. It does not refer to Jesus. John 1:14 is John's description of the fulfillment of God's WORD regarding Jesus.

You wrote: It is obvious to those that have an eye to see, and an ear to hear, that the Word spoken of here, is Jesus Christ. He is said to be WITH God and also WAS God. This clearly shows at least TWO personages.

The WORD spoken of in John 1:1 is NOT Jesus Christ. It is NOT Jesus who was with God in the beginning. It is NOT Jesus who was God.

John 1:1 is apostle John's figurative description of God's WORD (expressed IDEA, plan or promise) regarding a savior. John 1:14 is John's figurative description of the fulfillment of God's WORD (expressed IDEA, plan or promise) regarding a savior in the person of Jesus.

Your belief that there are two personages of God contradicts what the Bible teaches. There is only one God and that only one God is in the person of the Father only (Is. 63:16; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

You wrote: Christ existed prevously as a separate person with the Father, even before His human existence.

If Christ existed previously as a separate person from the Father, even before his human existence, what was he? Was he God? Then there would be two Gods and that would contradict what God says.

You wrote: It also states that all things were made BY Him. When one adds the fact that Christ came to REVEAL the Father and in addition stated to the Jews (as a nation, now and previous) that you (the Jews) never saw or knew the Father, it becomes obvious to the logical mind that the God of the OT was not the Father, but Christ as the living Word of God.

What your logical mind comes up with DOES NOT override what the Bible teaches.

The Old Testament teaches that God is the Father (Is. 44:8; Is. 46:9; Ps. 100:3; Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

Matt. 3:17 and Matt. 17:5 records God saying that Jesus is His son. And God MADE His son both Lord and CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

You wrote: The word 'God' is a uniplural, such as family, team, etc., it does not mean just one personage. It is ONE FAMILY, just as mankind is ONE FAMILY. In this family, the God family, is now only composed of two personages; the Father and the Son.

The Bible does not support what you are saying. Anything that is not supported by the Bible must be thrown away. God does not mean "family". God is a title that is given only to the creator of heaven and earth. Nobody except the creator has the right to use the title of God. The Father is the Lord God Almighty who created all things (Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev. 4:11).

You wrote: Therefore, John 17:3 which points to the HEAD of that family, could also be worded:

Jn.17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (family), and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This is a classsic case of TWISTING the word of God to fit a false doctrine. And even if we twist the verse to your liking, it still doers not make sense to say that "the Father is the only true God (family)."

You wrote: Just as our own physical sons are part of our family, and their surnames are the same as ours, Christ is very much God as the Father is God, but just like us in our physical families, the Father's authority and power, is much, much greater.

Now you are saying that God is a surname. When will this deliberate distortion of God's word end?

Why don't you just believe what Jesus says about himself in John 8:40, that he is a man? Thus, if Jesus is a man and the Father is the only true God, how can Jesus be God unless you TWIST the word of God and make Jesus a liar?

Ed

LouisBooth

12th September 2001, 12:50 AM

"You are wrong Louis. After Jesus was raised by God from the dead, he told his apostles to touch his scars and said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)"

:lol: exactly..saying he wasn't a ghost..then he arose to heaven in THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM. He was imperishable ...a glorified body..that's why he said that...he also said that he was imperishable ed :) so you're still a little off.

"Jesus is the son as differentiated from the Father. "

So you do think God the father had sex with Mary? You didn't answer the question ed. If he wanted to differenate himself he would say I am the prophet of God, not the son, as other teachers had before him.

"Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg."
I think you missed the word "like" ed. Yes he is like an egg. it is a simple way to explain the trinity since you OBVIOUSLY dont' understand the concept. The bible teaches there is one God and Jesus, the HS and the Father are all God. So 3 in one and one in three.

"Clearly, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of Christ"

yes it is..see John chapter 1, and that's just for starters..to get Jesus not to be God you're going to have to rip out John chapter 1 from your bible ed, along with several parts in Matthew and Luke where Jesus forgives sin and any place where he accepts worship. I guess you're willing to do that though...

edpobre

16th September 2001, 12:31 PM

LouisBooth,

ED: "You are wrong Louis. After Jesus was raised by God from the dead, he told his apostles to touch his scars and said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39)"

LB: exactly..saying he wasn't a ghost..then he arose to heaven in THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM. He was imperishable ...a glorified body..that's why he said that...he also said that he was imperishable ed so you're still a little off.

First, you agree that Jesus is NOT a ghost. You do agree of course that a ghost is also a "spirit?" Don't you?

Second, you say that Jesus ascended to heaven IN THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM (with flesh and bones).

How then can you say that Jesus is God when he said plainly and understandably that God is Spirit (John 4:24)?

ED: "Jesus is the son as differentiated from the Father. "

LB: So you do think God the father had sex with Mary? You didn't answer the question ed. If he wanted to differenate himself he would say I am the prophet of God, not the son, as other teachers had before him.

What makes you think that God the Father had sex with Mary? This thought never entered my mind Louis because this is immaterial to the issue.

Jesus is the SON and he said that the FATHER is the ONLY true God. That's what matters, NOT as you say, God having sex with Mary.

[quot] ED: "Now you are telling me that your God is an egg! LOL! The Bible doresn't teach that God has 3 parts like an egg."

LB: I think you missed the word "like" ed. Yes he is like an egg. it is a simple way to explain the trinity since you OBVIOUSLY dont' understand the concept. The bible teaches there is one God and Jesus, the HS and the Father are all God. So 3 in one and one in three.[/quote]

What Bible are you reading this from Louis? My Bible teaches that God is NOT like an egg with three parts. My Bible teaches that God is only one in the ONE (not three) person of the Father only (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).

ED:"Clearly, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of Christ"

LB: yes it is..see John chapter 1, and that's just for starters..to get Jesus not to be God you're going to have to rip out John chapter 1 from your bible ed, along with several parts in Matthew and Luke where Jesus forgives sin and any place where he accepts worship. I guess you're willing to do that though...

This only shows that you DON'T read what others post. You are only interested in your own posts. How many times habve I posted that:

1) John 1:1 is NOT about Jesus. It is about God's promises regarding Jesus.

2) John 1:14 DOES NOT say that GOD became man. What John 1:14 truly says is that the WORD of God BECAME man.

3) God GAVE Jesus the power and authority to forgive sins (Acts 5:31; Mark 2:10; Matt. 28:1:cool: .

4) God MADE Jesus both LORD and CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

5) God DID miracles, wonders and signs THROUGH Jesus, the MAN (Acts 17:31).

6) God RAISED Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9).

7) God COMMANDED angels to worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6). And Jesus knew this.

:cool: God GAVE Jesus a name which is ABOVE evey name that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow... and every tongue shall confess that Jesusm is LORD to the GLORY of the Father (Phil. 2:9-11). Jesus knew this too. That's why he allowed people to worship him.

9) God EXALTED Jesus to His right hand as Prince and SAVIOR... (Acts 5:31).

10) After everything is placed under Jesus' feet, he himself will be placed UNDER Him who placed evrything under his feet (1 Cor. 15:27-2:cool: .

Please take your Bible and go over these verses that I quoted in this post. These should tell you that Jesus is NOT God.

Ed

ZoneChaos

16th September 2001, 02:21 PM

How then can you say that Jesus is God when he said plainly and understandably that God is Spirit (John 4:24)?

While it is true that God is Spirit, it is also true that HE is more than that. Asa Christian, I accept this, becasue it is what the bible teaches.

Jesus is the SON and he said that the FATHER is the ONLY true God. That's what matters, NOT as you say, God having sex with Mary.

Ed, you did infer this by saying that God had to of had sex with dirt in order to make Adam. IN this way, you say God had sex with Mary.

Is. 63:16 "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting"

This verse does say that God is one person, the Father, only.

Is 64:8 "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

Nor this one.

Mal 2:10 "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?"

Nor this one.

John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Nor this one.

1 Cor. 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Nor this one.

1) John 1:1 is NOT about Jesus. It is about God's promises regarding Jesus.

Care to explain how a promise (idea or concept) can be a god (sentient, self-aware and omnipotent entity)?

LouisBooth

17th September 2001, 07:58 PM

"Second, you say that Jesus ascended to heaven IN THAT SAME PHYSICAL FORM (with flesh and bones).

How then can you say that Jesus is God when he said plainly and understandably that God is Spirit (John 4:24)?
"

First you are not reading that verse in its context. Read this verse in light of the section..;) Second yes Jesus did arise in a gloried physical body because it says he did in the NT.

"What makes you think that God the Father had sex with Mary? This thought never entered my mind Louis because this is immaterial to the issue. "

Umm..cause that's the way you get a human ed. If he was just a man then he had to come from somewhere.

"What Bible are you reading this from Louis? My Bible teaches that God is NOT like an egg with three parts. My Bible teaches that God is only one in the ONE (not three) person of the Father only "

Well ed, that's EXACTLY what it teaches, why don't you read it again. Now lets go through those verses..

Is 63:16 says nothing about God being one God..so this one is out as is Is 64:8. Are you just throwing random verses out?

Mal 2:10 This verse is taken out of context. It says we have one father and didn't one God create us..refuting the fact that many Gods created us. One God did create us..the tribune God. This also applies to John 17:3..God is one God..the tribune God.

1 Cor 8:6--Explained this to you already. He calls Jesus Lord here..why don't you check to see what that means in greek ;) the Lord with a capital L.

"1) John 1:1 is NOT about Jesus. It is about God's promises regarding Jesus."

Yes it is. Verses 15-18 and verse 30 prove that.

"2) John 1:14 DOES NOT say that GOD became man. What John 1:14 truly says is that the WORD of God BECAME man."

No it makes it very clear in John 1:1 that the word WAS God..so then God became man.

"God GAVE Jesus the power and authority to forgive sins "

Don't you understand ed, only God can forgive sins..;) Get it?

"God MADE Jesus both LORD and CHRIST (Acts 2:36)."

That's right ed and we are baptised in his name..so are we baptised in God's name or a man's ed? I think if you search the NT we are baptised in Jesus' name..ie God's name.

"God DID miracles, wonders and signs THROUGH Jesus, the MAN (Acts 17:31)."

Ed, Acts 17:31 says onthing of this. Try again. Jesus did do things for the glory of the father yes, but that's what its all about anyway :)

"God COMMANDED angels to worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6). And Jesus knew this. "

So you've got the God that said you should worship no other one but him and now he is saying..worship this man? Whatever Ed, I guess God was lying in the OT huh? :lol: This further proves that Jesus is God. check commandment #2 for more details ;)

"Please take your Bible and go over these verses that I quoted in this post. These should tell you that Jesus is NOT God."

I did Ed, and it confirmed Jesus was God. ;)

Pastor Carl

19th September 2001, 12:54 AM

There are only two requirements for salvation, Ed. Just two, and it is not found in any single church, creed, denomination, etc.

You said that to be saved one must be "In Christ". How does one become "in Christ". Paul laid it out quite simply in Romans 10:9, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED!!! Period!!! End of statement. You: (1) Confess that Jesus is Lord. What does that mean? It simply means you give up all your rights as an individual and defer to Christ in all things. He becomes Lord of your entire life. (2) You beleive that God raised Him from the dead. Why? The death on the cross would have been invalid had the resurrection not taken place. In Romans 15 Paul states that"If Christ is not raised then we are still dead in our sins." The atonement of sin is validated by the resurrection. Jesus rose and presented His blood to the Father.

Scripture tells us "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

You become "In Christ" and "adopted sons" and "ingrafted Jews" by Romans 10:9.

It seems that most Christians would agree with you on the forgiveness of sins, becoming adopted sons, etc., but when one church, one individual, other than Christ, sets themselves up as the supreme authority, then it is that organization that had best beware spiritually. It is by grace, and grace alone, that we are saved. Belonging to one group does not make one saved. If it claims that, then it has put itself above Jesus Christ Himself and that, my friend, is pride.