# I asked this on another forum



## 1gr8bldr (May 27, 2013)

1 John 2:12, "No one has seen God at any time". If John believed Jesus to be God, he would have never said this. Jesus was seen by many. This is rather problematic for the majority Christian view. Thoughts???


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 27, 2013)

Matthew 17:1 “17 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 He was transformed in front of them, and His face shone like the sun. Even His clothes became as white as the light. 3 Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it’s good for us to be here! If You want, I will make three tabernacles here: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said:
This is My beloved Son.
I take delight in Him.
Listen to Him!”

Excerpt From: Holman Bible Publishers. “The Holy Bible: HCSB Digital Text Edition.” B&H Publishing

John was there at the transfiguration when God professed Jesus to be his son, so he absolutely knew that while Jesus was God the son,  there was also a separate God the father


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Matthew 17:1 “17 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 He was transformed in front of them, and His face shone like the sun. Even His clothes became as white as the light. 3 Suddenly, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
> 4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it’s good for us to be here! If You want, I will make three tabernacles here: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
> 5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said:
> This is My beloved Son.
> ...


So are you argueing your case with me or with scripture? if "he absolutely knew Jesus was God the son" then he would not have said "no one has seen God at any time"


----------



## jmharris23 (May 27, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> So are you argueing your case with me or with scripture? if "he absolutely knew Jesus was God the son" then he would not have said "no one has seen God at any time"



I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here? First off it's 1 John 4:12 and it's obvious by the context what John means there. No one has seen God the Father, that's his point. 

If you've actually read the bible, it should be easily understandable to you what John meant when he wrote this. 

If you're a believer, like you claim to be( I think) I don't get your point in always trying to discredit Scripture?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 27, 2013)

You are quoting the wrong verse.  That's not 1 John 2:12.  You are either speaking of John 1:18

“18 No one has ever seen God.
The One and Only Son “the One who is at the Father’s side —
He has revealed Him.”

Or

1 John 4:12

“No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God remains in us and His love is perfected in us.”

But the answer remains the same.   John recognized Jesus as God incarnate(in the flesh), however he also knew that God, the Father, is a Spirit,  distinct and separate.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 27, 2013)

Jesus who is at his Father's side has seen God. He is someone.
How can someone see God who is a spirit? 
I hope to one day see God and his Son Jesus. It sounds like two different entities. I don't know how I'll see a spirit. I'm pretty sure I'll need my body to see Jesus and my spirit to see God. If God is pleased with his beloved Son then so am I.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here? First off it's 1 John 4:12 and it's obvious by the context what John means there. No one has seen God the Father, that's his point.
> 
> If you've actually read the bible, it should be easily understandable to you what John meant when he wrote this.
> 
> If you're a believer, like you claim to be( I think) I don't get your point in always trying to discredit Scripture?


Yes, it is 1 John 4:12, your forcing it to say God the Father. The context is love, that God is displayed in our lives by love, that God displayed his by sending his son and yet John writes that 'no one has seen God at any time". If John believed Jesus to be God then he would not have wrote this since he himself had seen Jesus. I am simply pointing out a major problem for the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus is God.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes, it is 1 John 4:12, your forcing it to say God the Father. The context is love, that God is displayed in our lives by love, that God displayed his by sending his son and yet John writes that 'no one has seen God at any time". If John believed Jesus to be God then he would not have wrote this since he himself had seen Jesus. I am simply pointing out a major problem for the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus is God.


Sounds like you are pointing out a major problem for you, not us. No matter how many different forums you post this on, I suspect your conundrum will remain the same. My faith and understanding of scripture moves me well beyond such silly banter.


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> John recognized Jesus as God incarnate(in the flesh), however he also knew that God, the Father, is a Spirit,  distinct and separate.



^^^^Could be interesting, getting a trinity debate going in the AAA forum.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

I find it strange that even devout believers can't just say "yea, that is problematic" But instead insist that it say something that it does not


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes, it is 1 John 4:12, your forcing it to say God the Father. The context is love, that God is displayed in our lives by love, that God displayed his by sending his son and yet John writes that 'no one has seen God at any time". If John believed Jesus to be God then he would not have wrote this since he himself had seen Jesus. I am simply pointing out a major problem for the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus is God.



I don't understand the belief that Jesus is not God. 

What do you believe Jesus is?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't understand the belief that Jesus is not God.
> 
> What do you believe Jesus is?


I would like to say that my belief has nothing to do with the post, that what I pointed out could be said by all types of believers, but I know that you guys would not see it that way. I believe Jesus is YHWH's  son, not that he is YHWH


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> if you're a believer, like you claim to be( i think) i don't get your point in always trying to discredit scripture?




bad christian.....


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I would like to say that my belief has nothing to do with the post, that what I pointed out could be said by all types of believers, but I know that you guys would not see it that way. I believe Jesus is YHWH's  son, not that he is YHWH



Do you believe He is a deity?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you believe He is a deity?


He now sits at the right hand of the Father interceding which would make him divine like the angels but he is not YHWH


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

I'll be glad to answer questions for those interested in what I believe, but I would like to say that my Opost is* not an effort* to say anyone is wrong and by me answering my beliefs, to imply that my way is right.


----------



## stringmusic (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> He now sits at the right hand of the Father interceding which would make him divine like the angels but he is not YHWH


So you believe Him to be equal to angels? Why do you think God chose Jesus in particular to be Saviour?

Do you belive Jesus was created?

Do you believe He was divine while walking the earth, or is He only divine now that He sits at the right hand of God?


Sorry, that is a lot of questions.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

I urge anyone who hasn't done so before to read the book of Hebrews. Very enlightening about the supremacy of Christ to ALL other things. Also, when John saw what he saw in Revelation, he fell down to worship the Angel who showed him those things. The Angel was clear: worship God. We will be worshipping God in heaven, including the lamb of God-Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I find it strange that even devout believers can't just say "yea, that is problematic" But instead insist that it say something that it does not



I don't think most Christians see it as problematic as the belief in the Trinity has been instilled in them since they were small children. When they read the bible they read it with their "Trinity" glasses on. 
I had to remove those glasses and my Baptist glasses and read the Bible for myself before it made any sense to me. The truth will set you free. It has always been problematic for me, even when I was a Trinitarian.

Just remember Jesus said his Father is greater than him. 
And Jesus said unto him, Why call me good? none is good, except one, that is, God.


----------



## JB0704 (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I urge anyone who hasn't done so before to read the book of Hebrews. Very enlightening about the supremacy of Christ to ALL other things.



I have found that any in depth look at the book of Hebrews leaves the reader more confused than when he started.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So you believe Him to be equal to angels? Why do you think God chose Jesus in particular to be Saviour?
> 
> Do you belive Jesus was created?
> 
> ...


My belief is called a "low christology", yet my personal opinion is that it is a "high christology" because I believe Jesus to be second only to God. Yes, I believe he was created. And no, not divine while walking on earth. He was given all authority


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

The book of Hebrews is very misunderstood. We have a crowd who thinks that God calls Jesus God in 1:8, I think. But this is proven wrong by the surrounding context. The context reveals the belief of the Hebrew's writer. If he believed Jesus to be God then he would not tell  us that Jesus "is superior to the angels" or "Jesus has been found worthy of  greater honor than Moses". That would be a given. I would never say that Shack is a better ball player than my daughter, that is a given.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is called a "low christology", yet my personal opinion is that it is a "high christology" because I believe Jesus to be second only to God. Yes, I believe he was created. And no, not divine while walking on earth. He was given all authority



On the other forum, is your screen name "Arius"?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I find it strange that even devout believers can't just say "yea, that is problematic" But instead insist that it say something that it does not



Uhhhhh.  With all due respect, it may be because everyone else understands the context of the passage in the overall storyline.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> On the other forum, is your screen name "Arius"?


 The Arian controversy was a major time period in church history. Arius believed Jesus was created and believed that he was lesser than the Father, holding to the verse "the Father is greater than I". That controversy did not even include the trinity for it only evolved after this point. [the HS becoming a third coequal person]. But Arius did believe that Jesus was divine while on earth. Yet, they killed him for his differing belief. But no my screen name is not Arius. I believe he was closer to the original early church belief, but still not correct


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Uhhhhh.  *With all due respect,* it may be because everyone else understands the context of the passage in the overall storyline.


That is all it takes for interesting conversation. I enjoy others opinions and find their beliefs interesting. If the topic gets out of hand, I'll be inclined to delete it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is called a "low christology", yet my personal opinion is that it is a "high christology" because I believe Jesus to be second only to God. Yes, I believe he was created. And no, not divine while walking on earth. He was given all authority



If you don't accept the divinity of Christ then I understand why these verses pose problems to you.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I find it strange that even devout believers can't just say "yea, that is problematic" But instead insist that it say something that it does not



That's because it is not problematic. No word in scripture exists in its own vacuum and the context of Scripture is very clear that God the Father and God the Son are "the same." 

You seem to be the only one making an issue of it, and I am still not sure why?


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you don't accept the divinity of Christ then I understand why these verses pose problems to you.



Then it seems you have a problem with Scripture in general? 

Colossians is very clear what we are to believe about Christ. 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created. in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.....


Or put much more simply by Christ himself, " I and the father are one or I am in the Father and the Father is in me."


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

The verse about not seeing God isn't as problematic as this verse:

For God is one, and there is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

When Jesus was talking to his Father, he was REALLY talking to his Father.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

There is one God, and one mediator, and they are the same person in different forms...... isn't that the whole point of the Trinity?


----------



## hunter rich (May 28, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Sounds like you are pointing out a major problem for you, not us. No matter how many different forums you post this on, I suspect your conundrum will remain the same. My faith and understanding of scripture moves me well beyond such silly banter.



But what about the non believer who is willing to read the bible and try to understand or become a christian?  This is just one of many problems in the bible that would cause a person to scratch their head in confusion...


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> But what about the non believer who is willing to read the bible and try to understand or become a christian?  This is just one of many problems in the bible that would cause a person to scratch their head in confusion...



The truth is quite simple but people like to complicate things. It's like those people who play a Beatles record and try to hear something out of it that's not there. 

2 Corinthians 11:3 contains  “the simplicity that is in Christ”


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Then it seems you have a problem with Scripture in general?
> 
> Colossians is very clear what we are to believe about Christ.
> 
> ...


The verse you pointed out is a good example. "for by him all things were created". Our biased translators have shaped a doctrine. The "by" is incorrect. It should be "in". One incorrectly  implies creator the other as agent. For the proof one only has to look at the greek. Our translators have the author using the same greek word rendered two different ways in the same breath. No way. The proper context is seen in Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance to do"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> But what about the non believer who is willing to read the bible and try to understand or become a christian?  This is just one of many problems in the bible that would cause a person to scratch their head in confusion...



I've said it before and I'll say it again.  God doesn't save you based on what you understand past the gospel.  He saves you on whether or not you accept what you do understand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The verse you pointed out is a good example. "for by him all things were created". Our biased translators have shaped a doctrine. The "by" is incorrect. It should be "in". One incorrectly  implies creator the other as agent. For the proof one only has to look at the greek. Our translators have the author using the same greek word rendered two different ways in the same breath. No way. The proper context is seen in Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance to do"



Can you supply a reference to the effect that the translators were biased, and this bias affected the translation?

Who is " our translators" ?

Can you provide a reference for your assertion "by" should be translated "in"?
For the record the KJV, ASV, HCSB,NASB all translate it as "in".  What Bible are you using?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Can you supply a reference to the effect that the translators were biased, and this bias affected the translation?
> 
> Who is " our translators" ?
> 
> ...


Do you have a greek parallel to english bible. Or simply a greek copy of colossians where you can see the two greek words for "in" in the same sentence. Or even a concordance will show that the word in Eph 2:10 is the same greek word used 2 different ways in Col 1:16. In the meantime, I will find it somewhere and paste it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Notice "ev" translated 2 different ways in the same breath, in purple

<< Colossians 1:16 >>

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3754 [e]	hoti	ὅτι	because	Conj
1722 [e]	en	*ἐν*	by	Prep
846 [e]	autō	αὐτῷ	him	PPro-DM3S
2936 [e]	ektisthē	ἐκτίσθη	were created	V-AIP-3S
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	–	Art-NNP
3956 [e]	panta	πάντα	all things,	Adj-NNP
1722 [e]	en	*ἐν*	in	Prep
3588 [e]	tois	τοῖς	the	Art-DMP
3772 [e]	ouranois	οὐρανοῖς	heavens,	N-DMP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1909 [e]	epi	ἐπὶ	upon	Prep
3588 [e]	tēs	τῆς	the	Art-GFS
1093 [e]	gēs	γῆς	earth;	N-GFS
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	the	Art-NNP
3707 [e]	horata	ὁρατὰ	visible,	Adj-NNP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	the	Art-NNP
517 [e]	aorata	ἀόρατα	invisible;	Adj-NNP
1535 [e]	eite


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Now notice the correct use of "ev" in Eph 2:10, in purple

<< Ephesians 2:10 >>

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	of him	PPro-GM3S
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ	indeed	Conj
1510 [e]	esmen	ἐσμεν	we are	V-PI-1P
4161 [e]	poiēma	ποίημα	workmanship,	N-NNS
2936 [e]	ktisthentes	κτισθέντες	having been created	V-APP-NMP
1722 [e]	en	*ἐν*	in	Prep
5547 [e]	Christō	Χριστῷ	Christ	N-DMS
2424 [e]	Iēsou	Ἰησοῦ	Jesus	N-DMS
1909 [e]	epi	ἐπὶ	for	Prep
2041 [e]	ergois	ἔργοις	works	N-DNP
18 [e]	agathois	ἀγαθοῖς	good,	Adj-DNP
3739 [e]	hois	οἷς	which	RelPro-DNP
4282 [e]	proētoimasen	προητοίμασεν	before prepared	V-AIA-3S
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	–	Art-NMS
2316 [e]	theos	θεὸς	God,	N-NMS
2443 [e]	hina	ἵνα	that	Conj
1722 [e]	en	*ἐν*	in	Prep
846 [e]	autois


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Now to further the proof of biased translators. "All things were created by him and for him". That "by" is the greek word always rendered "through" which is "si". It should read "all things were created through him" [agent of new creation] One only needs compare all the usuages of the greek word "Si' to see that this "by" is not justified. Vs 20 does have Si rendered properly. So again we have the same author in almost the same breath using the same greek word, but rendered two different ways by our biased translators


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Here we see "ev" translated two different ways in the same breath and we see "Si" translated two different ways 3 sentences apart

16   á½…Ï„Î¹ * á¼�Î½*  Î±á½�Ï„á¿·  á¼�ÎºÏ„Î¯ÏƒÎ¸Î·  Ï„á½°  Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î± 
* á¼�Î½*  Ï„Î¿á¿–Ï‚  Î¿á½�Ï�Î±Î½Î¿á¿–Ï‚  ÎºÎ±á½¶  á¼�Ï€á½¶  Ï„á¿†Ï‚  Î³á¿†Ï‚ 
         Ï„á½°  á½�Ï�Î±Ï„á½°  ÎºÎ±á½¶  Ï„á½°  á¼€ÏŒÏ�Î±Ï„Î±, 
         Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  Î¸Ï�ÏŒÎ½Î¿Î¹  Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  ÎºÏ…Ï�Î¹ÏŒÏ„Î·Ï„ÎµÏ‚ 
         Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  á¼„Ï�Ï‡Î±Î¹  Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  á¼�Î¾Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î±Î¹· 
         Ï„á½°  Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î± * Î´Î¹â€™*  Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦  ÎºÎ±á½¶  Îµá¼°Ï‚  Î±á½�Ï„á½¸Î½  á¼”ÎºÏ„Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î±Î¹· 
         17   ÎºÎ±á½¶  Î±á½�Ï„ÏŒÏ‚  á¼�ÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½  Ï€Ï�á½¸  Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Ï‰Î½ 
         ÎºÎ±á½¶  Ï„á½°  Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î±  *á¼�Î½*  Î±á½�Ï„á¿·  ÏƒÏ…Î½Î­ÏƒÏ„Î·ÎºÎµÎ½, 
         18   ÎºÎ±á½¶  Î±á½�Ï„ÏŒÏ‚  á¼�ÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½  á¼¡  ÎºÎµÏ†Î±Î»á½´  Ï„Î¿á¿¦ 
            ÏƒÏŽÎ¼Î±Ï„Î¿Ï‚  Ï„á¿†Ï‚  á¼�ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¯Î±Ï‚· 
         á½…Ï‚  á¼�ÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½  á¼¡  á¼€Ï�Ï‡Î®, 
         Ï€Ï�Ï‰Ï„ÏŒÏ„Î¿ÎºÎ¿Ï‚  á¼�Îº  Ï„á¿¶Î½  Î½ÎµÎºÏ�á¿¶Î½, 
         á¼µÎ½Î±  Î³Î­Î½Î·Ï„Î±Î¹  á¼�Î½  Ï€á¾¶ÏƒÎ¹Î½  Î±á½�Ï„á½¸Ï‚  Ï€Ï�Ï‰Ï„ÎµÏ�Ï‰Î½, 
         19   á½…Ï„Î¹  á¼�Î½  Î±á½�Ï„á¿·  Îµá½�Î´ÏŒÎºÎ·ÏƒÎµÎ½  Ï€á¾¶Î½ 
            Ï„á½¸  Ï€Î»Î®Ï�Ï‰Î¼Î±  ÎºÎ±Ï„Î¿Î¹Îºá¿†ÏƒÎ±Î¹ 
         20   ÎºÎ±á½¶  Î´Î¹â€™  Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦  á¼€Ï€Î¿ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Î»Î»Î¬Î¾Î±Î¹  Ï„á½°  Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î±  Îµá¼°Ï‚  Î±á½�Ï„á½¸Î½ 
         Îµá¼°Ï�Î·Î½Î¿Ï€Î¿Î¹Î®ÏƒÎ±Ï‚  Î´Î¹á½°  Ï„Î¿á¿¦  Î±á¼µÎ¼Î±Ï„Î¿Ï‚  Ï„Î¿á¿¦  ÏƒÏ„Î±Ï…Ï�Î¿á¿¦  Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦, 
*Î´Î¹*â€™  Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦  Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  Ï„á½°  á¼�Ï€á½¶  Ï„á¿†Ï‚  Î³á¿†Ï‚ 
         Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ  Ï„á½°  á¼�Î½  Ï„Î¿á¿–Ï‚  Î¿á½�Ï�Î±Î½Î¿á¿–Ï‚.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Even if I were trinitarian, I would feel no need to force Jesus to be the creator. They have forever forced the scriptures


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The verse you pointed out is a good example. "for by him all things were created". Our biased translators have shaped a doctrine. The "by" is incorrect. It should be "in". One incorrectly  implies creator the other as agent. For the proof one only has to look at the greek. Our translators have the author using the same greek word rendered two different ways in the same breath. No way. The proper context is seen in Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance to do"



In him....by him....through him....does this not mean the same thing to you? 


If I were a creator of things.... Are those things not created both by me, in me, and through me?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> In him....by him....through him....does this not mean the same thing to you?
> 
> 
> If I were a creator of things.... Are those things not created both by me, in me, and through me?


One implies creator the other agent [of new creation]


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

What do you do with John 1:1-5:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was. He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

NASB uses of "Si", never by;
NASB Translation
account (4), after (2), afterward (1), always* (2), because (111), between* (1), briefly* (1), charge* (1), constantly (1), continually* (6), during (1), forever* (1), gives (1), means (3), over (1), presence (1), reason (40), sake (41), sakes (5), since (1), so then* (1), so* (1), therefore* (16), this reason* (1), this* (1), though (1), *through (225)*, through the agency (1), through* (1), view (2), way (3), what (1), why (3), why* (27).


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> One implies creator the other agent [of new creation]



Says you.....My point is, even if it read "in" rather than "by", I would still believe that Jesus is God because He said he was and the totality of scripture testifies that He is.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

NASB uses of "ev", never used as by
NASB Translation
about (3), afterwards* (2), along (1), amid (1), among (124), among* (4), because (3), before (1), before* (3), besides (1), between* (1), case (2), child* (4), circumstance (1), circumstances (1), conscious* (1), death* (1), during (7), earnestly* (1), free* (1), had (1), here* (2), how* (1), means (1), outwardly* (1), over (1), there* (2), through (18), throughout (4), together (1), under (5), under...circumstances (1), undisturbed* (1), until* (1), way (4), when (19), when* (3), where* (2), while (19), while* (3), within (14), within* (1)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Even if I were trinitarian, I would feel no need to force Jesus to be the creator. They have forever forced the scriptures



I agree with you it should be " in".  All the versions I checked translated it as "in".   I don't, however understand who this "they" is that are biased and "forced" scripture.  There are some versions of the Bible that are clearly more accurate translations with regards to the original manuscripts than others, but I am only aware of one translation in which a blatant attempt is made to misconstrue scripture around the beliefs of the organization.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

Also what do you do with Colossians 2:9? "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with you it should be " in".  All the versions I checked translated it as "in".   I don't, however understand who this "they" is that are biased and "forced" scripture.  There are some versions of the Bible that are clearly more accurate translations with regards to the original manuscripts than others, but I am only aware of one translation in which a blatant attempt is made to misconstrue scripture around the beliefs of the organization.


10 of the 15 I just looked at, including my NIV


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

Hebrews 1:8-9, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1.....they all say Jesus is God.....were all these verses also tampered with by these translators of whom you speak?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Also what do you do with Colossians 2:9? "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."


God gave him all his attributes. see Col 1:19 , "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." The scriptures also says Eph 3:19 "that we may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God" And Col 2:10 "that we have been given fullness in Christ". Does not make us God or Jesus


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Hebrews 1:8-9, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1.....they all say Jesus is God.....were all these verses also tampered with by these translators of whom you speak?


I can have a field day with those also. But only if someone is interested in knowing


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

The one I really want your take on is John 1.....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with you it should be " in".  All the versions I checked translated it as "in".   I don't, however understand who this "they" is that are biased and "forced" scripture.  There are some versions of the Bible that are clearly more accurate translations with regards to the original manuscripts than others, but I am only aware of one translation in which a blatant attempt is made to misconstrue scripture around the beliefs of the organization.


I believe God to be the creator, not Jesus. Jesus is the agent of the new creation. There is not much on the subject but in all cases but 1, they go beyond proper translating and attempt to force Jesus to be the creator. If I were trinitarian, I would feel no need to force him to be the creator


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can have a field day with those also. But only if someone is interested in knowing



I can't tell you whether anyone is interested in it or not.....What really interests me is the fact that you seem to think you are smarter than the majority of the early church fathers, The Apostles, and thousands of biblical scholars that have come before you. 

I realize that you are not alone in your thoughts on this but you are certainly in the minority, I just wonder what makes you smarter than these. 

I'd also love to know your credentials when it comes to bible translation and the Greek language.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> The one I really want your take on is John 1.....


The phrase, you are what you eat makes a good example. If you eat healthy, then you will be healthy. Since God is Spirit and we can not see him, we know him by what he does. The Word is God. God speaks and it is done. He is what he does, "the word is God". As far as the word became flesh. Issac is called Abrahams firstborn son yet we know that it is Ishmael. Why is this? Because Issac was promised before Ishmael. OT saints believed his word as already done, not yet existing, the word retained, or "with God" until times reach fullfillment. Everything was created in the 7 days, You and I included. Nothing was created later or as he went. So Issac could say Before Ishmael, I am. And we could say after the promise of Issac's birth was fullfilled, the word became flesh and dwealth among us.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The phrase, you are what you eat makes a good example. If you eat healthy, then you will be healthy. Since God is Spirit and we can not see him, we know him by what he does. The Word is God. God speaks and it is done. He is what he does, "the word is God". As far as the word became flesh. Issac is called Abrahams firstborn son yet we know that it is Ishmael. Why is this? Because Issac was promised before Ishmael. OT saints believed his word as already done, not yet existing, the word retained, or "with God" until times reach fullfillment. Everything was created in the 7 days, You and I included. Nothing was created later or as he went. So Issac could say Before Ishmael, I am. And we could say after the promise of Issac's birth was fullfilled, the word became flesh and dwealth among us.



Well I call this stretching....big time .....regardless though, at least you're a thinker and I can appreciate that. Good luck on your pursuit of the truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I can't tell you whether anyone is interested in it or not.....What really interests me is the fact that you seem to think you are smarter than the majority of the early church fathers, The Apostles, and thousands of biblical scholars that have come before you.
> 
> I realize that you are not alone in your thoughts on this but you are certainly in the minority, I just wonder what makes you smarter than these.
> 
> I'd also love to know your credentials when it comes to bible translation and the Greek language.


I don't think I am smarter. But I do know without question that the trinity did not evolve until after 325. It's evolving is clearly documented in the creeds. This is fact, not my opinion. So, therefore the trinity doctrine can not be the gospel first entrusted to the saints. I have no greek credentials, don't need any. I showed the support for all I said.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Well I call this stretching....big time .....regardless though, at least you're a thinker and I can appreciate that. Good luck on your pursuit of the truth.


Thanks


----------



## jmharris23 (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't think I am smarter. But I do know without question that the trinity did not evolve until after 325. It's evolving is clearly documented in the creeds. This is fact, not my opinion. So, therefore the trinity doctrine can not be the gospel first entrusted to the saints. I have no greek credentials, don't need any. I showed the support for all I said.



I think you are wrong on the origin of the doctrine of the trinity. From what I've read the idea of the trinity surfaced much earlier than that. 

Of course I believe that the bible, while not using the term itself, certainly supports the trinity. 

But I know you disagree


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I think you are wrong on the origin of the doctrine of the trinity. From what I've read the idea of the trinity surfaced much earlier than that.
> 
> Of course I believe that the bible, while not using the term itself, certainly supports the trinity.
> 
> But I know you disagree


Creeds are a declaration of what one believes. An attempt to spell it out in order to deem those outside the scope as heritical. The creeds show the development of the trinity. In 325, they did not address the HS as a coequal 3rd person of the Godhead. That came later, being ironed out in about 451. But unlike others, I believe that it got it's start at 325.  The Earlier "Apostles creed" is Unitarian through and through


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I think you are wrong on the origin of the doctrine of the trinity. From what I've read the idea of the trinity surfaced much earlier than that.
> 
> Of course I believe that the bible, while not using the term itself, certainly supports the trinity.
> 
> But I know you disagree


I think Genisis 1:26 makes it pretty obvious, unless you're someone that needs a full description of the construction of a road to believe it can actually be traveled on. 

<sup class="versenum">26 </sup>Then God said, “Let *us* make mankind in *our* image, in *our* likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,<sup class="footnote" value="[a]">[a]</sup> and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I believe God to be the creator, not Jesus. Jesus is the agent of the new creation. There is not much on the subject but in all cases but 1, they go beyond proper translating and attempt to force Jesus to be the creator. If I were trinitarian, I would feel no need to force him to be the creator




You hold Jesus to be created.  May I ask you a few more questions regarding Jesus for me to get a better perspective regarding how you see him?

Was he born of a Virgin?
Did he lead a sinless life?
Did he die on a cross for our sins.
Was he resurrected physically?
Do you hold him as your savior?

Thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You hold Jesus to be created.  May I ask you a few more questions regarding Jesus for me to get a better perspective regarding how you see him?
> 
> Was he born of a Virgin?
> Did he lead a sinless life?
> ...


yes to all


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

Why did the Pharisees condemn Jesus for blasphemy? (John 5:18)
Why did he say before Abraham was "I am?" (Quote God speaking to Moses)
What did he mean when he said he was the son of man and we will see him coming on the clouds of Heaven? (a quote of Daniel 7:13-14
Why will we worship only God in heaven, but Revelation is clear the Lamb is worthy?
Why did God say "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour?" Isaiah 43:11
Why did God say "Let us make man in our image?"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Why did the Pharisees condemn Jesus for blasphemy? (John 5:18)
> Why did he say before Abraham was "I am?" (Quote God speaking to Moses)
> What did he mean when he said he was the son of man and we will see him coming on the clouds of Heaven? (a quote of Daniel 7:13-14
> Why will we worship only God in heaven, but Revelation is clear the Lamb is worthy?
> ...


I will address them one at a time. I will  Paste some of my previous answers from here and another forum; 
What we have in Ex is two accounts blended into one. Lets call one account tradition A and the other account tradition B blended to make what we have as tradition C. It is called "Doublets" found all over the bible. Notice God gave his name to be remembered from generation to generation as YHWH and "I am who I will be". Now we know that he did not give us two names to remember him from generation to generation. What happened was that one group/tradition called him YHWH and the other called him "I am who I will be" out of reverrence, refraining from his personal namethe same way Jews will not say the name G-d. The original was YHWH, the name he gave us to remember him from generation to generation. Not "I am". IF "I am" was ever used as God's name, it would not be used any in fashion in conjunction with anything but God. But we see throughout the scriptures that this was not reserved for God almighty but was used freely. Now getting to the verse at hand. Notice that Jesus uses the "I am" twice more previously in the same chapter. The only difference is the translators having taken the liberty of adding [the one I claim to be]. Same language structure as the so called I am". Also note the the capitalzation of verse 58 is unjustified, it is the same as the previous. The fact that they were going to stone him is not because of this claim in general but because "they were looking for ways to kill him". This is verified by the story of them driving Jesus up a hill to kill him because he said that "Yet elijah was not sent to any of them..." see LK 4:29. Notice no claim to diety required for their wanting to kill him. Now for the context of what was going on. This crowd hailed Abraham as the greatest. The confrontation started because Jesus said if they keep his word they would not see death. They replied that their hailed Abraham could not offer this so how is it you think you are greater than Abraham. Jesus responded that his glory comes from the Father and that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing his day. Then the confrontation changes because Jesus said he did see it and was glad. How could he see your day, your not yet fifty years old. Consider this. Issac is called Abraham's firstborn son but we know that it was Ishmael. Why is this? Because Issac was promised before Ishmael. OT saints believed that God's promises were as good as done although not yet existing. So Issac could say, being greater than Ishmael because of firstborn rights, Before Ishmael, I am. We could also say when Issac was born, the word became flesh and dwealt among us. Jesus simply said that he was greater than Abraham. He did not claim to be God. He insulted them by saying about God "you don't know him", he called them liars,he said they don't keep his word. Then he claimed to be before Abraham. Notice that from a word search that after Genisis, The use of "the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob" is used over and over. They trace their belief back as far as they can and consider the latest to be the greatest. What Jesus did essentially was say "the God of Jesus, Abraham, Issac and Jacob".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Blasphemy and Daniel 7;
Did not Luke trace the genology back to Adam calling him the Son of God? Yes. Son of God does not mean God. Jesus did not blaspheme God by pointing to his future rule of Daniel 7. He blasphemed ceasar. "If you let this man go then you are no friend of ceasar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes caesar... We have no king but Caesar". They were looking for a way to kill him because he insulted them. They found nothing even though false testimony, but when he claimed to be the future ruler as in Daniel 7, they realized that they could use this against him and hand him over as one starting a rebellion. This is why he was killed. The Daniel 7 was a claim of rulership. Future rulership, not a claim to be God. Nothing in Daniel 7 implies that person as God


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> yes to all



Thanks.  Based on your answers may I ask you one question and this at least to me, is the crux of the matter regarding the question of whether Jesus was a created being.

If we are created beings in need of a savior, and God sent another created being to die in my place, then what evidence do I have that God truly loves me.  Let me give this analogy in support if my point.If you have children you will understand this better than if not. 

If one of your children committed a crime that required the death penalty, and under the law it was allowed that another family member could take their place, would you send another of your children to take the guilty's place or would you go yourself.  

You see if Jesus was created then God simply sent  one creation to die for another.  But if Jesus was exactly who he said he was, God Incarnate, then GOD THE FATHER cared for you enough that HE paid your penalty.  

The difference between the two views has profound implications.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

The word worship is broad, having different greek words. We see several men being credited with receiving worship in scriptures. The word was never set aside as to mean only God receives worship. God is worshiped as God and Jesus worshiped as Jesus. It was given to Jesus "for the glory of God the Father"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks.  Based on your answers may I ask you one question and this at least to me, is the crux of the matter regarding the question of whether Jesus was a created being.
> 
> If we are created beings in need of a savior, and God sent another created being to die in my place, then what evidence do I have that God truly loves me.  Let me give this analogy in support if my point.If you have children you will understand this better than if not.
> 
> ...


Thanks for being civil in the matter. I'm not sure why differences of belief tend to cause hostility

So you are saved by God dying for you? I am saved because the firstborn of many brothers [Jesus} gave himself as the firstborn offering, in order that the remainder of the family [me] would not have to. Which one is biblical?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Why did the Pharisees condemn Jesus for blasphemy? (John 5:18)
> Why did he say before Abraham was "I am?" (Quote God speaking to Moses)
> What did he mean when he said he was the son of man and we will see him coming on the clouds of Heaven? (a quote of Daniel 7:13-14
> Why will we worship only God in heaven, but Revelation is clear the Lamb is worthy?
> ...


Jesus is the instrument by which God saves us, therefore both are sometimes called savior.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

I cannot believe you can read John 8 and not infer the deity of Christ. But there ya go...
Who can forgive sins but God? If ye believe not in me, you shall die in your sins...
If ye continue (in whose word) my word then ye are (whose disciples) my disciples indeed.
I am. That's who he was. He is always in the present tense because God is always present.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

"And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7 14
There is one kingdom, that is God's. 
There can be no glory but God's. 
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

The Let us make man only points to a plural, not necessarly 3. But what we do know is that angels are also in the same image. Hollywood has painted a picture of them with wings, but not so. The man at the empty tomb was called an angel on one account and a young man on the other. Paul tells us to be careful when we entertain because we never know when it might be an angel. So God could have been talking to the angels when he said this. Job also tells us that the angels rejoiced at the creation, so we know they were there. It could also be the seven spirits of God mentioned in Rev , I think Rev. But anyway, to assume the us is the three of the trinity is working in reverse, and not supported by anything


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I cannot believe you can read John 8 and not infer the deity of Christ. But there ya go...
> Who can forgive sins but God? If ye believe not in me, you shall die in your sins...
> If ye continue (in whose word) my word then ye are (whose disciples) my disciples indeed.
> I am. That's who he was. He is always in the present tense because God is always present.


Forgiving sins is part of the "all authority has been given to me"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7 14
> There is one kingdom, that is God's.
> There can be no glory but God's.
> "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8


The Kingdom of God has been given to Jesus to rule but when all things are accomplished, will be given back to the Father.I will paste this because I hate typing


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The Kingdom of God has been given to Jesus to rule but when all things are accomplished, will be given back to the Father.I will paste this because I hate typing


 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

Daniel 7. His dominion is everlasting because God will reign forever. The son of man is clearly God here.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 28, 2013)

Revelation 1:8 ?


----------



## hunter rich (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again.  God doesn't save you based on what you understand past the gospel.  He saves you on whether or not you accept what you do understand.



So as long as I accept 2 pages that I understand I'm good to go? The things that make absolutely no sense at all and I will never accept as real or true, those don't matter? just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the bible and its "teachings"...


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks.  Based on your answers may I ask you one question and this at least to me, is the crux of the matter regarding the question of whether Jesus was a created being.
> 
> If we are created beings in need of a savior, and God sent another created being to die in my place, then what evidence do I have that God truly loves me.  Let me give this analogy in support if my point.If you have children you will understand this better than if not.
> 
> ...



Marriage, weddings, and families are based on the fact we are made in God's image. Starting from that point, wouldn't it be harder to sacrifice one of your very own created children instead of yourself? God sacrificing himself is no big deal. Him sacrificing his only son and the torture he endured is. 
Using your belief is the same as the Atheist, what did God really sacrifice as he raised his dead son from the grave anyway if it was himself? God knew from the beginning he could make his son alive again. I can't speak for God but making my son alive would be the easy part, watching my own flesh & blood suffer and die a cruel death would be the hard part even for God. There is no way our Savior is his Father. There are too many verses to that say otherwise.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I can't tell you whether anyone is interested in it or not.....What really interests me is the fact that you seem to think you are smarter than the majority of the early church fathers, The Apostles, and thousands of biblical scholars that have come before you.
> 
> I realize that you are not alone in your thoughts on this but you are certainly in the minority, I just wonder what makes you smarter than these.
> 
> I'd also love to know your credentials when it comes to bible translation and the Greek language.



It's really hard to be the underdog and go against the grain. Why would someone purposefully do this if not inspired to do so? Most of the Christian world is Catholic. Does this mean all Protestants are wrong? I don't care if the whole world suddenly quit believing in God, it wouldn't change my mind.
I stopped believing in the Trinity when I started to really read the Bible before joining this forum. You talk about doing something hard but to put aside my Baptist indoctrination is no easy task. 1gr8bldr is way more knowledgeable than me on the Bible. I would say 100 times more. I don't expect you to take his word on the Bible. In fact I forbid you to. He could be terribly wrong. He could be a false prophet trying to complex the simple truth of the Trinity.
My suggestion would be to use what he is saying and go look for yourself. Be sure to pray for guidance and God will grant his power (The Holy Spirit/Comforter) to help. 
Pray to the God Jesus prayed to. Teach the Kingdom of God that Jesus teached.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 28, 2013)

After Jesus was baptized, God said, this is my son whom I approve. God the superior was approving the lesser one, his Son for his work ahead. Jesus knew this and said, God’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.
Anointing is the giving of authority or a commission by a superior to someone who does not already have authority. Here God is plainly the superior, for he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he did not previously have. Jesus made his Father’s superiority clear when the mother of two disciples asked that her sons sit one at the right and one at the left of Jesus when he came into his Kingdom. Jesus answered: “As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father,” that is, God. 
Jesus’ own prayers are a powerful example of his inferior position. When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.”
Someone once asked Jesus when he would be returning to Earth and he said: "Beats me, only my Daddy knows when that time will be."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Daniel 7. His dominion is everlasting because God will reign forever. The son of man is clearly God here.



13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... He was given authority by the Ancient of Days, authority to rule. It is a claim of rulership, claim of "King of the Jews" of which Pilot had written on his cross header. The eternal aspect was spoken of throught the ot, an everlasting kingdom.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Revelation 1:8 ?



Notice verse 4, "Grace and peace from him who is and was and is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne... *And from Jesus Christ*who is the faithful witness. This book has John speaking, has the angel speaking, has God speaking and has Jesus speaking. It goes back and fort so much that it is hard to keep up with. Vs 17 is the problematic one because it says he is the first and the last. We have missing info about the details of this. Rom 1:14 talks about a righteous that is from first to last.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 28, 2013)

Rev on the one hand has Jesus as  vs 5, "the faithful witness" vs 6, has a God, 2:27, received authority , 3:11 + 12 has him saying "my God" 4 or 5 times, 14 has him claiming to be the ruler of God's creation. [ thus not claiming to be the creator] and much more, and then on the other hand has many things that could lead one to think that he is somehow speaking socalled diety terms


----------



## jmharris23 (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's really hard to be the underdog and go against the grain. Why would someone purposefully do this if not inspired to do so? Most of the Christian world is Catholic. Does this mean all Protestants are wrong? I don't care if the whole world suddenly quit believing in God, it wouldn't change my mind.
> I stopped believing in the Trinity when I started to really read the Bible before joining this forum. You talk about doing something hard but to put aside my Baptist indoctrination is no easy task. 1gr8bldr is way more knowledgeable than me on the Bible. I would say 100 times more. I don't expect you to take his word on the Bible. In fact I forbid you to. He could be terribly wrong. He could be a false prophet trying to complex the simple truth of the Trinity.
> My suggestion would be to use what he is saying and go look for yourself. Be sure to pray for guidance and God will grant his power (The Holy Spirit/Comforter) to help.
> Pray to the God Jesus prayed to. Teach the Kingdom of God that Jesus teached.



I've read the bible plenty of times and continue to read it daily. 

We'll all agree to disagree here. As I said to 1gr8bldr, good luck on your pursuit of the truth.


----------



## JB0704 (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> So you are saved by God dying for you? I am saved because the firstborn of many brothers [Jesus} gave himself as the firstborn offering, in order that the remainder of the family [me] would not have to. Which one is biblical?



"What is Biblical" and "what was taught" are often confused, and opposition to either are often considered heresy.

There are a few things I was taught, but never self-confirmed:
1. 7k year old Earth (how many folks have actually done the math, and how many believe because somebody else told them to).
2. Christophanies in the OT
3. Gays being "demon posessed."
4. Each verse of each book being intended as literal (even the parables).

I believed every bit of the above 4 for most of my life, and considered any opinion to the contrary as heresy.  Then, it dawned on me that I had never even read the evidence myself.

We all have opinions.  I think it's important to have a reason for beliefs that extend beyond "the preacher says so."  I think (I know) that's a biblical mandate


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> So as long as I accept 2 pages that I understand I'm good to go? The things that make absolutely no sense at all and I will never accept as real or true, those don't matter? just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the bible and its "teachings"...



As long as those 2 pages contain the gospel.  As far as understanding and accepting the rest.......that's God's decision.  He knows your heart.  I don't and never could.
There's a ton I don't understand about the Bible.  Ask any theological scholar and I'm sure they will say the same.  But a child can understand the Gospel and accept it, so we who have been exposed to it have no excuse.  You may say I reject it, but you can't say I never heard it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Marriage, weddings, and families are based on the fact we are made in God's image. Starting from that point, wouldn't it be harder to sacrifice one of your very own created children instead of yourself? God sacrificing himself is no big deal.



Really?  WOW!  I'm dumbfounded that as a Christian you can say that.  Did I already say WOW!


----------



## ambush80 (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Marriage, weddings, and families are based on the fact we are made in God's image. Starting from that point, wouldn't it be harder to sacrifice one of your very own created children instead of yourself? God sacrificing himself is no big deal. Him sacrificing his only son and the torture he endured is.
> Using your belief is the same as the Atheist, what did God really sacrifice as he raised his dead son from the grave anyway if it was himself? God knew from the beginning he could make his son alive again. I can't speak for God but making my son alive would be the easy part, watching my own flesh & blood suffer and die a cruel death would be the hard part even for God. There is no way our Savior is his Father. There are too many verses to that say otherwise.




True.  What's the big deal?  A few hours of torture then eternity with the Heavenly Chocolate Wonderfall.  I'd do it if even just to save my wife OR daughter.  Put me in, Coach.

Now if Jesus was spending eternity in He11 THAT would be a show of love.   That would be the ultimate sacrifice.  That would be a hero.  

Then there would be the problem of proof that he is really there......

And what are we being saved form again?  He11?  But we go there anyway if we don't worship Jesus?  Sounds like a commensurate penalty for disbelief.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 29, 2013)

Rest assured... ONE of you has it RIGHT... Probably just one of you... the rest are screwed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> "What is Biblical" and "what was taught" are often confused, and opposition to either are often considered heresy.
> 
> There are a few things I was taught, but never self-confirmed:
> 1. 7k year old Earth (how many folks have actually done the math, and how many believe because somebody else told them to).
> ...


I like to see those who have come to their personal views over much pondering rather than a "mom and pop believed this way so I believe it also". Even if I don't agree, I respect what they have determined to be true


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> So as long as I accept 2 pages that I understand I'm good to go? The things that make absolutely no sense at all and I will never accept as real or true, those don't matter? just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the bible and its "teachings"...


Hello Hunter Rich, Many have different views regarding the bible. Some see it in micro view, every word being perfect and important for us. Another group will claim to be the first group yet not do what it says, picking and choosing. Another group will use it as a devotional. And there are more groups. I focus not on the details or stories, but more on the context of the bible as a whole. This view now taken after having lived many years as the first group. So, I guess I'm just trying to say that if your having issue with some of the things, your not alone, but for me it has not affected my faith in that overall context.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Rest assured... ONE of you has it RIGHT... Probably just one of you... the rest are screwed.



We all believe Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins.
He was resurrected from the grave by his Father and ascended into Heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  WOW!  I'm dumbfounded that as a Christian you can say that.  Did I already say WOW!



Can you help me out a little more on my search for the truth? I'm willing to be shown the err of my ways.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I've read the bible plenty of times and continue to read it daily.
> 
> We'll all agree to disagree here. As I said to 1gr8bldr, good luck on your pursuit of the truth.



Amen to that, good luck to you and everyone as we journey on this pursuit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can you help me out a little more on my search for the truth? I'm willing to be shown the err of my ways.



John 1:1

“1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Thanks for being civil in the matter. I'm not sure why differences of belief tend to cause hostility
> 
> So you are saved by God dying for you? I am saved because the firstborn of many brothers [Jesus} gave himself as the firstborn offering, in order that the remainder of the family [me] would not have to. Which one is biblical?




What do you do with John 1:1


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What do you do with John 1:1


It must have got overlooked , post 59, 

The phrase, you are what you eat makes a good example. If you eat healthy, then you will be healthy. Since God is Spirit and we can not see him, we know him by what he does. The Word is God. God speaks and it is done. He is what he does, "the word is God". As far as the word became flesh. Issac is called Abrahams firstborn son yet we know that it is Ishmael. Why is this? Because Issac was promised before Ishmael. OT saints believed his word as already done, not yet existing, the word retained, or "with God" until times reach fullfillment. Everything was created in the 7 days, You and I included. Nothing was created later or as he went. So Issac could say Before Ishmael, I am. And we could say after the promise of Issac's birth was fullfilled, the word became flesh and dwealth among us.
________________


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> It must have got overlooked , post 59,
> 
> The phrase, you are what you eat makes a good example. If you eat healthy, then you will be healthy. Since God is Spirit and we can not see him, we know him by what he does. The Word is God. God speaks and it is done. He is what he does, "the word is God". As far as the word became flesh. Issac is called Abrahams firstborn son yet we know that it is Ishmael. Why is this? Because Issac was promised before Ishmael. OT saints believed his word as already done, not yet existing, the word retained, or "with God" until times reach fullfillment. Everything was created in the 7 days, You and I included. Nothing was created later or as he went. So Issac could say Before Ishmael, I am. And we could say after the promise of Issac's birth was fullfilled, the word became flesh and dwealth among us.
> ________________



No. I read it, but I don't buy it.  It appears to me to be re-interpreting what is plainly stated in the text.  Maybe I'm wrong but I was under the impression that when interpreting scripture, if the textual meaning is clear, then it is to be accepted.  I would point out this plain text interpretation seems to be supported later in verse 14.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No. I read it, but I don't buy it.  It appears to me to be re-interpreting what is plainly stated in the text.  Maybe I'm wrong but I was under the impression that when interpreting scripture, if the textual meaning is clear, then it is to be accepted.  I would point out this plain text interpretation seems to be supported later in verse 14.


I don't consider John 1 to plainly state anything. Actually, it is a mess. Vs 10 has him in the world, vs 11, the same, and then coming again in vs 14???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

It is thought by some that John 1 was added as was the last chapter of John. We know the last chapter was added without doubt. Some of the reasoning is that we are told about John testifying of Jesus 3 times. We are told that John is not the light or the Christ, two times. The other 3 books start without prolouge and I forget the remainder. No one takes this own because we have no proof as we do the double ending of John


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

It's interesting how our beliefs differ on things about Jesus. Where he went when he died, if he is in Heaven in his body, will we see him beside God, where he went when he died, where his Mother is, etc.

OK, back on track about John 1:1                                                           I believe Jesus to be divine the day he was conceived. Jesus was a God or god like or divine. Somebody left out the "a".
"and the Word was a divine being."
"and Godlike kind was the Logos." 
Also someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person.

Interesting article debunking the JW's from a Catholic that covers John 1:1.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/06/jws-are-correct-about-john-11-jesus-is.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Jesus prayed to God. Jesus had his own soul/spirit. . Jesus also said: “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father? After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? 
Jesus also said he was a mediator between us and God. He also said his Father was greater than himself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't consider John 1 to plainly state anything. Actually, it is a mess. Vs 10 has him in the world, vs 11, the same, and then coming again in vs 14???



I think most people would read it and understand it for what it is trying to convey.  What about John 10:30?

“The Father and I are one.”

Surely you don't think that is vague?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is thought by some that John 1 was added as was the last chapter of John.



Reference please?



1gr8bldr said:


> We know the last chapter was added without doubt. Some of the reasoning is that we are told about John testifying of Jesus 3 times. We are told that John is not the light or the Christ, two times. The other 3 books start without prolouge and I forget the remainder. No one takes this own because we have no proof as we do the double ending of John



That is simply not true.  It's a critical hypothesis with nothing but circumstantial evidence to support it, whereas there is concrete evidence to refute it.  To quote Michael Barber, Professor of Theology and Scripture at John Paul the Great Catholic University in San Diego.

"there is no manuscript evidence to indicate that either the title of the Gospel or last chapter were ever added later to the document. Such conclusions are not based on what is found in ancient manuscripts but rather on certain hypothetical conclusions."


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

John 14:7
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” Some Christians feel this proves God and Jesus were the same person. However, reading the verse in context demonstrates this is not at all what the Savior was saying.
In verse 10, Jesus says, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” Here, Jesus Christ clearly says he isn’t speaking for Himself, but for God, and it’s God doing the works, not Him. This makes it very clear they are separate beings. Jesus promises to pray to God to ask God to send a comforter to His apostles when He’s gone, something that would not be necessary if they were the same person. But in verse 20, we learn exactly what Jesus means when He talks about being in the Father:
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” If the previous verses had the meaning that “I am in my Father” meant they were the same person, then the next phrase, “And ye in me, and I in you” would mean the apostles were also the same person as Jesus, making it far larger than a trinity. Jesus uses similar phrasing often, instructing the apostles to be one with each other as He is one with His Father. What He meant, obviously, was to be completely unified in love, doctrine, and purpose.
The testimony of Stephen is even more clear about the separateness of Jesus and God: “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Ok, how do you explain these verses?

•	Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16) Jesus said on numerous occasions that, "the Father… hath sent me." (John 5:37,6:37) The Holy Ghost was also sent by the Father (John 14:26) and Jesus (John 16:7), thus making Jesus inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost inferior to both the Father and Jesus.
•	"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth." (John 14:16)
•	Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)
•	Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)
•	Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)
•	Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)
•	Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)
•	Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)
•	Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
•	Jesus' head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
•	Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God. (Hebrews 5:7)
•	Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36)
•	Jesus is exalted by God.(Acts 5:31)
•	Jesus is made high priest by God. (Hebrews 5:10)
•	Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)
•	Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33)
•	Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)
•	"God raised [Jesus] from the dead". (Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15)
•	Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)
•	Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
•	God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
•	Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. (Philippians 2:6)
•	"Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" (Matthew 27:46)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think most people would read it and understand it for what it is trying to convey.  What about John 10:30?
> 
> “The Father and I are one.”
> 
> Surely you don't think that is vague?


Jesus tells us in his prayer that we may also be one with him. I could look it up and make a better case, but it is clear. Maybe in a few minutes


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, back on track about John 1:1                                                           I believe Jesus to be divine the day he was conceived. Jesus was a God or god like or divine. Somebody left out the "a".
> "and the Word was a divine being."
> "and Godlike kind was the Logos."
> Also someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person.
> ...



Nobody left out the "a" and you are going to have to do better than a Catholic Blogger to support that claim.  In fact you are gonna be hard pressed to find any Greek Biblical Scholar to support your thesis because they are all lined up against it, but don't take my word on it.

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm in which James White also acknowledges the lack of supporting sources for your contention " Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here.  Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs.  See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others)."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Reference please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt, regardless of what socalled scholars say, who have their own agenda and fan club, John has a double ending. Here it is: See 20:20 and compare to 21:25, the double ending. Chapter 21 was added


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Reference please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fact that he is addressing the topic reveals that someone out their has made the case before, not my idea


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Ok, how do you explain these verses?
> 
> •	Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16) Jesus said on numerous occasions that, "the Father… hath sent me." (John 5:37,6:37) The Holy Ghost was also sent by the Father (John 14:26) and Jesus (John 16:7), thus making Jesus inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost inferior to both the Father and Jesus.
> •	"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth." (John 14:16)
> ...



I honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to go through each of those with you.  Suffice it to say that they all can be explained by understanding both the divinity of Jesus,  the humanity of Jesus or the nature of the trinity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Simple question, how could Jesus be with God from the beginning, while on Earth, or now in Heaven by his side if he is in fact God? 
I and my father are one, it doesn't make us the same person. If you have seen me you have seen my father, we're that much alike, it doesn't make me my father. We have the same blood the only thing different is my mother. Jesus has a real true Earthly mother. He is a part of her too lest we forget.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> The fact that he is addressing the topic reveals that someone out their has made the case before, not my idea



Aye, but there is a world of difference between "someone out there has made the case" and "WE KNOW the last chapter was added without doubt."    Wouldn't you say?  I would suggest the difference is undeniable, concrete, verifiable evidence in manuscript form.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to go through each of those with you.  Suffice it to say that they all can be explained by understanding both the divinity of Jesus,  the humanity of Jesus or the nature of the trinity.



Yet you pick a few verses and want us to explain them.
It's understandable as they ain't but two of us Non-Trinitarians on this forum.
I wish I still believed that way (Trinitarian)because of the hardships it has caused. I don't know why I was lead this way. I think my family has come to terms with it. 
It reminds me of a gay person coming out or announcing you're an Atheist. I do pray about it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Simple question, how could Jesus be with God from the beginning, while on Earth, or now in Heaven by his side if he is in fact God?
> I and my father are one, it doesn't make us the same person. If you have seen me you have seen my father, we're that much alike, it doesn't make me my father. We have the same blood the only thing different is my mother. Jesus has a real true Earthly mother. He is a part of her too lest we forget.



Listen Art if you reject the trinity, Chris's humanity, and Chris's divinity, what is gained from me trying to reason you into accepting them.  Maybe you should ask yourself instead "Why are these considered fundamental doctrines?
 Consider the old adage, "never tear down a fence without first asking what is the purpose it was built for to start with."


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen Art if you reject the trinity, Chris's humanity, and Chris's divinity, what is gained from me trying to reason you into accepting them.  Maybe you should ask yourself instead "Why are these considered fundamental doctrines?
> Consider the old adage, "never tear down a fence without first asking what is the purpose it was built for to start with."



Never tear down a fence! Then why did the Protestants tear it down?
I don't consider the Trinity a fundamental doctrine no more than I consider the soul going to Heaven without a body.
I recently posted I believe Jesus was divine at conception. I never questioned his humanity nor your need to convert me back.
Do I have the divinity of Jesus all figured out? No but neither does the Trinity. It appears that since we believe in only one God, we(Trinitarians) had to complicate the matter to make it simple. My way is simple. Simple is what Jesus preached. He warned us of teachers who try to complicate matters.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

What about Oneness? We must have some Oneness believers on here. I would probably believe that before the Trinity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Aye, but there is a world of difference between "someone out there has made the case" and "WE KNOW the last chapter was added without doubt."    Wouldn't you say?  I would suggest the difference is undeniable, concrete, verifiable evidence in manuscript form.


In this statement, "The fact that he is addressing the topic reveals that someone out their has made the case before, not my idea"  I was referring to the opening prolouge, the double ending is there for anyone to see


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about Oneness? We must have some Oneness believers on here. I would probably believe that before the Trinity.


I suppose that it is best that everyone does not know the debates about their own religion??? For me, I want to know, but I am one who will dig deep enough to find solid ground for a strong foundation. Not everyone is motivated to do so and the result is that they could have doubt inserted where it was once confidence. That is why I am here at the apollogetics forum. I am rambling now. Back to my original thought spurred from your mentioning Oneness. Trins use John 1:1 often but don't realize that this in no way supports the trin 3 part godhead. This is one of the Oneness crowds main verses that they use against trins in debate. They use the one's that seemingly show him to be God, which only leaves a handful of verses that seemingly show God as three, F,S and HS


----------



## JB0704 (May 30, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was referring to the opening prolouge, the double ending is there for anyone to see



Is a prologue unique to John?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is a prologue unique to John?


Yes, Matt, MK and LK do not have a prolouge. I can't recall all the reasons why some scholars make the claim of it having been added, but I do recall them saying that they suspect that the original started at verse 19


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

Professor Anthony Buzzard is one of the most persuasive and energetic voices of our day calling for Christians to pursue reformation and restoration of original Christianity.
http://www.21stcr.org/anthony_buzzard.html

Who is Jesus: A plea for a return to believe in Jesus, the Messiah.
http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia/PDF/who_is_jesus.pdf


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 30, 2013)

Here is another I asked on another forum. Trins have it that Jesus is the creator. Rev 3:14, I think, says "the arche of God's creation". Arche meaning "beginning" in 95% of uses in the scripture. Trins have two problems here. It makes Jesus created and makes God the creator. The NIV chose to pull "ruler" out of the hat only because they knew the ramifications. Some will claim "originator". Even so, "the originator of God's creation". Still a major problem for trins because it has Jesus as the originator of God's creation. God being the creator.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

Jesus doesn't know when he is returning to Earth. Well he didn't know while he was on the Earth. He might have some insider information now.
I don't picture Jesus sitting in Heaven as God outside of his body waiting to enter his body for his return trip like some kind of a space suit.
I've heard people say we'll only be able to see God as he appears in the body form of Jesus. I don't believe that either as he is sitting next to his Father in Heaven as I type these words.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 31, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus doesn't know when he is returning to Earth. Well he didn't know while he was on the Earth. He might have some insider information now.
> I don't picture Jesus sitting in Heaven as God outside of his body waiting to enter his body for his return trip like some kind of a space suit.
> I've heard people say we'll only be able to see God as he appears in the body form of Jesus. I don't believe that either as he is sitting next to his Father in Heaven as I type these words.


This always comes to mind when I think of him sitting next to the Father. Unlike Adam who said "that woman you gave me" Jesus is interceding on our behalf"


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> This always comes to mind when I think of him sitting next to the Father. Unlike Adam who said "that woman you gave me" Jesus is interceding on our behalf"



I would assume Jesus is still  in the role of Mediator. He's not on break and his role isn't over. God's got a few more projects for him to perform.


----------



## hunter rich (May 31, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As long as those 2 pages contain the gospel.  As far as understanding and accepting the rest.......that's God's decision.  He knows your heart.  I don't and never could.
> There's a ton I don't understand about the Bible.  Ask any theological scholar and I'm sure they will say the same.  But a child can understand the Gospel and accept it, so we who have been exposed to it have no excuse.  You may say I reject it, but you can't say I never heard it.



You use the word gospel, what is it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 31, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> You use the word gospel, what is it?



Simply put

All of us have sinned

The penalty for sin is death and eternal separation from God

Christ died in our place and took our punishment/penalty upon himself.
He redeemed us.  We were bought and paid for through his actions.  

This is a free gift from God to you.  All you have to do is accept the gift by believing.

That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 31, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> You use the word gospel, what is it?



"good news"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 31, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> You use the word gospel, what is it?


Put yourself in biblical days. Imagine "religion" all around you. Picture the puffed up scribes and religious leaders who for show had mastered all the outward appearances of a deeply religious person. You strive to live up to the standard set by these wanna be role models. But you are on a roller coaster ride of up and down, effort, failure, guilt. Then you hear of a man out in the dessert who is preaching a message of forgiveness, another way, called the "good news". A way where we no longer have to be good enough to enter in but can come as we are. No longer do we have to climb to the tallest building but may enter at street level. This is good news. People flock to John the baptist to wash their sins away. John preached as he baptized that Jesus was the Christ, the annointed of God, that as Moses had done, would lead them to the promise land if they only follow him.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2013)

Why is this thread in this forum and not the Christian forum?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 2, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Why is this thread in this forum and not the Christian forum?


Apologetics, also my post are usually a little controversal, not for the average Christian. Only those who consider themselves apollogetics


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 3, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Apologetics, also my post are usually a little controversal, not for the average Christian. Only those who consider themselves apollogetics



There's an awful lot of scripture to be apologetics.  

Who's discerning wrong? You or them?  They outnumber you.  Does that matter?  The good book says you REAL believers will be few and that you will be persecuted.  

Prophesy fulfilled.....


----------

