Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You may ask why God said, " Let us make man in our own image,". Was God talking someone else? Was God talking to another person in the Godhead? If no one was there, God must be talking to himself. In the next verse it says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." God in verse 26 was talking about his glory. Just as kings did all through out time. Have you ever sat down and said "hmmm.....let's (let us) see what should I do." If we and kings can do that, why cannot God.

I believe when I get to heaven I will see one throne and one sitting upon that throne. I don't believe that if I ask God "where is the Father?" he will say "he's in the other room" or "He's right beside me" or "he'll be here shortly". I believe that if I were to ask that question that God would give me the exact answer that he gave Phillip when he asked Jesus to show him the Father. Jesus said in John 14:9 " Have I been so long so long time with you, and ye hast thou not know me, Phillip? He that hast seen me hath seen the Father.

What's the point of the thread?

What question are you asking?

Scripture does teach only ONE GOD....Therefore Jesus is not god. That was instilled later on by the Roman Catholic church. Before that time Jesus was not considered divine.

According to my Bible Jesus is God and is divine. Is this just your opinion?

Originally posted by Punker69
According to my Bible Jesus is God and is divine. Is this just your opinion?

Where?

Originally posted by Punker69
According to my Bible Jesus is God and is divine. Is this just your opinion? Can you show me the verse where Jesus said he was god?

Jesus said "Not my will but yours Father"....Are you saying Jesus is another god besides the Father god....Didn't the 10 commandments say worship no other gods before me?......

I want to hear it in the "Red letter" words that Jesus spoke....not what others said of him to be.....

I believe the exact quote is "before Abraham was, I am"

In the Greek of the new testament, the "I am" comes out the same as the "I am that I am" from the Hebrew OT. So Jesus is the LORD(Jehovah, Yaweh) from the OT.

The other jews present knew what he was saying, as they tried to stone him for blasphemy immediately after this.

PS - Punker how do you get past Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God as he was being stoned?

Originally posted by docb77
I believe the exact quote is "before Abraham was, I am"

In the Greek of the new testament, the "I am" comes out the same as the "I am that I am" from the Hebrew OT. So Jesus is the LORD(Jehovah, Yaweh) from the OT.

The other jews present knew what he was saying, as they tried to stone him for blasphemy immediately after this.

PS - Punker how do you get past Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God as he was being stoned?

Thanks.

People seem to take a lot of meaning out of one quote, maybe too much meaning.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus said "Not my will but yours Father"....Are you saying Jesus is another god besides the Father god....Didn't the 10 commandments say worship no other gods before me?......

I want to hear it in the "Red letter" words that Jesus spoke....not what others said of him to be.....


You are correct. That was Jesus' flesh talking to spirit. Since Jesus was human just like us he felt what we would've probably felt in his situation and since he had to set an example for us he also prayed.

This also proves a flaw in Trinitarianism. They believe that The Father,Son and Holy Ghost are are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existing. This would mean that they aren't "co-equal" because in this passage of scripture Jesus is submitting to the Father and he proves that if there were three persons that there would be two seperate wills in the Godhead and they believe there is one.

The truth is Jesus was not submitting to anyone and there isn't two seperate will in the Godhead because he is one.

Also many prophecies from the OT point to Jesus being God as well. I dont want to get into them though.

What other people wrote of him was inspired by God. But we both can agree that according to scripture the Father is without a doubt God. And Jesus said to Philip "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father (God)"

Originally posted by docb77
PS - Punker how do you get past Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God as he was being stoned?

That represented Jesus sitting on the right hand of power or glory symbolically. Also in Revelations 4:2 John said "a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."

Also John makes mention again to the throne in chapter 22 and 21 and Revelations and again it is used in singular form.

And what of that phrase from the great intercessory prayer...

John 17:11

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Now, it seems to me that Jesus really was praying to someone besides himself. It doesn't seem that he was asking for the apostles to become Him. It seems to me that the one-ness of God is a Unity of purpose and intent.

Originally posted by docb77
I believe the exact quote is "before Abraham was, I am"

In the Greek of the new testament, the "I am" comes out the same as the "I am that I am" from the Hebrew OT. So Jesus is the LORD(Jehovah, Yaweh) from the OT.

Looking deeper in the Hebrew meaning, I believe the "I Am" has more of a meaing of "I am becoming"...

Jesus never said he was a god. Other people said Jesus said he was a god.

Besides, the Doctrine of One god does not end and begin with Christianity. There are Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i, Sikism...etc.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Jesus never said he was a god. Other people said Jesus said he was a god.

"He who hath seen me hath seen the father" John 14:9

"I and my father are one" John 10:30

Originally posted by Punker69
"He who hath seen me hath seen the father" John 14:9

"I and my father are one" John 10:30

How do you know that Jesus was not saying that we are all one with God.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Looking deeper in the Hebrew meaning, I believe the "I Am" has more of a meaing of "I am becoming"...

From what I've studied it's closer to meaning "the self-existent one" or something along those lines. Coincidentally Jehovah, or Yahweh, means the same thing but not in first person.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know that Jesus was not saying that we are all one with God.

So he who hath seen me, Josh, hath seen God? No. You look at me you dont see the man that died 2,000 years ago on the cross. You see me.

The background of the story where Jesus said "I and my Father are one" is where the Jews came around him wanting to know if he was the Christ. That was one of responses he used. Not to explain the everyone was one with God but that he was himself, God.

Originally posted by Punker69
So he who hath seen me, Josh, hath seen God? No. You look at me you dont see the man that died 2,000 years ago on the cross. You see me.

The background of the story where Jesus said "I and my Father are one" is where the Jews came around him wanting to know if he was the Christ. That was one of responses he used. Not to explain the everyone was one with God but that he was himself, God.

It is a point of interpretation. All you have told me is that it is how you believe it to be, and I'm ok with that. However, how do you know for sure that your interpretation is the right one? I look at the text and I see it differently.

Its not how I believe it to be. Its fact. Jesus said he and the father are ONE. How much more plainer does it need to get for you? Aside from that scripture he also said "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father". Which means if you've seen him (Jesus) you've seen God. No interpretation. Thats pretty cut and dry. Im even keeping it on things he said. Study OT prophecy on the coming on the messiah (God) and you'll gain a better understanding.

Also, when after Jesus' resurrection Thomas said that he would not believe Jesus had resurrected until he thrusted his hand into the lord side etc. And then Jesus appeared to Thomas and when Thomas saw he immediatley cried out "My Lord, and My God". Now Thomas was a devout Jew and a strict monotheist knowing there is only ONE God. And as a Jew he knew that the Shamah completely prohibited him from identifying anyone other than Yawah as God. Now if Jesus was not Lord and God then he a responsibility to rebuke Thomas because that would be idolatry and was prohibited under the Law of Moses. But instead of rebuking Thomas he said "because thou hast seen thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and believe".

This proves that God accepted the claims that he was God along with saying himself that he was God. So I shouldn't even have to give you scriptures where Jesus himself said it when he himself knew that what people said of him was true or else he would've rebuked them and set them straight.

Originally posted by Punker69
"He who hath seen me hath seen the father" John 14:9

"I and my father are one" John 10:30 Yes, I could also say, that "He who hath seen me hath seen the father".....It's seeing good in others....It doesn't say he's god....Only possibly the attributes.

As for "I and my father are one".......Same meaning. In thought, words, actions, agreement.......

Jesus never called himself god, as in HE IS THEE GOD.

I could also say:
I am the daughter of man (mankind)
I am the daughter of righteousness (Doing what is right)
I am the daughter of god (I am of god)

See what I mean?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes, I could also say, that "He who hath seen me hath seen the father".....It's seeing good in others....It doesn't say he's god....Only possibly the attributes.

As for "I and my father are one".......Same meaning. In thought, words, actions, agreement.......

Jesus never called himself god, as in HE IS THEE GOD.

I could also say:
I am the daughter of man (mankind)
I am the daughter of righteousness (Doing what is right)
I am the daughter of god (I am of god)

See what I mean?

Now you interpret the bible..."I and my father are one" sound very much as if he was saying that he and his father are on....and the same....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now you interpret the bible..."I and my father are one" sound very much as if he was saying that he and his father are on....and the same.... Jesus never said in his OWN words that he was divine....

At that time period, it was common to speak in this way, just like "I am of Jacob."..........Just because someone says "I and my father are one"...does not mean necessarily that they are one and the same person, otherwise, why would Jesus say, "Not my will, but Your's" speaking to the Father?....Why would he pray to himself? Also, why would Jesus tell the people who called him good, "Only one is good and that is the Father."???

Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus never said in his OWN words that he was divine....

At that time period, it was common to speak in this way, just like "I am of Jacob."..........Just because someone says "I and my father are one"...does not mean necessarily that they are one and the same person, otherwise, why would Jesus say, "Not my will, buy Your's" speaking to the Father?....Why would he pray to himself? Also, why would Jesus tell the people who called him good, "Only one is good and that is the Father."???

Well obviously cause the bible is wrong and contradicts itself...isn't that obvious?

The Early Roman Catholic church didn't a very good job at editing the whole Bible for the control of the masses.....Though in early history, the church and state were all connected and much control over you whether you liked it or not. Today, we are free to explore without worry of condemnations and Inquisitions......Many people just don't feel they should explore it, because of the damnation doctrines........

Originally posted by Punker69
"He who hath seen me hath seen the father" John 14:9

"I and my father are one" John 10:30

Which is exactly what i just said.

John said that Jesus claimed he was a god, not Jesus.

I can write a book and claim that you said something you haven't - thats just me speaking on ypour behalf.

Which is what John is doing in the quotes above.

Originally posted by Punker69
Its not how I believe it to be. Its fact. Jesus said he and the father are ONE. How much more plainer does it need to get for you? Aside from that scripture he also said "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father". Which means if you've seen him (Jesus) you've seen God. No interpretation. Thats pretty cut and dry. Im even keeping it on things he said. Study OT prophecy on the coming on the messiah (God) and you'll gain a better understanding.

Also, when after Jesus' resurrection Thomas said that he would not believe Jesus had resurrected until he thrusted his hand into the lord side etc. And then Jesus appeared to Thomas and when Thomas saw he immediatley cried out "My Lord, and My God". Now Thomas was a devout Jew and a strict monotheist knowing there is only ONE God. And as a Jew he knew that the Shamah completely prohibited him from identifying anyone other than Yawah as God. Now if Jesus was not Lord and God then he a responsibility to rebuke Thomas because that would be idolatry and was prohibited under the Law of Moses. But instead of rebuking Thomas he said "because thou hast seen thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and believe".

This proves that God accepted the claims that he was God along with saying himself that he was God. So I shouldn't even have to give you scriptures where Jesus himself said it when he himself knew that what people said of him was true or else he would've rebuked them and set them straight.

No it is how you believe, it is not a fact. The Gospels were written some 60 years later, and they may be incorrect. There are other Gospels the suggest that the one's in the bible are wrong.

^^ You really should use more smilies, were gonna scare Punker away like the Muslim and USHOMEFREE...........Then what would we ever do???..........We'd have to turn on each other........

The Doctrine of what?

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Early Roman Catholic church didn't a very good job at editing the whole Bible for the control of the masses.....Though in early history, the church and state were all connected and much control over you whether you liked it or not. Today, we are free to explore without worry of condemnations and Inquisitions......Many people just don't feel they should explore it, because of the damnation doctrines........


The early church took hellenistic pagan ideas, and merged it with early christian concepts.

True.......They sure did...

It's amazing so easy to find this information out, though most people will never question it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
True.......They sure did...

It's amazing so easy to find this information out, though most people will never question it.

People rarely question anything.

Hmmmm... This thread is interesting.

To Punker, the threadstarter:

Be it known that I am also a Christian like you who believes that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior as proclaimed in the will of God.

He is the Son of God.
He is not the Father Himself.
He is not the One and Only True God.

Yes. The Trinity is absurdity.
Even the Oneness doctrine as well.

For me, there is only ONE TRUE GOD introduced to us by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And that One True God is the Father ALONE.

Originally posted by Punker69
According to my Bible Jesus is God and is divine.
I want to engage with you in this discussion. In accordance to your post, I hereby ask this question:

1. Where does it say in the Bible that our Lord Jesus Christ is God?

Originally posted by Jury
To Punker, the threadstarter:

Be it known that I am also a Christian like you who believes that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior as proclaimed in the will of God.

He is the Son of God.
He is not the Father Himself.
He is not the One and Only True God.

Yes. The Trinity is absurdity.
Even the Oneness doctrine as well.

For me, there is only ONE TRUE GOD introduced to us by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And that One True God is the Father ALONE.

He is the father. He said. 'I and my father are ONE" and "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father".

Jesus said in Isaiah 42:8 and "my glory I will not give to another".


I want to engage with you in this discussion. In accordance to your post, I hereby ask this question:

1. Where does it say in the Bible that our Lord Jesus Christ is God?

"One in unity" meaning one person. Why the heck are you quoting a song? I dont care what a songwriter had to say about Unity. Thats irrelvant to the word of God. The context of the story is the Jews question whether or not Jesus was in fact GOD. The statment " I and my Father are one" is a statement in relation to the setting and those questions.

This conversation is already getting me confused because I dont know what to say to a person who's debating oneness and isn't either a Trinitarian or Oneness believer. You have to be one. To be neither and believe in the Bible is ludicrious.

Jesus said he and the Father are ONE. You can look at it in different ways all you want but at the end of the day the scripture will still remain. I and my father are ONE. ONE.

Also like I said in the verse I posted. God said he would not share his glory with another. No other will he share it with. If they where two seperate people that would be controdictary to what he said in the OT.

Also Like I said previously about Thomas. He called Jesus his LORD and his God. Not plurality in that statement. If Jesus had a good bone in his body he would've immediately rebuked Thomas for his heresy. He did not, however.

Originally posted by Punker69
"One in unity" meaning one person. Why the heck are you quoting a song? I dont care what a songwriter had to say about Unity. Thats irrelvant to the word of God. The context of the story is the Jews question whether or not Jesus was in fact GOD. The statment " I and my Father are one" is a statement in relation to the setting and those questions.

This conversation is already getting me confused because I dont know what to say to a person who's debating oneness and isn't either a Trinitarian or Oneness believer. You have to be one. To be neither and believe in the Bible is ludicrious.

Jesus said he and the Father are ONE. You can look at it in different ways all you want but at the end of the day the scripture will still remain. I and my father are ONE. ONE.

Also like I said in the verse I posted. God said he would not share his glory with another. No other will he share it with. If they where two seperate people that would be controdictary to what he said in the OT.

Also Like I said previously about Thomas. He called Jesus his LORD and his God. Not plurality in that statement. If Jesus had a good bone in his body he would've immediately rebuked Thomas for his heresy. He did not, however.

Punker, I'm showing you examples on how the statement can be used. You are drawing an irrelevant conclusion out of that statement.

As I said, Jesus' statement "I and my Father are one" doesn't make Him God Himself as how you are trying to imply. There is nothing in the verse saying that Jesus is the Father Himself. It's only your own conclusion.

Yes. Jesus and the Father are one. But not what in the way you think it is. They are not one of being God. They are not one person. The Son is always distinct from the Father. They are not one in number. They are two.

In what way then are they one? I already answered this. And the Bible itself answers this. Just read the preceding verses of John 10:30. I already quoted it in my previous post.

Let's get through with John 10:30 first before we go on to the other verses you quoted.

You're interpretations all depend on the doctrines of your church. You've all been indoctrinated!!!!.............Punker is protestant/Pentecostal (?) Not only do they believe in the Trinity, but demons are everywhere influencing us all....And that Jesus is god.....Jury has been indoctrinated in the "We are the True Church".And worshiping Jesus is heresy......

Punker you will die an old man before Jury changes his belief.....

Originally posted by Jury
Punker, I'm showing you examples on how the statement can be used. You are drawing an irrelevant conclusion out of that statement.

As I said, Jesus' statement "I and my Father are one" doesn't make Him God Himself as how you are trying to imply. There is nothing in the verse saying that Jesus is the Father Himself. It's only your own conclusion.

Yes. Jesus and the Father are one. But not what in the way you think it is. They are not one of being God. They are not one person. The Son is always distinct from the Father. They are not one in number. They are two.

In what way then are they one? I already answered this. And the Bible itself answers this. Just read the preceding verses of John 10:30. I already quoted it in my previous post.



Yes, it does. Theres nothing in that passage of scripture or in the proceeding scriptures that says he isn't. One in "Unity" is your opinion. Im not even saying my opinion really. More of just what the scripture says. I believe that when Jesus says that he and his father are ONE. It means just that. They are ONE. In every way, shape, and form or else he wouldn't have used the term "One".

Like I said, I dont know how to argue with you. If you where a Trinitarian trying to tell me that Jesus and the Father are like one in Unity I would've set your straight by now. They believe that they are on as in one flesh like a marriage. And thats just false all in itself. Because you can be in unity all you want. But when you see Jesus you see the Father just like he said to Phillip. He didn't say you see the Son but the Father. This is a reply Jesus gave Phillip when he asked about The Father. Jesus was basically wondering why Phillip couldn't recognize the Father even though he had been in front of him for so long.

We're done with John 10:30. All im going to say is that when Jesus says he and the Father are One. Its means he and the father are ONE. Also, why are you dwelling on the proceeding verses while ignoring that fact that the statement Jesus made saying "I and my Father are One" was also part of an answer he gave to the Jews explaining that he was in fact the Christ.

Premise - The Bible is true in its entirety
inference - God exists
inference - Jesus had some divine power (he was resurrected, miracles, etc.)
inference - Jesus and God are one
conclusion #1 - Jesus and God are the same person
conclusion #2 - Jesus and God work together as a single entity(like a team)

both conclusions have been presented here. There may be other conclusions or inferences that can be drawn based on the given premise, but those are the main ones that have been presented.

The main problem I see with the first conclusion is that it is only supported by a few scriptures. You have to ignore or stretch/twist the rest of the bible to conform to this conclusion.

Conclusion #2 seems more logical to me. If we also assume that Jesus was always honest, how can we say that he prayed to himself? Why spend 40 days and nights in the desert fasting and praying? To whom was he referring when he cried out "father why hast thou deserted me." on the cross? I can't rely on just a few verses to form an opinion about this, I have to rely on all of the scriptures.

Originally posted by docb77
Premise - The Bible is true in its entirety
inference - God exists
inference - Jesus had some divine power (he was resurrected, miracles, etc.)
inference - Jesus and God are one
conclusion #1 - Jesus and God are the same person
conclusion #2 - Jesus and God work together as a single entity(like a team)

both conclusions have been presented here. There may be other conclusions or inferences that can be drawn based on the given premise, but those are the main ones that have been presented.

The main problem I see with the first conclusion is that it is only supported by a few scriptures. You have to ignore or stretch/twist the rest of the bible to conform to this conclusion.

Conclusion #2 seems more logical to me. If we also assume that Jesus was always honest, how can we say that he prayed to himself? Why spend 40 days and nights in the desert fasting and praying? To whom was he referring when he cried out "father why hast thou deserted me." on the cross? I can't rely on just a few verses to form an opinion about this, I have to rely on all of the scriptures.

Your aren't relying on just a few verses. Oneness scriptures are mentioned all over the Bible. And if you study OT prophecy you can find more.

That was Jesus's flesh praying to spirit. You aren't relying on "all" the scriptures for your Conclusion #2. Your relying on a few scriptures and you dont even fully understand your opposing.

There are two things Jesus came to earth to do. To set an example (prayer, fasting, baptism, good teaching etc.) and to die for out sins. He did both.

Originally posted by debbiejo
And worshiping Jesus is heresy......

Ei, debs. I also worship Jesus. I don't consider it heresy.

Originally posted by Punker69
Yes, it does. Theres nothing in that passage of scripture or in the proceeding scriptures that says he isn't. One in "Unity" is your opinion. Im not even saying my opinion really. More of just what the scripture says. I believe that when Jesus says that he and his father are ONE. It means just that. They are ONE. In every way, shape, and form or else he wouldn't have used the term "One".

Punker, you are saying that Jesus is the Father. I asked you why you say so. And you quoted John 10:30. Now, you're telling me you mean the verse just the way it is?

If you only mean the verse just the way it is, "I and my Father are one", then why would you conclude that Jesus is the Father Himself when He didn't even mention anywhere in the Bible that He is His Father?

Yes, Punker.
Jesus and the Father are one.
Jesus and His Church are one.
Jesus is not His Father.
Jesus is not His Church.

Originally posted by Punker69
Like I said, I dont know how to argue with you. If you where a Trinitarian trying to tell me that Jesus and the Father are like one in Unity I would've set your straight by now. They believe that they are on as in one flesh like a marriage. And thats just false all in itself. Because you can be in unity all you want. But when you see Jesus you see the Father just like he said to Phillip. He didn't say you see the Son but the Father. This is a reply Jesus gave Phillip when he asked about The Father. Jesus was basically wondering why Phillip couldn't recognize the Father even though he had been in front of him for so long.

Did Jesus tell Phillip He is the Father? Or He just told Phillip the Father is in Him? What did Phillip ask Jesus, by the way? Did Jesus give Phillip what he was asking for? Can you please quote the verse for me for the sake of discussion?

Originally posted by Punker69
We're done with John 10:30. All im going to say is that when Jesus says he and the Father are One. Its means he and the father are ONE. Also, why are you dwelling on the proceeding verses while ignoring that fact that the statement Jesus made saying "I and my Father are One" was also part of an answer he gave to the Jews explaining that he was in fact the Christ.

Correction. Did I say "proceeding"?
"Preceding" verses, Punker. John 10:30 was Jesus' conclusion to what He was proclaiming earlier. He is telling us in the preceding verses that His Father have the "same purpose" as He have with taking care of the flock.

And, may I remind you again. You're not just saying that Jesus and His Father are one. You're saying that in that statement, Jesus is claiming He is the Father Himself. That's what you are saying.

John 14:6-13

6.Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life;no man commeth unto the Father, but by me.

7. If ye had known me, ye should've known my Father also, and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8.Phillip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philli? He that hath seen me hath seen the Fathe; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10.Believest not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Verse 10 is another example of Jesus speaking of the spirit inside of him which is that of God using his flesh. His flesh was reffering to spirit.

11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works sake.

Skip to verse 13 is another example of how the Bible would contradict itself if there wasn't One God.

13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Isaiah 42:8 - My glory I will not give to another.

Originally posted by Punker69
Your aren't relying on just a few verses. Oneness scriptures are mentioned all over the Bible. And if you study OT prophecy you can find more.

What I meant by that was that all scriptures must be considered, and while there are some that suggest "oneness" there are others - equally valid - that point at a separateness. All of these must be considered and the simplest way to reconcile them is for Jesus and His Father to be separate beings with a single (one) purpose.

Originally posted by Punker69
That was Jesus's flesh praying to spirit. You aren't relying on "all" the scriptures for your Conclusion #2. Your relying on a few scriptures and you dont even fully understand your opposing.

This is what I mean about the simplest way to reconcile them. It doesn't sound like he's praying to his own spirit. It sounds like he's praying to His Father. He says that so many times in the NT it's obvious that he has a father, not that he is his father.

Originally posted by Punker69
There are two things Jesus came to earth to do. To set an example (prayer, fasting, baptism, good teaching etc.) and to die for out sins. He did both.

Completely agree. Example and Atonement.

Originally posted by Jury
Correction. Did I say "proceeding"?
"Preceding" verses, Punker. John 10:30 was Jesus' conclusion to what He was proclaiming earlier. He is telling us in the preceding verses that His Father have the "same purpose" as He have with taking care of the flock.

And, may I remind you again. You're not just saying that Jesus and His Father are one. You're saying that in that statement, Jesus is claiming He is the Father Himself. That's what you are saying.

I believe when Jesus says he and another are ONE. He means just what he says. One.

I just read the preceeding verses for myself. They dont prove anything.

What's with that verse? Are you saying now that John 10:30 is not a proof that Jesus is the Father Himself? That John 10:30 is only saying that Jesus and His Father are one? That you were wrong when you quote the passage to support your contention that Jesus is the Father Himself (that's why you resort to other verses)?



John 14:6 is not saying Jesus is the Father Himself. If He is the Father Himself, why would Jesus say He is the way to the Father?

If the Father is the house, and Jesus is the gate, can you say that the gate is the house?

Originally posted by docb77
This is what I mean about the simplest way to reconcile them. It doesn't sound like he's praying to his own spirit. It sounds like he's praying to His Father. He says that so many times in the NT it's obvious that he has a father, not that he is his father.

You agree that Jesus came to set in example. And that example included praying and fasting. How is Jesus supposed to set the example and expect us to follow in his footsteps when he himself never did it himself. His fleshly spirit was praying to the God that was in him.

True, there are alot of scriptures that would support Trinitarianism. But when you inspect the other parts of the Bible closer you'll find that while Jesus talked in that way alot he also clarified it in other passages of scripture for anybody who got confused. Just like he said to Phillip.

Originally posted by Jury
Ei, debs. I also worship Jesus. I don't consider it heresy. Worshiping a another god besides the father????
What ever happend to "You shall have no other gods before me?"

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

What a rhetorical question, indeed.

Why is Phillip asking Jesus to show them the Father? Jesus have been so long time with them yet Phillip has still not known Him. Haven't Jesus been telling them that the Father is a spirit? And who can see a spirit anyway?

John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father
and the Father is in me;
or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Punker, the exact same language about being "in" is used many times of Christians. When the same exact language is used both of Christ and of Christians, it needs to be understood the same way. We are "in" Christ, and Christ is "in" us. Read John 14:4-7; 17:21,23 and 26.

When used in the sense of "in God," or "in Christ," the word "in" refers to a close communion, or a tight fellowship. It was part of the covenant language of the day, when people spoke of being either "in" or "cut off from" the covenant.

If we say "We are in Christ", or "Christ is in us", would it mean that we are Christ Himself?

If we say "We are in God", or "God is in us", would it mean that we are God Himself?



I guess, you haven't known what glory does Jesus have from God?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Worshiping a another god besides the father????
What ever happend to "You shall have no other gods before me?"

Debs, I worship Jesus not because He is God.

I worship our Lord Jesus because that's what God commanded me to do. And who am I to question God who commanded it?

Worshiping another god/person/or thing then when it goes against the 10 Commandments? OMG, you are so blasphemous...

Originally posted by Jury
Debs, I worship Jesus not because He is God.

I worship our Lord Jesus because that's what God commanded me to do. And who am I to question God who commanded it?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Worshiping another god/person/or thing then when it goes against the 10 Commandments? OMG, you are so blasphemous...

Covenant, my dear debs.
Old covenant, old priesthood, old laws.
New covenant, new priesthood, new laws.
New acts of God's salvation.

This new covenant was promised by God.
And this was fufilled in Lord Jesus.

And part of this new convenant is that "every knee should bow down" to the only begotten Son. And this is a way to glorify the one and only true God - the Father.

With all these new laws and people constantly interpretting the bible HELL is going to have alot of previously vacant spots fill up rather quickly.

It never says new laws....It never said the old ones were done away with.

Well, the old covenant will not be judged with the new covenant. Because "everyone who lived in the law will be judged with that law".

When Jesus came, the new priesthood also came. With new priesthood, comes new law. And "new law supercedes the old".

Originally posted by Jury
When Jesus came, the new priesthood also came. With new priesthood, comes new law. And "new law supercedes the old".



So says the new law........................however that doesn't make it the right law.

Do you know what the "new law" is all about?

Originally posted by Jury
Well, the old covenant will not be judged with the new covenant. Because "everyone who lived in the law will be judged with that law".

Show me the verse where Jesus said the Old Law was taken away.

And when did I say "the old law was taken away"? Quote me on that.

Debbie, I acknowledge the laws of God in the Old Testament as Jesus Himself also acknowledge them. But when Jesus Christ came, God introduced the "new law" through Jesus Christ. And this is all about Salvation. The mystery of God's will in Christ Jesus.

I worship one God. And that is the Father. When He commanded us to worship Jesus, He didn't mean we should consider Jesus another God. Since worshiping Jesus is glorifying the Father Himself.

Be it known that when the Bible says that new law supercedes the old, it doesn't necessarily say that the old was taken away completely.

Example of how the new law supercedes the old is the eating of meat of animals considered unclean yet were cleaned during the new covenant.

Originally posted by Jury
Be it known that when the Bible says that new law supercedes the old, it doesn't necessarily say that the old was taken away completely.

Example of how the new law supercedes the old is the eating of meat of animals considered unclean yet were cleaned during the new covenant.

Originally posted by Jury
Be it known that when the Bible says that new law supercedes the old, it doesn't necessarily say that the old was taken away completely.

Well if the old laws were not taken away, then why worship anything other than the father, and also, do you keep the Sabbath? And where does it say it supercedes to where the old laws are now void?

As in keeping all 10 of the commandments.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well if the old laws were not taken away, then why worship anything other than the father, and also, do you keep the Sabbath? And where does it say it supercedes to where the old laws are now void?

As in keeping all 10 of the commandments.

The Ten Commandments were given to God's first nation. The first nation had their law. They had God's covenant and promise. And indeed God commanded them not to worship no other gods. For there is only one God before them.

Jesus Himself quoted the 2 most important commandments from those 10. But this doesn't mean to take away the rest.

The New Covenant also stipulates righteous way of living.

Sabbath has already had different meaning in Christ's time. Observing Sabbath in His time onward is not necessary anymore (Colossians 2:16-17).

Again, it is God's commandment for Christians to worship Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11).

Originally posted by Jury
The Ten Commandments were given to God's first nation. The first nation had their law. They had God's covenant and promise. And indeed God commanded them not to worship no other gods. For there is only one God before them.

Jesus Himself quoted the 2 most important commandments from those 10. But this doesn't mean to take away the rest.

The New Covenant also stipulates righteous way of living.

Sabbath has already had different meaning in Christ's time. Observing Sabbath in His time onward is not necessary anymore (Colossians 2:16-17).

Again, it is God's commandment for Christians to worship Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11).

Well first your are getting the OT LAWS (Duet, and Lev.) mixed up with the LAW of the Ten Commandments. It is never stated that the 10 Commandments were void...

Colossians 2:16-17 (New King James Version)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

This has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. It is referring to the what is called "Sabbath holy days" as in the their feasts days such as in Passover (Pesach), Unleavend Bread (Hag HaMatzah), Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim), Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Tabernacles (Sukkoth),..These feast days were centered around the moon, food..etc.

Jesus stating the 2 Commandments are only summing up the 10 that were already in place.

1. Love god with all your heart and mind (1st 4 commandments)
2. Love others as yourself (last 6 commandments)

Nothing has changed in the Law of the 10. Are you keeping the Sabbath?
This is a dispensationial view that was put in place in the 1800's. That means god saves people of different time periods in different ways...Like as in how did god save people of Noahs time as compared to Abraham, as to Moses, as compared to the Church Age. This would also be heresy to the scriptures that says "God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow"..."God changes NOT."

Again show me where the 10 commandments were voided out. Also, if there were to be a new covenant Jesus would have to have put it into place before his death. He did not. He followed all the commandments...

Phil. 2 9-11 was written by Paul, who is considered heretical in his teachings because it went against the OT and what Jesus also taught.

* well, the Father is God, so His Son is also a God... that's plain logic...

Originally posted by peejayd
* well, the Father is God, so His Son is also a God... that's plain logic... How's that true..........Me and my mother are not the same person....Now that IS plain logic.....

The Ten Commandments were mentioned long before they where given on Mt Sinai.

1. The First Commandment was known - Gen. 35:1-4.
2. The Second Commandment was known - Gen. 31:19,34,35; 35:2-4.
3. The Third Commandment was known - Lev.18:3,21,24,27.
4. The Fourth Commandment was known - Gen. 2:1-4; 8:10,12; 29:27,28;
Exodus 16:4,22,23,25-30.
5. The Fifth Commandment was known - Gen. 9:22-25.
6. The Sixth Commandment was known - Gen. 4:8-11,23,24; 9:5,6.
7. The Seventh Commandment was known - Gen. 20:5-9; 38:24; 39:7-9.
8. The Eighth Commandment was known - Gen. 30:33; 31:19,30,32,39; 44:8.
9. The Ninth Commandment was known - Gen. 39:7-20.
10. The Tenth Commandment had to be broken before the eighth commandment was broken.

Jesus also said these words,"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Mat. 5:17.

Fufill meaning to fill the law full of meaning and obedience and do for the law what no other human could do. Because no one ever obeyed all 613 commandments in the Law of Moses. Only Jesus. Once again he came to set an example.

Paul said it like this:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak in the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."-Romans 8:3-4

Thanks Deb for pointing out the fundamental scripture in this argument.

"For I am the Lord, I change not." Malachi 3:6

"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to day, and forever." Hebrew 13:8

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." Ps. 89:34.

Also even if you didn't want to obey the commandments. God mentioned around seven of them as teachings in the first part of Matthew. Even the rest fall into those few.

Also look at this passage of scripture. Where a rich man asked Jesus what he should do to be saved. He mentioned five of the ten commandments.

16(A)And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain (B)eternal life?"

17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but (C)if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

18Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "(D)YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

19(E)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and (F)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Jesus never came to get rid of the law but like it was prophesied of Jesus in Isaiah

"He will magnify the law, and make it honorable." Is.42:21.

Just read what Jesus said after he said he came to fulfill the law.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one iota or one letter shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat.5:17-20.

of course this whole debate can be summed up by the first verse of Genesis.

1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word God is interesting here. In hebrew its Elohim or Eloheim. The funny thing is that the -him or -heim suffix is used in hebrew to denote a plurality. The singular would be El or Eli.

From the beginning the plurality of God is in the bible. Oh an argument can be made that its a plurality of power or glory, but it's simpler to view it as a plurality in the Godhead, especially in light of what is said a few verses later "let us make man in our own image" (emphasis added). It could be the royal we, but in light of the plurality used earlier. I think it more likely its more like a commander or a leader saying, "let's get to it". Us in this case seems on casual and closer inspection to mean just what it usually means. More than one being was present.

Originally posted by debbiejo
How's that true..........Me and my mother are not the same person....Now that IS plain logic.....

* well, you are both humans... i suppose... am i right?

* an offspring of an animal is an animal... an offspring of a human is a human... an offspring of a God, is also a God... THIS is plain logic...

Originally posted by docb77
of course this whole debate can be summed up by the first verse of Genesis.

1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word God is interesting here. In hebrew its Elohim or Eloheim. The funny thing is that the -him or -heim suffix is used in hebrew to denote a plurality. The singular would be El or Eli.

How can the word "in" be used in the plural sense. Can you expand on that.

Originally posted by docb77
but it's simpler to view it as a plurality in the Godhead,

But I thought Clossians 2:9 said that "For in him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Doesn't really seem like three seperate persons to me.


Originally posted by docb77
especially in light of what is said a few verses later "let us make man in our own image" (emphasis added). It could be the royal we, but in light of the plurality used earlier. I think it more likely its more like a commander or a leader saying, "let's get to it". Us in this case seems on casual and closer inspection to mean just what it usually means. More than one being was present.

Did you happen to skip the next verse, Genesis 1:27-"So God made man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The "let's" is called the Plurality of Majesties. He wasn't speaking to three seperate beings but merely saying to himself "let's". Just like everyone has said to themselves before.

Originally posted by Punker69
How can the word "in" be used in the plural sense. Can you expand on that.

I never said that in was plural. I said that the hebrew word that was translated "God" was plural.

Originally posted by Punker69
But I thought Clossians 2:9 said that "For in him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Doesn't really seem like three seperate persons to me.

And that couldn't possibly mean that the full authority of the Godhead rested in his person (body) whether the Godhead was made up of 1, 3, or a million persons. The real question there is the meaning of the word fulness.


Originally posted by Punker69
Did you happen to skip the next verse, Genesis 1:27-"So God made man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The "let's" is called the Plurality of Majesties. He wasn't speaking to three seperate beings but merely saying to himself "let's". Just like everyone has said to themselves before.

And if all 3 beings had the same image their creation wouldn't be in the image of 1 of them as much as all 3?

This is like greek mythology....Gods creating gods and half gods and so forth....and also, how could Jesus also be the Father?

Originally posted by docb77
I never said that in was plural. I said that the hebrew word that was translated "God" was plural.


Show me proof.

Originally posted by docb77
And that couldn't possibly mean that the full authority of the Godhead rested in his person (body) whether the Godhead was made up of 1, 3, or a million persons. The real question there is the meaning of the word fulness.

While your showing me how exactly God was originally plural why dont you show me why the word "fullness" would mean anything other than what it obviously does mean.




Originally posted by docb77
And if all 3 beings had the same image their creation wouldn't be in the image of 1 of them as much as all 3?

Um..exactly. If we are made in the image of three people or three seperate persons which is what the Trinitarian doctrine states then where's our other 2 persons?

I dont know about you but when I got up and looked in the mirror I saw a person staring back at me. Not three.

Originally posted by Punker69
Um..exactly. If we are made in the image of three people or three seperate persons which is what the Trinitarian doctrine states then where's our other 2 persons?

I dont know about you but when I got up and looked in the mirror I saw a person staring back at me. Not three.

If this is the case, then why do you say "let us" instead of "let me" in reference to yourself:

Originally posted by Punker69
The "let's" is called the Plurality of Majesties. He wasn't speaking to three seperate beings but merely saying to himself "let's". Just like everyone has said to themselves before.

You already quoted my answer.

Originally posted by Punker69
Show me proof.

Here's a couple of sites that deal with it.

If you know some hebrew: http://tinyurl.com/gly5v

If not read this article: http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=823



Originally posted by Punker69
While your showing me how exactly God was originally plural why dont you show me why the word "fullness" would mean anything other than what it obviously does mean.

From Dictionary.com

fullness

n 1: completeness over a broad scope 2: the property of a sound that has a rich and pleasing timbre 3: the condition of being filled to capacity 4: greatness of volume

So it obviously has more than one meaning. I think #4 is pertinent.

Originally posted by Punker69
Um..exactly. If we are made in the image of three people or three seperate persons which is what the Trinitarian doctrine states then where's our other 2 persons?

I dont know about you but when I got up and looked in the mirror I saw a person staring back at me. Not three.

We're made after our parents image too. Do you see both of your parents when you look in the mirror?

Originally posted by debbiejo
This is like greek mythology....Gods creating gods and half gods and so forth....and also, how could Jesus also be the Father?

* no, it isn't... i didn't say Christ is the Father... i'm saying they are both Gods... Father is a God, His is also a God...

Jesus never called himself god.

* He doesn't have to... because He really is...

Originally posted by peejayd
* no, it isn't... i didn't say Christ is the Father... i'm saying they are both Gods... Father is a God, His is also a God...

Gods? So you believe in more then one god?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well first your are getting the OT LAWS (Duet, and Lev.) mixed up with the LAW of the Ten Commandments. It is never stated that the 10 Commandments were void...

Okay. When we say "void" it's totally useless anymore. It's not what my contention is, dear debs.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Colossians 2:16-17 (New King James Version)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

This has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. It is referring to the what is called "Sabbath holy days" as in the their feasts days such as in Passover (Pesach), Unleavend Bread (Hag HaMatzah), Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim), Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Tabernacles (Sukkoth),..These feast days were centered around the moon, food..etc.

Debbie dear, you were asking me if I observe Sabbath. I may ask here now, how should we suppose to observe Sabbath then?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus stating the 2 Commandments are only summing up the 10 that were already in place.

1. Love god with all your heart and mind (1st 4 commandments)
2. Love others as yourself (last 6 commandments)

Nothing has changed in the Law of the 10. Are you keeping the Sabbath?

Actually, Jesus said, the rest of the commandments depend on those 2 commandments Jesus stated... and that was since Jesus' priesthood.

Originally posted by debbiejo
This is a dispensationial view that was put in place in the 1800's. That means god saves people of different time periods in different ways...Like as in how did god save people of Noahs time as compared to Abraham, as to Moses, as compared to the Church Age. This would also be heresy to the scriptures that says "God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow"..."God changes NOT."

Yes, you're right. God doesn't change. He doesn't change in any form and in every promise He declared.

When God commanded Israel to keep Sabbath holy by observing it, He also promised that He will put an end to this kind of observance. And this ended when Jesus Christ came with a new covenant from God.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Again show me where the 10 commandments were voided out. Also, if there were to be a new covenant Jesus would have to have put it into place before his death. He did not. He followed all the commandments...

Yes. And He didn't observe the Sabbath anymore as how should it be observed when God commanded it to Israel.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Phil. 2 9-11 was written by Paul, who is considered heretical in his teachings because it went against the OT and what Jesus also taught.

Well, deb. I am a Christian. And nowhere in the Bible did Paul contradict the OT.

Punker69,

If Jesus and His Father are just "one person"... How come that Jesus said He didn't know when will the Judgment Day be, and only the Father knows it?

Originally posted by docb77
of course this whole debate can be summed up by the first verse of Genesis.

1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word God is interesting here. In hebrew its Elohim or Eloheim. The funny thing is that the -him or -heim suffix is used in hebrew to denote a plurality. The singular would be El or Eli.

From the beginning the plurality of God is in the bible. Oh an argument can be made that its a plurality of power or glory, but it's simpler to view it as a plurality in the Godhead, especially in light of what is said a few verses later "let us make man in our own image" (emphasis added). It could be the royal we, but in light of the plurality used earlier. I think it more likely its more like a commander or a leader saying, "let's get to it". Us in this case seems on casual and closer inspection to mean just what it usually means. More than one being was present.

This information is wrong.

ELOHIM in the Bible was used several times in several cases in several persons... ELOHIM were used both in singular and in plural form.

Example.

In Genesis 35:2, ELOHIM was translated this way:

"Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you...

In Exodus 21:6, ELOHIM was used for "judges".
In Psalm 8:5, is is used for "angels".

On the other hand, in Exodus 22:20, ELOHIM was used in singular form:

Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.

And is even used in Pagan god:

If Baal really is a god,
he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.
Judges 6:31


With these different meaning and usage of the word, it is not evident to use ELOHIM to prove the plurality in ONE God. For there is only one God throughout the Bible

The Father.

Jesus was a Jew and followed the OT....and NO, he didn't break the sabbath, show me where he did........He said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath...The Pharisees are the ones who tacked on extra laws. Jesus was only setting them straight.


Paul does contradict the OT"

Rom 10:1-2
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

It's interesting that Paul would claim the Jews who follow the law aren't basing their zeal on knowledge as his claim contradicts Proverbs 2:6 which states:
Prov 2:6
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Since the Lord God gave the law from his mouth to Moses, knowledge goes right along with following that very law.

Another verse which states that knowledge is found in obeying the commands of God is Psa 119:66 which states:
Psa 119:66
Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.

Paul's claim has no foundation since knowledge is found in the law and commands of God. Those who don't follow the law are the ones without knowledge.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

Here Paul attempts to discredit those who follow the Law of God.
However, his assertion that those who follow the law are not submitting to God's righteousness is completely bogus. God gave his laws so that people could establish righteousness.
Deut 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Psa 119:40
Behold, I have longed after thy precepts(laws): quicken(preserve) me in thy righteousness.

Obviously people could know righteousness because doing what the law instructed was righteousness. Paul's claim that people who follow the law aren't submitting to God is without basis.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Paul drops his doctrinal bomb here!
According to Paul, Christ(or Messiah) is the END OF THE LAW.
However, the law was declared perfect in Psa 19:7 and eternal in Psa 119:152, 160.

Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(statutes), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

Since there is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king messiah would abolish the Law, Paul has invented his own doctrine in Rom 10:4 and in the process makes a liar out of God, who declared that the Christ(or Messiah) would usher in an era where all God's people would keep the Law and not be given license to ignore it.

Ezek 37:24:
And David my servant(the Christ/Messiah) shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes(laws), and do them.

Paul's new doctrine is completely unfounded and contradicts what God declared in the OT.
It also contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 5:18-19. This is the unsound and invented doctrine that Christianity has adopted to escape the requirements of observing all the complicated laws God laid down in the OT.
Paul was looking for Gentile converts to the new religion. Greeks and other non-Jews couldn't be bothered with all the complicated laws that the Jewish God Yahweh set down in the Old Testament.
The Law of God was Paul's competition and stood as an obstacle to gaining new converts.
Paul voided the Law with his pen, declaring that Jesus the Christ or Messiah did away with all those complicated regulations by becoming a human sacrifice.
The irony is that Christians will go around proclaiming how they believe the whole Bible and want to serve God, worship God, and do the "will" of God. Christians follow Paul, not God.
This is the shallow pool of deception that Christianity swims in and tries to lure others into with threats of hellfire.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."
Paul only partially quotes Lev 18:5 here.
The fuller context is:
Lev 18:4-5
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

The law is to be obeyed if one wants to find favor with God.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

Paul now attempts to establish a new form of righteousness which is simply by faith alone with no compliance to the law being needed. In attempting this subterfuge, Paul partially quotes Deut 30:12 to suit his needs.
The full quote is:
Deut 30:12
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Deut 30:12 has nothing to do with Christ.
The law was given to the people and they don't need to be in any suspense regarding what to do to find favor with God. Simply have faith in God and obey his laws. Paul wants to claim that Christ was needed to complete the "picture" for the people when there is no need for a Christ to do anything.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

There is no need to bring Christ up from the dead. The law was already given and serves to provide righteousness to the people.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:8
But what saith it? The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Paul distorts Deut 30 even more this time as he attempts to retrofit Jesus into Deut 30.
In attempting to do this, Paul dishonestly half quotes Deut 30:14 and omits Deut 30:9-11 as well.
Deut 30:10-11 throws such a huge wrench into Paul's theology it's no wonder he had no use for it.

First, Deut 30:14 actually states:
Deut 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul's altered quote of Deut 30:14:
the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart

Notice that Paul leaves off of his quote "that thou mayest do it". Paul has twisted Deut 30:14 by chopping off the part he wanted to get rid off. That omitted part is the instruction to obey the law.
Paul already claimed in verse Rom 10:4 that Christ was the end of the law and can't have people thinking the law should still be observed so he chops off the last part of Deut 30:14 to suit his need.


Also:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the DEEDS of the law.
Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from OBSERVING THE LAW.

James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone.
Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone.
NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.

Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says.


PAUL VS JESUS

Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus was a Jew and followed the OT....and NO, he didn't break the sabbath, show me where he did........He said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath...The Pharisees are the ones who tacked on extra laws. Jesus was only setting them straight.

That's why I am asking you how should one observe Sabbath? How did God commanded His people to observe Sabbath? In what way should everyone keep the Sabbath holy?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul does contradict the OT"

Rom 10:1-2
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

It's interesting that Paul would claim the Jews who follow the law aren't basing their zeal on knowledge as his claim contradicts Proverbs 2:6 which states:
Prov 2:6
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Since the Lord God gave the law from his mouth to Moses, knowledge goes right along with following that very law.
Do you know what Israel did inspite of the knowledge and understanding God has given them?

Originally posted by debbiejo

Another verse which states that knowledge is found in obeying the commands of God is Psa 119:66 which states:
Psa 119:66
Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.

Paul's claim has no foundation since knowledge is found in the law and commands of God. Those who don't follow the law are the ones without knowledge.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

Here Paul attempts to discredit those who follow the Law of God.
However, his assertion that those who follow the law are not submitting to God's righteousness is completely bogus. God gave his laws so that people could establish righteousness.
Deut 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Psa 119:40
Behold, I have longed after thy precepts(laws): quicken(preserve) me in thy righteousness.

Obviously people could know righteousness because doing what the law instructed was righteousness. Paul's claim that people who follow the law aren't submitting to God is without basis.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Paul drops his doctrinal bomb here!
According to Paul, Christ(or Messiah) is the END OF THE LAW.
However, the law was declared perfect in Psa 19:7 and eternal in Psa 119:152, 160.

Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(statutes), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

Since there is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king messiah would abolish the Law, Paul has invented his own doctrine in Rom 10:4 and in the process makes a liar out of God, who declared that the Christ(or Messiah) would usher in an era where all God's people would keep the Law and not be given license to ignore it.

Ezek 37:24:
And David my servant(the Christ/Messiah) shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes(laws), and do them.

Paul's new doctrine is completely unfounded and contradicts what God declared in the OT.
It also contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 5:18-19. This is the unsound and invented doctrine that Christianity has adopted to escape the requirements of observing all the complicated laws God laid down in the OT.
Paul was looking for Gentile converts to the new religion. Greeks and other non-Jews couldn't be bothered with all the complicated laws that the Jewish God Yahweh set down in the Old Testament.
The Law of God was Paul's competition and stood as an obstacle to gaining new converts.
Paul voided the Law with his pen, declaring that Jesus the Christ or Messiah did away with all those complicated regulations by becoming a human sacrifice.
The irony is that Christians will go around proclaiming how they believe the whole Bible and want to serve God, worship God, and do the "will" of God. Christians follow Paul, not God.
This is the shallow pool of deception that Christianity swims in and tries to lure others into with threats of hellfire.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."
Paul only partially quotes Lev 18:5 here.
The fuller context is:
Lev 18:4-5
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

The law is to be obeyed if one wants to find favor with God.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

Paul now attempts to establish a new form of righteousness which is simply by faith alone with no compliance to the law being needed. In attempting this subterfuge, Paul partially quotes Deut 30:12 to suit his needs.
The full quote is:
Deut 30:12
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Deut 30:12 has nothing to do with Christ.
The law was given to the people and they don't need to be in any suspense regarding what to do to find favor with God. Simply have faith in God and obey his laws. Paul wants to claim that Christ was needed to complete the "picture" for the people when there is no need for a Christ to do anything.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

There is no need to bring Christ up from the dead. The law was already given and serves to provide righteousness to the people.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:8
But what saith it? The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Paul distorts Deut 30 even more this time as he attempts to retrofit Jesus into Deut 30.
In attempting to do this, Paul dishonestly half quotes Deut 30:14 and omits Deut 30:9-11 as well.
Deut 30:10-11 throws such a huge wrench into Paul's theology it's no wonder he had no use for it.

First, Deut 30:14 actually states:
Deut 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul's altered quote of Deut 30:14:
the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart

Notice that Paul leaves off of his quote "that thou mayest do it". Paul has twisted Deut 30:14 by chopping off the part he wanted to get rid off. That omitted part is the instruction to obey the law.
Paul already claimed in verse Rom 10:4 that Christ was the end of the law and can't have people thinking the law should still be observed so he chops off the last part of Deut 30:14 to suit his need.

Also:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the DEEDS of the law.
Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from OBSERVING THE LAW.

James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone.
Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone.
NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.

Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says.


PAUL VS JESUS

Oh, Paul. Thank God, He found you. I don't see them contradictory. Maybe, it's just you and your kind, deb?

So, haven't read about the mystery of God's will, how God has promised it in the OT, and how it was fulfilled in the NT? I bet you haven't.

Originally posted by Jury
This information is wrong.

ELOHIM in the Bible was used several times in several cases in several persons... ELOHIM were used both in singular and in plural form.

Example.

In Genesis 35:2, ELOHIM was translated this way:

"Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you...

In Exodus 21:6, ELOHIM was used for "judges".
In Psalm 8:5, is is used for "angels".

On the other hand, in Exodus 22:20, ELOHIM was used in singular form:

Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.

And is even used in Pagan god:

If Baal really is a god,
he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.
Judges 6:31


With these different meaning and usage of the word, it is not evident to use ELOHIM to prove the plurality in ONE God. For there is only one God throughout the Bible

The Father.

But any of those could be translated as a plurality. The article I linked to gave a good explanation of how to view the word in it's Hebrew context.

The problem with your answer is that it relies on the translation instead of the original language. Being bilingual myself I know it's important to see the original context. (unfortunately my second language isn't Hebrew). There are often subtexts or subtleties that are difficult or impossible to translate (and sometimes the translator himself actually has an agenda). That's why it's not very reliable to rely on the exact wording of any translated work, the bible included.

If you are a true follower of the bible, you must keep it as it is stated, because "Not one jot of tittle was done away with, nor will it change, until heaven and earth pass away".....YOU tell me what you should be doing...

..........Yes I have... .......And it's all just as I've said before, dispositional teachings that started in the 1800's with Darby and the Scholfield bible...

If god changes not, then god changes NOT...There is no Jew or Gentile according to scripture....It was the Christians that was graphed into the family tree, not the other way around...The Bible is Jewish!!! The church tried to shove the Jews out and Make it Christian. Telling the Jews then that they are now heathen and condemned to hell, when they are the originators or the bible in the first place, just as Jesus was a Jew...

You are a follower of Paul, not Jesus.......

* it's really pitiful to see you quote Saint Paul and try to contradict his epistle against Saint James, Christ and the Old Testament... but read this...

"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses ."
Acts 13:39

* see?

* the law of Moses was only for the Israelites and it was not intended for all people...

* the law of God is perfect but the law of God does NOT stop on Moses...

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son , whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
Hebrews 1:1-2

* there are many prophets after Moses and most recently, God sent and spoke by His Son, Christ...

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

* God gave revisions or amendments to the laws... albeit, by Christ... for example...

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery :"
Matthew 5:27

* Christ, preaching God's law, amended this...

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart ."
Matthew 5:28

* see?

* regarding Saint Paul against Saint James... you obviously discredited all other writings of Saint Paul and stuck only to a verse that seemed contradictory to Saint James... see how Saint Paul explained how is it that he preaches the law of faith...

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God ."
Romans 10:17

* Saint Paul is preaching the importance of faith to the unbelievers... not to those who are believers...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast ."
Ephesians 2:8-9

* that is what Saint Paul was preaching... but did he said that people will be saved by faith alone? nope...

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them ."
Ephesians 2:10

"That the man of God may be perfect, fully equipped unto all good works ."
II Timothy 3:17

* Saint Paul does NOT contradict Saint James, and most of all, Christ...

* if you believe in Christ, then consider Saint Paul's epistles...

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord ."
I Corinthians 14:37

* the things Saint Paul wrote are the commandments of the Lord...

* and please, do not mix Christianity from Catholicism...

Originally posted by docb77
But any of those could be translated as a plurality. The article I linked to gave a good explanation of how to view the word in it's Hebrew context.

The problem with your answer is that it relies on the translation instead of the original language. Being bilingual myself I know it's important to see the original context. (unfortunately my second language isn't Hebrew). There are often subtexts or subtleties that are difficult or impossible to translate (and sometimes the translator himself actually has an agenda). That's why it's not very reliable to rely on the exact wording of any translated work, the bible included.

You didn't get the point. You were saying that ELOHIM, because it is in a plural form, is a proof of plurality in one God. There's no evidence to that.

Again, the use in Hebrew, not in translations, of ELOHIM varies. ELOHIM in Hebrew was used BOTH in plural and in singular form. NOT only plural. Check Hebrew versions.

In Judges 6:31. Baal there is called ELOHIM.
In Exodus 7:1. Moses there is called ELOHIM.
In Judges 11:24. A pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM.
In I Samuel 5:7. A pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM.

How should we suppose to translate them? Plural?

What I am trying to say docb77 is that ELOHIM is not ONLY plural. It also appears in singular form even in Hebrew language.

So why is there a plural ELOHIM? The great Hebrew scholar has the answer:



Some are thinking that the word ELOHIM implies a "compound unity" when it refers to the true God as what you are trying to imply also. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this, docb77.

Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." The evidence is clear, docb77: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.

Originally posted by debbiejo
If you are a true follower of the bible, you must keep it as it is stated, because "Not one jot of tittle was done away with, nor will it change, until heaven and earth pass away".....YOU tell me what you should be doing...

You're not answering my question, dear deb. How should the Sabbath be observed?

Originally posted by debbiejo
..........Yes I have... .......And it's all just as I've said before, dispositional teachings that started in the 1800's with Darby and the Scholfield bible...

And what is the mystery of God's will?

Originally posted by debbiejo
If god changes not, then god changes NOT...There is no Jew or Gentile according to scripture....It was the Christians that was graphed into the family tree, not the other way around...The Bible is Jewish!!! The church tried to shove the Jews out and Make it Christian. Telling the Jews then that they are now heathen and condemned to hell, when they are the originators or the bible in the first place, just as Jesus was a Jew...

You are a follower of Paul, not Jesus.......

God changes not, deb. But the changes in the law are part of His plan since the beginning when He promised the covenance He will proclaim for the Seed of Abraham - Jesus Christ.

That's why I asked you also: What did Israel do in spite of God's covenance with them? Did they remain faithful to God's law?

Thought this was interesting...

Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'

"Again (v., 27), how could man be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Thought this was interesting...

Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'

"Again (v., 27), how could man be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day.

Pitiful. I thought you were reading the Bible, dear debbie.

You didn't even know what this "image of God" man is created for. Surely, it's not about the human's being male or female.

Originally posted by Jury
You didn't get the point. You were saying that ELOHIM, because it is in a plural form, is a proof of plurality in one God. There's no evidence to that.

Again, the use in Hebrew, not in translations, of ELOHIM varies. ELOHIM in Hebrew was used BOTH in plural and in singular form. NOT only plural. Check Hebrew versions.

In Judges 6:31. Baal there is called ELOHIM.
In Exodus 7:1. Moses there is called ELOHIM.
In Judges 11:24. A pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM.
In I Samuel 5:7. A pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM.

How should we suppose to translate them? Plural?

What I am trying to say docb77 is that ELOHIM is not ONLY plural. It also appears in singular form even in Hebrew language.

So why is there a plural ELOHIM? The great Hebrew scholar has the answer:



Some are thinking that the word ELOHIM implies a "compound unity" when it refers to the true God as what you are trying to imply also. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this, docb77.

Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." The evidence is clear, docb77: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.



Sorry,We must have had a misunderstanding. I never argued for a compound deity. I thought that article captured the gist of the word well, I didn't really agree with their conclusions however. I actually was saying that there was more than one person(although divine persons) there when they said, "let us make man in our own image.)

I don't doubt that languages adapt over time, and perhaps that happened with the word in question. But given what I understand of the context, this does seem to be plural to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Gods? So you believe in more then one god?

* yes, the Father Almighty is God... His Son, Christ is also a God...

Originally posted by docb77
Sorry,We must have had a misunderstanding. I never argued for a compound deity. I thought that article captured the gist of the word well, I didn't really agree with their conclusions however. I actually was saying that there was more than one person(although divine persons) there when they said, "let us make man in our own image.)

I don't doubt that languages adapt over time, and perhaps that happened with the word in question. But given what I understand of the context, this does seem to be plural to me.

That's why I quoted you on your first post. Because you were saying that ELOHIM denotes plurality. Your information is incomplete when you say it that way. That's why I made a correction that ELOHIM is used both singular and plural in the Bible.

As to the case of Genesis 1:26, the use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a "plural of majesty" or a "plural of emphasis," and is used for intensification as what the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius said. Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of "us" and "our" as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis. And this usage is found in some parts of the Bible.

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, the Father Almighty is God... His Son, Christ is also a God...

And which is the TRUE one?

And which is the false one that everyone worships?

And where are the answers to my questions?

Originally posted by Jury
That's why I quoted you on your first post. Because you were saying that ELOHIM denotes plurality. Your information is incomplete when you say it that way. That's why I made a correction that ELOHIM is used both singular and plural in the Bible.

As to the case of Genesis 1:26, the use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a "plural of majesty" or a "plural of emphasis," and is used for intensification as what the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius said. Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of "us" and "our" as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis. And this usage is found in some parts of the Bible.



I accept that Elohim Jehovah is like that, but in the first few verses it uses the word Elohim alone. That would seem to be plural. The gods (elohim) created the world with the LORD (Elohim Jehovah) being chief among them and the only one we should worship.

Oh, and in the first post I was more referring to the -him suffix. That is a plural, just like an -s or -es ending is in english.

So perhaps the way it should be seen is more like another phrase from elsewhere in the bible. "king of kings, lord of lords" Maybe using elohim in the singular is like saying God of gods.

By the way, the word Elohim is the only word I've actually seen much discussion on. Anyone happen to know how the verbs attached to it are conjugated - singular? plural?

Originally posted by Jury
And which is the TRUE one?

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

* God the Father is a true God...

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God , and eternal life."
I John 5:20

* Christ is also a true God...

Originally posted by docb77
I accept that Elohim Jehovah is like that, but in the first few verses it uses the word Elohim alone. That would seem to be plural. The gods (elohim) created the world with the LORD (Elohim Jehovah) being chief among them and the only one we should worship.

Oh, and in the first post I was more referring to the -him suffix. That is a plural, just like an -s or -es ending is in english.

So perhaps the way it should be seen is more like another phrase from elsewhere in the bible. "king of kings, lord of lords" Maybe using elohim in the singular is like saying God of gods.

By the way, the word Elohim is the only word I've actually seen much discussion on. Anyone happen to know how the verbs attached to it are conjugated - singular? plural?

As what I have contended above, ELOHIM doesn't only appear plural in the Bible. It also appears as singular. Now, ELOHIM in the verse you cited is referring to God. Pagans only believed in one Baal, one Dagon, and one Chemosh. Hebrews also believed there's only one Moses. And throughout the Bible, God is ONLY one. One in number. It is understandable therefore that when ELOHIM is referring to a single person only, it is understood as singular.

Now, the ELOHIM in Genesis 1:26 is referring to the Creator - the Father - the ONLY true God. Thus, the use of ELOHIM in Genesis 1:26 is singular.

That's why you can also notice the SINGULAR pronouns used in succeeding verses.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27

Clearly, docb77... The ELOHIM who created man is only one person and should be considered singular. And the plural pronouns used in the Genesis 1:26, according to the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius is used for intensification as common to other parts of the Bible.

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

* God the Father is a true God...

May I quote the verse again?

And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3
New King James Version

You missed to emphasize the only. So how do you understand the phrase "the only true God"?

The adjective "only" there doesn't change it's meaning. It only means one thing:


True. The Father is the ONLY true God. Aside from Him there is no other.

Originally posted by peejayd
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God , and eternal life."
I John 5:20

* Christ is also a true God...

Your emphasis is wrong. Understand the context, friend.
I'll show you the correct emphasis.

And we know that the Son of God has come
and has given us an understanding,
that we may know Him who is true;
and we are in Him who is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life.
I John 5:20
New King James Version

See? Jesus Christ came to give us understanding. Understanding what? Understanding what eternal life is. And this eternal life is knowing who the only true God is. How did Jesus introduced us this understanding?

I may quote the verse again.

And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3
New King James Version

Truly. The Father ALONE is true God.

Hey jury,

Just out of curiosity, Do you actually know Hebrew? Or are you like me just going by what other people have said?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by docb77
Hey jury,

Just out of curiosity, Do you actually know Hebrew? Or are you like me just going by what other people have said?

Just wondering.

Not necessarily, docb77.

I don't need to be a scientist to learn science.
I don't need to be a mathematician to learn mathematics.
I don't need to be a linguistic to learn all languages.

Concerning religious matters, I've studied what books can offer, what scholars have said, what prophets have preached, what history has protrayed and what studies have conveyed. Every side is important before making conclusions.

And I'm going, taking, and considering those that make sense, logical, and sound biblical.

Originally posted by Jury
May I quote the verse again?

And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3
New King James Version

You missed to emphasize the only. So how do you understand the phrase "the only true God"?

The adjective "only" there doesn't change it's meaning. It only means one thing:

True. The Father is the ONLY true God. Aside from Him there is no other.

* so let us understand the context, bro... why is God the Father is the ONLY true God as Christ had said...

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven , and said, Father , the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"
John 17:1

* Christ lifted his eyes to heaven... there really is ONLY one true God in the heavens... because the other God was on earth, and that God is Christ... Christ came here on earth...

Originally posted by Jury
Your emphasis is wrong. Understand the context, friend.
I'll show you the correct emphasis.

And we know that the Son of God has come
and has given us an understanding,
that we may know Him who is true;
and we are in Him who is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life.
I John 5:20
New King James Version

See? Jesus Christ came to give us understanding. Understanding what? Understanding what eternal life is. And this eternal life is knowing who the only true God is. How did Jesus introduced us this understanding?

* let us read:

"And we know that the Son of God is come , and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life ."
I John 5:20

* see? Christ came here on earth...

* now, let us conform to Saint John who is this "eternal life" he was talking about...

"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us "
I John 1:2

* who is that "eternal life"? that "eternal life" was with the Father and was manifested unto us... He is Christ, bro...

Originally posted by Jury
I may quote the verse again.

And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3
New King James Version

Truly. The Father ALONE is true God.



* the Father is not alone...

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was .
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ."
John 17:5, 24

* Christ was with the Father even before the foundation of the world...

* the Son of God is also a God...

Originally posted by Jury
Not necessarily, docb77.

I don't need to be a scientist to learn science.
I don't need to be a mathematician to learn mathematics.
I don't need to be a linguistic to learn all languages.

Concerning religious matters, I've studied what books can offer, what scholars have said, what prophets have preached, what history has protrayed and what studies have conveyed. Every side is important before making conclusions.

And I'm going, taking, and considering those that make sense, logical, and sound biblical.





Was that a yes or a no? I learned the hebrew Aleph-bet once. But that was as far as I got really, so like I think you were saying I'm just going off what I read too.

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, the Father Almighty is God... His Son, Christ is also a God...

Just a little surprised; that is not very main stream Christian like.

Originally posted by peejayd
* so let us understand the context, bro... why is God the Father is the ONLY true God as Christ had said...

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven , and said, Father , the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"
John 17:1

* Christ lifted his eyes to heaven... there really is ONLY one true God in the heavens... because the other God was on earth, and that God is Christ... Christ came here on earth...

Jesus statement is very clear. He's not saying that the Father is the only true God in heavens. He is saying that the Father ALONE is the true God. Whether in heavens or in earth or in the sea under the earth, the Father ALONE is the true God. Other than Him, there is no other true God.

Jesus is the true God on earth. Where in the Bible does it say that?

Originally posted by peejayd
* let us read:

"And we know that the Son of God is come , and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life ."
I John 5:20

You're trying to avoid the context, friend. What made you think that the last statement of the verse refers to Jesus Christ? It is so obvious that it refers directly to God.

The Son of God gave us understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Very clear, friend, the last statement is referring to none other than the Father.

Originally posted by peejayd * see? Christ came here on earth...

* now, let us conform to Saint John who is this "eternal life" he was talking about...

"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us "
I John 1:2

* who is that "eternal life"? that "eternal life" was with the Father and was manifested unto us... He is Christ, bro...

Sorry. What you have there in the passage is your plain assumption. There was no mention that Christ is the true God. The verse is simply saying that "eternal life" is with God. Let us not forget that eternal life denotes salvation. And this salvation is only with God.

It is not a question of who that eternal life is. The contention I had earlier is that UNDERSTANDING WHAT ETERNAL LIFE IS. And that is by knowing the Father to be the ONLY TRUE GOD.

I would also like to emphasize that understanding eternal life is not only knowing the Father as the ONLY true God but also knowing Jesus Christ as the one sent by God.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Father is not alone...

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was .
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ."
John 17:5, 24

* Christ was with the Father even before the foundation of the world...

The Father is not alone. Alone in what manner, friend?
Jesus is saying that the Father ALONE is the true God. And that is my contention.

John 17:5, 24. The "existence" of Christ before the foundation of the world is not a question, peejayd. But did He exist literally as a person and separate from God and as God? There is no just evidence to that. If you insist that Jesus existed literally before the world began, would you also admit that we, as God's people, existed before the time began?

Peejayd, God's people had given grace from God before the time had begun. The glory of Christ which He had before the foundation of the world is what Jesus is praying for to be fulfilled and manifested.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Son of God is also a God...

Proclaimed by whom?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just a little surprised; that is not very main stream Christian like.

* Christ is a God... even the apostles of Christ acknowledge Him as a God...

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God ."
John 20:28

Originally posted by docb77


Was that a yes or a no? I learned the hebrew Aleph-bet once. But that was as far as I got really, so like I think you were saying I'm just going off what I read too.

And what have you read? That ELOHIM is used only as plural?

See? docb77, we don't just rely on what we have learned on our own, and what we already knew in the past. We focus on the word ELOHIM alone. And we don't need to study the whole Hebrew language to understand what ELOHIM is. We have experts, we have grammarians, we have lexicons to help us do that. And how can we determine if they are telling us the correct information?

Compare. That's what the Bible itself is suggesting.

That's why I gave you Genesis 1:27. You were insisting that ELOHIM in Genesis 1:26 is plural, this will contradict the succeeding verse.

Friend, the laws of Moses, the books of prophets, the psalms of David, the gospels, and the epistles are not contradictory. Like Science and Religion. They actually don't. Harmony exists everywhere. We just cannot grasp it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just a little surprised; that is not very main stream Christian like.

I'ts not new actually. Jehovah's Witnesses do so.

* and i'm not a member of jehova's witnesses...

Obviously.

Originally posted by Jury
Jesus statement is very clear. He's not saying that the Father is the only true God in heavens. He is saying that the Father ALONE is the true God. Whether in heavens or in earth or in the sea under the earth, the Father ALONE is the true God. Other than Him, there is no other true God.

Jesus is the true God on earth. Where in the Bible does it say that?

* the context is clear, Christ was talking about the Father, the only true God in the heavens... i'm not saying that God is not a God on earth or in the seas... i said, Christ stated that there is only one true God in the heavens as Christ lifted up His eyes...

* I John 5:20 affirms that Christ is a true God who came here on earth...

Originally posted by Jury
You're trying to avoid the context, friend. What made you think that the last statement of the verse refers to Jesus Christ? It is so obvious that it refers directly to God.

The Son of God gave us understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Very clear, friend, the last statement is referring to none other than the Father.

* the verse refers to Christ...

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God , and eternal life."
I John 5:20

* Christ is a true God...

Originally posted by Jury
Sorry. What you have there in the passage is your plain assumption. There was no mention that Christ is the true God. The verse is simply saying that "eternal life" is with God. Let us not forget that eternal life denotes salvation. And this salvation is only with God.

It is not a question of who that eternal life is. The contention I had earlier is that UNDERSTANDING WHAT ETERNAL LIFE IS. And that is by knowing the Father to be the ONLY TRUE GOD.

I would also like to emphasize that understanding eternal life is not only knowing the Father as the ONLY true God but also knowing Jesus Christ as the one sent by God.

* the verse should also conform with the entirety of the book... or should we say, the context... in I John 5:20, we have read that the true God mentioned is also the eternal life... so by reading I John 1:2, we can now know who is that eternal life, and the true God being aforementioned by Saint John...

"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ; )"
I John 1:2

* the eternal life mentioned was with the Father, and was manifested unto us...

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world , received up into glory."
I Timothy 3:16

* Christ is that eternal life, Saint John had mentioned... and as stated by Saint Paul, Christ is a God manifested in the flesh...

Originally posted by Jury
The Father is not alone. Alone in what manner, friend?
Jesus is saying that the Father ALONE is the true God. And that is my contention.

"I and my Father are one."
John 10:30

* Christ Himself said, He is a God...

Originally posted by Jury
John 17:5, 24. The "existence" of Christ before the foundation of the world is not a question, peejayd. But did He exist literally as a person and separate from God and as God? There is no just evidence to that. If you insist that Jesus existed literally before the world began, would you also admit that we, as God's people, existed before the time began?

Peejayd, God's people had given grace from God before the time had begun. The glory of Christ which He had before the foundation of the world is what Jesus is praying for to be fulfilled and manifested.

* Christ exists then as The Word, and as The Wisdom...

"In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ."
John 1:1

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :"
I Corinthians 2:7

Originally posted by Jury
Proclaimed by whom?



* by the apostles, by the prophets... more importantly, by Christ Himself, and the Father...

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ is a God... even the apostles of Christ acknowledge Him as a God...

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God ."
John 20:28

Again you quote from the bible to me. You don't understand, the words you just quoted, to me, did not say what you said they did.

We are all part of God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again you quote from the bible to me. You don't understand, the words you just quoted, to me, did not say what you said they did.

We are all part of God.

* to YOU, the verse i quoted did not say what i say it did... to YOU... and that's YOUR opinion...

Originally posted by peejayd
* to YOU, the verse i quoted did not say what i say it did... to YOU... and that's YOUR opinion...

Sorry but the sentence didn't quite make sense to me, but I think I understand.

It is not only my point of view. We all form opinions based upon the type of knowledge that we have. I have studied both Christianity and Buddhism, and I have found that sense I studied Christianity first, now when I read the bible, my way of thinking about what is being said is different that what it used to be.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the context is clear, Christ was talking about the Father, the only true God in the heavens... i'm not saying that God is not a God on earth or in the seas... i said, Christ stated that there is only one true God in the heavens as Christ lifted up His eyes...

* I John 5:20 affirms that Christ is a true God who came here on earth...

Again, Jesus is not saying that the Father is the only true God in heavens ALONE. God is God of everything. Jesus's statement is very clear, concise, and definite.

The Father is the ONLY true God.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the verse refers to Christ...

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God , and eternal life."
I John 5:20

* Christ is a true God...

...even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.

Are you saying that the pronoun "This" refers to Christ and not to the Father? What is your basis, friend?

Originally posted by peejayd
* the verse should also conform with the entirety of the book... or should we say, the context... in I John 5:20, we have read that the true God mentioned is also the eternal life... so by reading I John 1:2, we can now know who is that eternal life, and the true God being aforementioned by Saint John...

"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ; )"
I John 1:2

* the eternal life mentioned was with the Father, and was manifested unto us...

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world , received up into glory."
I Timothy 3:16

Read my responses again. You simply cannot absorb them.

I Timothy 3:16

Do you understand the message conveyed in I Timothy 3:16? Can you elaborate it further?

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ is that eternal life, Saint John had mentioned... and as stated by Saint Paul, Christ is a God manifested in the flesh...

"I and my Father are one."
John 10:30

* Christ Himself said, He is a God...

I and my Father are one.

One what? One God? No evidence. Your drawing your own conclusion.
Or are you saying that Jesus and His Father are just one and the same person? Obviously no, because you're saying that they are two in number, thus, two Gods.

So, what is your contention in using this statement? "I and my Father are one."

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ exists then as The Word, and as The Wisdom...

"In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ."
John 1:1

How sure are you that the "Word" there in John 1:1 refers directly and/or literally to Jesus Christ Himself? Do you know how many times the word "LOGOS" was used in the Scriptures? I hope you do.

Originally posted by peejayd
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :"
I Corinthians 2:7

There's no problem with that. Jesus is the wisdom of God. It doesn't make or confirm that Jesus Christ HIMSELF is with God in the beginning.

Originally posted by peejayd
* by the apostles, by the prophets... more importantly, by Christ Himself, and the Father...

So, tell me, friend. If Jesus Christ is ALSO a true God, what kind of Godship does He have? Is the Bible really telling us that there are two Gods to believe in?

Originally posted by Jury
Again, Jesus is not saying that the Father is the only true God in heavens ALONE. God is God of everything. Jesus's statement is very clear, concise, and definite.

The Father is the ONLY true God.


* the ONLY Begotten Son of God is also a God... the Son of God is also a God...

* Christ was begotten by the Father, Christ was given birth by the Father... the Son of the Father is also a God...

Originally posted by Jury
...even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.

Are you saying that the pronoun "This" refers to Christ and not to the Father? What is your basis, friend?

Read my responses again. You simply cannot absorb them.


* sorry, bro... it is YOU who simply cannot absorb what i'm saying... you cannot refute the fact that the "eternal life" Saint John was talking about is Christ Himself...

Originally posted by Jury
I Timothy 3:16

Do you understand the message conveyed in I Timothy 3:16? Can you elaborate it further?

* Christ was a God manifested in the flesh... the human part of Christ is His flesh... but in that human flesh, dwells the fullness of Godhead...

Originally posted by Jury
I and my Father are one.

One what? One God? No evidence. Your drawing your own conclusion.
Or are you saying that Jesus and His Father are just one and the same person? Obviously no, because you're saying that they are two in number, thus, two Gods.

So, what is your contention in using this statement? "I and my Father are one."

* i think the Jews understood what Christ meant...

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God ."
John 10:33

* the enemies of Christ believe that He was a human... but to those who really knew Christ, they know Christ is a God...

Originally posted by Jury
How sure are you that the "Word" there in John 1:1 refers directly and/or literally to Jesus Christ Himself? Do you know how many times the word "LOGOS" was used in the Scriptures? I hope you do.

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* the Word is Christ Himself...

Originally posted by Jury
There's no problem with that. Jesus is the wisdom of God. It doesn't make or confirm that Jesus Christ HIMSELF is with God in the beginning.

* now that's a very blatant misconception...

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was .
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ."
John 17:5, 24

* it is very biased of you to accept John 17:3 as clear, concise and definite... yet the succeeding verses such as verse 5 and 24, are not?

* Christ is with the Father in the beginning... the Father had given glory to Christ before the world was... the Father had loved Christ before the foundation of the world... They are with each other...

Originally posted by Jury
So, tell me, friend. If Jesus Christ is ALSO a true God, what kind of Godship does He have? Is the Bible really telling us that there are two Gods to believe in?


"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ :"
II Peter 1:1

* according to Saint Paul and Saint Peter, Christ is our God and Saviour...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the ONLY Begotten Son of God is also a God... the Son of God is also a God...

* Christ was begotten by the Father, Christ was given birth by the Father... the Son of the Father is also a God...

Or shall we say half-God, half-Man?

Originally posted by peejayd
* sorry, bro... it is YOU who simply cannot absorb what i'm saying... you cannot refute the fact that the "eternal life" Saint John was talking about is Christ Himself...

You are not answering my question.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ was a God manifested in the flesh... the human part of Christ is His flesh... but in that human flesh, dwells the fullness of Godhead...

God manifested in the flesh? Are you sure with that?

KAI OMOLOGOUMENWS MEGA EZTIN TO THS EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION OS EFANERWQH EN SARKI EDIKAIWQH EN IINEUMATI WFQH AGGELOIS EKHRUCQH EN EQNESIN EPISTEUQH EN KOSMW ANELHMFQH EN DOXH
I Timothy 3:16

Ever familiar with the uncials? The most ancient and earliest manuscripts unearthed? So who told you that OS there should be translated as "God" instead of "He who"? If it were "God" it should have written as THEOS not HOS or HO.

"HE WHO" is supported by the earliest and best uncials. THEOS appeared earlier than the eighth or ninth century; all ancient versions presuppose HOS or HO ; The reading THEOS arose either (a) accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs , or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
New International Version

By common confession great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory
1 Timothy 3:16
New American Standard Bible

This section of Scripture beautifully portrays an overview of Christ's life and accomplishments. It all fits with what we know of the man, Jesus Christ.

With all these, the reading: "God manifested in the flesh" is inaccurate.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i think the Jews understood what Christ meant...

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God ."
John 10:33

Again, you did not answer my question. What is your contention upon using the verse John 10:30?

"I and my Father are one". What made you think that by this statement you conclude that Jesus is ALSO the true God? Jesus was simply saying that He and His Father are one.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the enemies of Christ believe that He was a human... but to those who really knew Christ, they know Christ is a God...

So didn't Christ refute those Jews who thought that with that statement, Jesus is claiming to be God?

Originally posted by peejayd
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* the Word is Christ Himself...

That's why I asked you: Do you know how many times the word LOGOS appeared in the Scriptures? How can we determine then if that LOGOS refers to Christ Himself and not its real meaning?

Originally posted by peejayd
* now that's a very blatant misconception...

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was .
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ."
John 17:5, 24

* it is very biased of you to accept John 17:3 as clear, concise and definite... yet the succeeding verses such as verse 5 and 24, are not?

* Christ is with the Father in the beginning... the Father had given glory to Christ before the world was... the Father had loved Christ before the foundation of the world... They are with each other...

Again, the "existence" of Christ before the foundation of the world is not a question. For we, the people of God also "existed" before the time begun. Now, in what sense did Christ and we "existed" before the foundation of the earth? If you believe that Jesus Himself literally existed before the foundation of the world, you must also believe that the people of God whom He had given grace existed literally before the time begun.

Peejayd, I believe that we all "existed" before the foundation of the earth. But it is not necessary that we are there already existing as our own selves. The same case with Christ for He was "foreknown" before the world begun. Friend, you cannot PROGINOSKO something or somebody who is already and literally existing.

Originally posted by peejayd
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ :"
II Peter 1:1

* according to Saint Paul and Saint Peter, Christ is our God and Saviour...

It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one. When Scripture refers to "our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," it can mean two beings - both the "Great God," and the "Savior," Jesus Christ.

Wowza. I leave for a few days and theres so much to catch up on. I'll try to just jump in sometime.....unless someone wants to give me a recap

Originally posted by Jury
And what have you read? That ELOHIM is used only as plural?

See? docb77, we don't just rely on what we have learned on our own, and what we already knew in the past. We focus on the word ELOHIM alone. And we don't need to study the whole Hebrew language to understand what ELOHIM is. We have experts, we have grammarians, we have lexicons to help us do that. And how can we determine if they are telling us the correct information?

Compare. That's what the Bible itself is suggesting.

That's why I gave you Genesis 1:27. You were insisting that ELOHIM in Genesis 1:26 is plural, this will contradict the succeeding verse.

Friend, the laws of Moses, the books of prophets, the psalms of David, the gospels, and the epistles are not contradictory. Like Science and Religion. They actually don't. Harmony exists everywhere. We just cannot grasp it.



I find it a little funny that you keep the debate going when all I did was ask a simple question. but ok....

I don't think the actual word elohim actually ever came up during the short time I had in that class before I dropped it. The -him ending I think did, and it is plural. just like the -s or -es ending in english.

I don't see the contradiction in taking verse 26 as a possible plurality and 27 as a single. If a General wer to say let us go conquer those guys, and then someone said General so and so conquered those guys - well, not a contradiction, just a different way of saying something, perhaps from a different point of view.

I also disagree that we can't grasp the harmony that exists in the places you mentioned. (Maybe this is semantics too) It would be better to say that sometimes we need God's help to do so.

If there's any consolation, you have convinced me that it can be used in reference to a single entity, just not that it does in this instance.

Originally posted by Jury
Or shall we say half-God, half-Man?

* nope... the human part of Christ is only His body... Christ is a God manifested in the flesh...

Originally posted by Jury
God manifested in the flesh? Are you sure with that?

KAI OMOLOGOUMENWS MEGA EZTIN TO THS EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION OS EFANERWQH EN SARKI EDIKAIWQH EN IINEUMATI WFQH AGGELOIS EKHRUCQH EN EQNESIN EPISTEUQH EN KOSMW ANELHMFQH EN DOXH
I Timothy 3:16

Ever familiar with the uncials? The most ancient and earliest manuscripts unearthed? So who told you that OS there should be translated as "God" instead of "He who"? If it were "God" it should have written as THEOS not HOS or HO.

"HE WHO" is supported by the earliest and best uncials. THEOS appeared earlier than the eighth or ninth century; all ancient versions presuppose HOS or HO ; The reading THEOS arose either (a) accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs , or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man , he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Philippians 2:7-8

* Christ took the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man... but what is the nature of Christ?

"Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Philippians 2:6

* Christ was in the form of God... He was not in the form of a servant nor in the form of a human... He was in the form of God...

Originally posted by Jury
Again, you did not answer my question. What is your contention upon using the verse John 10:30?

"I and my Father are one". What made you think that by this statement you conclude that Jesus is ALSO the true God? Jesus was simply saying that He and His Father are one.

So didn't Christ refute those Jews who thought that with that statement, Jesus is claiming to be God?

* i have answered your question...

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God ."
John 10:33

* still, the enemies of Christ believe He was just a mere human pretending to be a God... so are you saying, the enemies of Christ were correct?

Originally posted by Jury
That's why I asked you: Do you know how many times the word LOGOS appeared in the Scriptures? How can we determine then if that LOGOS refers to Christ Himself and not its real meaning?

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* you can't refute the fact that Christ is the Word...

Originally posted by Jury
Again, the "existence" of Christ before the foundation of the world is not a question. For we, the people of God also "existed" before the time begun. Now, in what sense did Christ and we "existed" before the foundation of the earth? If you believe that Jesus Himself literally existed before the foundation of the world, you must also believe that the people of God whom He had given grace existed literally before the time begun.

Peejayd, I believe that we all "existed" before the foundation of the earth. But it is not necessary that we are there already existing as our own selves. The same case with Christ for He was "foreknown" before the world begun. Friend, you cannot PROGINOSKO something or somebody who is already and literally existing.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :"
I Corinthians 2:7

* Christ existed before the world was created...

Originally posted by Jury
It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one. When Scripture refers to "our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," it can mean two beings - both the "Great God," and the "Savior," Jesus Christ.



* Titus 2:13 is not an opening verse...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* can God the Father be seen or will appear to be seen?

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

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
I Timothy 6:16

* no man had seen the Father, and no man can see the Father... it is Christ who will appear, and He is the great God and Saviour Saint Paul is talking about in Titus 2:13...

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope... the human part of Christ is only His body... Christ is a God manifested in the flesh...

So partly human, and partly God?

And oh, you missed this one.

Originally posted by Jury
...even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.

Are you saying that the pronoun "This" refers to Christ and not to the Father? What is your basis, friend?

Originally posted by peejayd
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man , he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Philippians 2:7-8

* Christ took the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man... but what is the nature of Christ?

"Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Philippians 2:6

* Christ was in the form of God... He was not in the form of a servant nor in the form of a human... He was in the form of God...

You quoted first the I Timothy 3:16 and I presented you the FACTS about the inaccuracies in its translation which you apparently haven't taken into account, yet you didn't even acknowledged, therefore it only shows that the said verse is useless to prove your point.

And that is why you're quoting another verses. But I'll consider that. I'll make a separate post about that.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i have answered your question...

No you didn't. You quoted John 10:30 as "I and my Father are one". So asked you: One what?. You were saying there two true Gods, yet you're using John 10:30 to say that they are one. Now, they are one. One in what manner, peejayd?

Originally posted by peejayd
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God ."
John 10:33

Can you go on with the succeeding verses, please?

Originally posted by peejayd
* still, the enemies of Christ believe He was just a mere human pretending to be a God... so are you saying, the enemies of Christ were correct?

I thought you were the one who told me that "enemies of Christ" UNDERSTOOD what He is saying?

Originally posted by peejayd
* i think the Jews understood what Christ meant...

Now, what, friend?

Originally posted by peejayd
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* you can't refute the fact that Christ is the Word...

I am not denying the truth that He is. The Bible also is the Word of God.
The truth is, LOGOS was found more than 300 hundred times in the Bible. LOGOS has different meanings and usage, and Jesus, Christ, and Messiah, are not included as one of its meanings.

Now, how sure are you that the LOGOS in John 1:1 is Jesus Christ Himself?

Originally posted by peejayd
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :"
I Corinthians 2:7

* Christ existed before the world was created...

Again, and again, Jesus Christ "existed" before the world began. God's people also "existed" before the time had begun. The question is: In what sense did Christ exist before the foundation of the earth?

The answer is: He was foreknown before the world began.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Titus 2:13 is not an opening verse...

I'm referring to II Peter 1:1. And in the case of Titus, I said, it can mean two beings: the Great God and the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by peejayd
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* can God the Father be seen or will appear to be seen?

I'll show you how Christ will appear, just tell me if you understand the message in Titus 2:13.

Originally posted by peejayd
"No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
John 1:18

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
I Timothy 6:16

* no man had seen the Father, and no man can see the Father... it is Christ who will appear, and He is the great God and Saviour Saint Paul is talking about in Titus 2:13...

Answer me on the Titus 2:13 first.

Originally posted by peejayd
"Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Philippians 2:6

* Christ was in the form of God... He was not in the form of a servant nor in the form of a human... He was in the form of God...

What form is being refferred there, peejayd?

Internal essence or outward appearance?

Titus 2:13
Originally posted by peejayd
* Titus 2:13 is not an opening verse...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* can God the Father be seen or will appear to be seen?

Wrong question. It is not God Himself who will appear PHYSICALLY, peejayd. Yes, your observations were correct when you say that God can't be seen PHYSICALLY. We all knew that.

Since the only true God in the entire Bible cannot be seen PHYSICALLY, we should not suppose to think that one of its verses contradict such truth.

As in the case of Titus 2:13, it is not implied there that God Himself will appear PHYSICALLY. God and Jesus will appear. In what manner, peejayd?

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words,
of him will the Son of man be ashamed
when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father
and of the holy angels.
Luke 9:26
Revised Standard Version

For the Son of man shall come
in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Matthew 16:27
King James Version

So what and who will appear according to Titus 2:13?

looking for the blessed hope
and appearing of the glory of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:13
The American Standard Version

looking for the blessed hope
and the appearing of the glory of our great God
and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Titus 2:13
New American Standard

awaiting our blessed hope,
the appearing of the glory of our great God
and Savior Jesus Christ,
Titus 2:13
Revised Standard Version

waiting for the blessed hope
and manifestation of the glory of our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ,
Titus 2:13
Young's Literal Translation

while we look forward to that wonderful event
when the glory of our great God
and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.
Titus 2:13
The New Living Translation

Looking for the blessed hope
and coming of the glory of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Titus 2:13
The Douay-Rheims Bible

Clearly,

The "glorious appearing of God and Jesus" the Bible is referring to is the "appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ with His Father's glory". Jesus will come with the glory of God.

And nowhere in the entire verse it does say that Jesus is God.

Originally posted by Jury
So partly human, and partly God?

* the only human in Christ is His body...

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world , he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me :"
Hebrews 10:5

* because Christ was manifested in the flesh, before Christ came into the world, He does not have a human body...

Originally posted by Jury
And oh, you missed this one.

* the pronoun "this" refers to Christ because according to the verse, it is Christ who came here on earth...

Originally posted by Jury
You quoted first the I Timothy 3:16 and I presented you the FACTS about the inaccuracies in its translation which you apparently haven't taken into account, yet you didn't even acknowledged, therefore it only shows that the said verse is useless to prove your point. And that is why you're quoting another verses. But I'll consider that. I'll make a separate post about that.

* you tackled about the inaccuracy of the verse, but the point of the matter is, i'm proving that Christ is a God manifested in the flesh and not the verse... if you claimed the verse to be inaccurate, then i will cite another verse to prove my stand...

Originally posted by Jury
No you didn't. You quoted John 10:30 as "I and my Father are one". So asked you: One what?. You were saying there two true Gods, yet you're using John 10:30 to say that they are one. Now, they are one. One in what manner, peejayd?

* you said it yourself... although the Father and Christ are one, you referred Them as "They"... because the fact that you called Them in a plural form, it denotes that They really are not one in number...

* Christ said: "I (#1) and my Father (#2) are one"... there are two are of Them... and They are one...

* the fact that there are two true Gods does not conflict any book in the Scriptures because of Christ's statement, He and the Father are one... let us not liken our minds to God...

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways , saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth , so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9

* so if the counting of God conflicts the human counting, so be it... here's an example...

"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh ?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh . What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matthew 19:5-6

* in human counting, spouses are couples... in God's counting, the couple are one...

Originally posted by Jury
Can you go on with the succeeding verses, please?

I thought you were the one who told me that "enemies of Christ" UNDERSTOOD what He is saying?

Now, what, friend?

* my bad... what i mean was, the enemies of Christ understood the statement of Christ being one with the Father... by that, Christ calls Himself as a God...

* what i mean if the enemies of Christ are correct... are they correct when they said that Christ is just a mere human and is only pretending to be a God? are they correct?

Originally posted by Jury
I am not denying the truth that He is. The Bible also is the Word of God.

* the entirety of the Bible is not only the word of God, you can also read words of angels, words of demons, humans, even Satan himself...

Originally posted by Jury
The truth is, LOGOS was found more than 300 hundred times in the Bible. LOGOS has different meanings and usage, and Jesus, Christ, and Messiah, are not included as one of its meanings.

Now, how sure are you that the LOGOS in John 1:1 is Jesus Christ Himself?

* is Saint John talking nonsense? he tackled the beginning of something that doesn't have to do anything about Christ? see here:

"In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ."
John 1:1

* the "Word" was preceded by a definite article "the", the "Word" Saint John was talking about is not an ordinary word that comes out when we talk... it is "The Word"... and who is this "Word"?

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* "The Word" is Christ... and what happened to "The Word"?

"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."
John 1:14

* can you site anyone who was manifested in the flesh, other than Christ?

Originally posted by Jury
Again, and again, Jesus Christ "existed" before the world began. God's people also "existed" before the time had begun.

* humans never existed before the time began... if so, prove it...

Originally posted by Jury
The question is: In what sense did Christ exist before the foundation of the earth?

The answer is: He was foreknown before the world began.

* Christ is WITH the Father...

"The same was in the beginning with God .
All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:2-3

* Saint Paul approved this...

"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 ."
I Corinthians 8:6

* see the consistency?

Originally posted by Jury
I'm referring to II Peter 1:1. And in the case of Titus, I said, it can mean two beings: the Great God and the Savior, Jesus Christ.

I'll show you how Christ will appear, just tell me if you understand the message in Titus 2:13.

Answer me on the Titus 2:13 first.

Wrong question. It is not God Himself who will appear PHYSICALLY, peejayd. Yes, your observations were correct when you say that God can't be seen PHYSICALLY. We all knew that.

Since the only true God in the entire Bible cannot be seen PHYSICALLY, we should not suppose to think that one of its verses contradict such truth.

As in the case of Titus 2:13, it is not implied there that God Himself will appear PHYSICALLY. God and Jesus will appear. In what manner, peejayd?

Clearly,

The "glorious appearing of God and Jesus" the Bible is referring to is the "appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ with His Father's glory". Jesus will come with the glory of God.

And nowhere in the entire verse it does say that Jesus is God.


* Christ has His own glory, as the Father has His own, and also the angels...

"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels ."
Luke 9:26

* so let us come back to Titus 2:13...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* who will come or appear with glory?

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory ."
Luke 21:27

* Christ will come with great glory... and according to Saint Paul, He is a great God and Saviour...

Originally posted by Jury
What form is being refferred there, peejayd?

Internal essence or outward appearance?


* the entirety of Christ, He is a God... and because He was manifested in the flesh, He took a form of a servant and likened Himself to humans...

And or... taking the account of other scholarly views,

The "great God" and the "Savior" in Titus 2:13 is referring to the Father. Because as supported by other verses, Jesus will appear in the glory of His Father. Thus,

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Indeed, the "glory of our great God and our Savior" - and this "glory of God" is our Lord Jesus Christ.

And since, Jesus will appear WITH His Father's glory, it is somewhat similar to say that both Father and Jesus will appear.

Originally posted by Jury
And or... taking the account of other scholarly views,

The "great God" and the "Savior" in Titus 2:13 is referring to the Father. Because as supported by other verses, Jesus will appear in the glory of His Father. Thus,

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Indeed, the "glory of our great God and our Savior" - and this "glory of God" is our Lord Jesus Christ.

And since, Jesus will appear WITH His Father's glory, it is somewhat similar to say that both Father and Jesus will appear.



* take note that Saint Paul speaks here as a leader, a leader in the Church of God in the Bible... he speaks to the members of the Church of God...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* the Father and Christ are both Saviours...

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men , specially of those that believe."
I Timothy 4:10

* the saviour of all people is the Father...

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body ."
Ephesians 5:23

* Christ is the saviour of the body... what does the body represent?

"And he is the head of the body, the church : who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Colossians 1:18

* the body is the Church... Christ is the Saviour of the Church of God in the Bible...

Originally posted by peejayd
* the only human in Christ is His body...

So He is partly human and partly God? Why can't you just answer the question?

Originally posted by peejayd
* because Christ was manifested in the flesh, before Christ came into the world, He does not have a human body...

Cite a Biblical verse that says "before Christ came to the world He does not have a human body". Or else, it will appear as your own opinion.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the pronoun "this" refers to Christ because according to the verse, it is Christ who came here on earth...

Again, the verse is saying: we are in him who is true ... even in his Son Jesus Christ And who is this "true"? This is the true God and eternal life. The pronouns in this verse peejayd is consistent.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you tackled about the inaccuracy of the verse, but the point of the matter is, i'm proving that Christ is a God manifested in the flesh and not the verse... if you claimed the verse to be inaccurate, then i will cite another verse to prove my stand...

Okay, prove to me that Jesus is the "God manifested in the flesh".

Originally posted by peejayd
* you said it yourself... although the Father and Christ are one, you referred Them as "They"... because the fact that you called Them in a plural form, it denotes that They really are not one in number...

* Christ said: "I (#1) and my Father (#2) are one"... there are two are of Them... and They are one...

* the fact that there are two true Gods does not conflict any book in the Scriptures because of Christ's statement, He and the Father are one... let us not liken our minds to God...

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways , saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth , so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9

* so if the counting of God conflicts the human counting, so be it... here's an example...

"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh ?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh . What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matthew 19:5-6

* in human counting, spouses are couples... in God's counting, the couple are one...

You didn't get the point peejayd. You were saying that the Father and Jesus are both true Gods. Now, there are two true Gods according to you, right? When you were asked to prove that Jesus is also a true God, you cited John 10:30 which says "I and my Father are one". The verse is not saying that Jesus is the true God. Now, why are you referring to John 10:30?

The use of pronoun "they" is simply saying that they are two in number. But not "two Gods". I am not saying that they are one in number. But why is it the verse is telling us that "I and My Father are one"? And you use to prove that there are two true Gods? Where is the connection of your "two true Gods" and Jesus' statement "I and My Father are one"?

That's what I am asking from you.

Originally posted by peejayd
* my bad... what i mean was, the enemies of Christ understood the statement of Christ being one with the Father... by that, Christ calls Himself as a God...

* what i mean if the enemies of Christ are correct... are they correct when they said that Christ is just a mere human and is only pretending to be a God? are they correct?

So, the Jews were both correct and wrong at the same instance? The Jews believed in one God. One in number. Not uniplural and 3-in-1 as Oneness and Trinitarians insist, respectively. They heard Jesus saying "I and my Father are one". This statement is a conclusion to His previous statements. But did the Jews understood what He said? You said, they understood Jesus. But no, peejayd, they did not. By that statement, they thought Jesus was claiming to be God. But no. Jesus was simply saying "I and my Father are one".

The statement can only have two meanings, peejayd. It is either:
1. Jesus is saying He is the God Himself, or
2. Jesus and His Father are one in purpose.

The Jews reaction were natural, peejayd. But it's not necessarily that they understood what Jesus said. Since, they believe that the Father alone is the true God, they thought that Jesus is claiming to be the Father Himself. Thus, "I and my Father are one".

But the real reason is what Jesus had just stated earlier before He concluded "I and my Father are one." If you read the preceding verses, the Godship of Christ is not the topic there nor the Godship of the Father. Jesus is saying that He and His Father has one purpose of taking care of the flock . They are one in accord.

But the Jews understood this? No. What did the Jews thought of Him? They thought that Jesus was claiming to be the Father Himself. Thus, "being a man, you make yourself God?". The Jews are thinking of one God - the Father. That's why they didn't say: "you make yourself also God?"

Now, didn't Jesus refute them?

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, " You are gods" '? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
John 10:34-36
New King James Version

Very true, peejayd. Everyone who has power and authority is worthy to be called "god" and this is common to the language of the Jews, but they are not thinking of this as similar to God's Godship. Yes, Jesus is worthy to be called "god" and "lord" as kings of the world because He Himself is a King. But is Jesus claiming to be God like what the Jews are thinking? No. Did Jesus refute them as "Why are you accusing me of blasphemy when I said, 'I am God'?" . Wouldn't it be the perfect situation to tell them the truth if Jesus was indeed God? Why not He answered them directly that He was God if He was really so? But, no. Jesus is not claiming to be God in the entire Bible. What He was claiming was that He is the 'Son of God'.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the entirety of the Bible is not only the word of God, you can also read words of angels, words of demons, humans, even Satan himself...

A proverb is also LOGOS.

Originally posted by peejayd
* is Saint John talking nonsense? he tackled the beginning of something that doesn't have to do anything about Christ? see here:

Wrong. I am not saying that the Word has nothing to do with Christ. If I did, quote me on that, or else, you're just accusing me.

Originally posted by peejayd
"In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ."
John 1:1

* the "Word" was preceded by a definite article "the", the "Word" Saint John was talking about is not an ordinary word that comes out when we talk... it is "The Word"... and who is this "Word"?

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God ."
Revelation 19:13

* "The Word" is Christ... and what happened to "The Word"?

"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."
John 1:14

EN GAR TOUTW O LOGOV ESTIN ALHQINOV OTI ALLOV ESTIN O SPEIRWN KAI ALLOV O QERIZWN
John 4:37

Ever notice of the definite article O there? So what if there is a definite article in every LOGOS found in the Scriptures? It doesn't prove it means Jesus Christ Himself.

"For in this the saying is true:
'One sows and another reaps.'
John 4:37
NKJV

Get the point, peejayd? What I am trying to say is that the LOGOS in John 1:1 can't be directly mean Jesus Christ Himself as a person. What we have there is an abstract LOGOS. The real meaning of LOGOS. Again, not Jesus Christ Himself. The LOGOS there is an abstract word which has something to do with Christ.

See the difference? I am not saying that the LOGOS there has nothing to do with Christ. What I am saying is that the LOGOS is NOT Jesus Christ Himself.

Originally posted by peejayd
* can you site anyone who was manifested in the flesh, other than Christ?

Why do I need to? I am not denying the truth that Jesus manifested in the flesh. We, human beings, are all manifested in the flesh. Is there a problem with that?

Originally posted by peejayd
* humans never existed before the time began... if so, prove it...

You didn't get the point, peejayd. Your taking the word "exist" too literal. If you don't believe that we are all part of God's plan in the beginning, so you didn't "exist" in the beginning.

Now, you don't believe God has given us grace before the time began?

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ is WITH the Father...

"The same was in the beginning with God .
All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:2-3

What was there in the beginning with the Father is the LOGOS... not Jesus Christ Himself.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Saint Paul approved this...

"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 ."
I Corinthians 8:6

* see the consistency?

Did I say any contradictions to that verse? There,in that verse, if it is true that the Father and Jesus are both Gods, why not Apostle Paul said: "there is but one God, the Father... and one God, Jesus Christ"? Truly, because the Apostles does not uphold that there are two Gods.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ has His own glory, as the Father has His own, and also the angels...

"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels ."
Luke 9:26

* so let us come back to Titus 2:13...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* who will come or appear with glory?

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory ."
Luke 21:27

The truth remains that Christ will come with His Father's glory.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ will come with great glory... and according to Saint Paul, He is a great God and Saviour...

Not according to Apostle Paul - but according to you.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the entirety of Christ, He is a God... and because He was manifested in the flesh, He took a form of a servant and likened Himself to humans...
We'll discuss this on the other post I made for Philippians 2:6-8.

Originally posted by peejayd
* take note that Saint Paul speaks here as a leader, a leader in the Church of God in the Bible... he speaks to the members of the Church of God...

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ;"
Titus 2:13

* the Father and Christ are both Saviours...

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men , specially of those that believe."
I Timothy 4:10

* the saviour of all people is the Father...

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body ."
Ephesians 5:23

* Christ is the saviour of the body... what does the body represent?

"And he is the head of the body, the church : who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Colossians 1:18

* the body is the Church... Christ is the Saviour of the Church of God in the Bible...

I never said that Jesus is not our Savior.

According to the Bible..........There is only one god....Jesus never called himself god............ok Jury??

Peejayd will surely tell you: "Jesus doesn't need to".

Should Jesus be worshipped then?

I already told you, right? And you haven't answered my questions yet.

which one?

How Sabbath should be observed to keep it holy?

Well if you follow the Bible it tells you right?..........Jesus followed it. Also his disciples and Luke who was a gentile...... Soooooooo you tell me.

How did Jesus observed it? Why did the Jews questioned Him when they saw Him "working" on Sabbath?

He wasn't working..........Jesus said "It is right to do good on the sabbath"

Well, that's part of "working". Preaching is still "working". Preachers are "workers". Christians have "works" to do - to spread the good news to all nations. That's why our ministers are also called "workers". They don't take a rest in spreading GOOD news to all people.

But Israel were commanded to do no work on Sabbath. That's why they questioned Jesus.

That's your opinion.........preaching/talking is not working........never said so in the bible.........They preached in the Synagogue on the Sabbath....They met on the Sabbath....

That's why I asked you how should people observed Sabbath?