Is Jesus God?

[firedragon]

I believe you should read again. He didn't say they were but instead prayed that they would be. I am when I am ministering. This is the third member of the Trinity, the Paraclete and He is also God.

Brother. It is a discussion on the language. What Jesus means by saying One. It really doesnt matter if its a prayer or not, its the same language.

Hope you understand my point.

I know that this is your theology and how much value you will have on it. Of course. But do you understand this point?

When Jesus says 'one', he means unity.

• My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one,
• Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
• May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
• I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—
• I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
• Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Thats the Gospel of John.

Do you see the usage of the word one?

 

[Yoshua]

I am not nor have I ever been and/or studied with either group. I am a non-denominational, Sabbath keeping, Christian.

Hi James,

Are you a unitarian?

That may be your interpretation of the passages, but it does not disprove or contradict Paul's statement. He very plainly quoted, "Now the Lord is the Spirit". He did not say, "has the spirit", "will give the spirit, etc. We must read and interpret the scriptures as we see them and without doctrinal bias. A very difficult, if not impossible, task for many Christians.

2 Cor. 3:12-18
12. Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
13. and are not as Moses, who used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
14. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16. but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Of course, an interpretation should consider the whole context and not confined in verse 17. May I ask you if how do you understand the whole passage of 2 Corinthian 3 starting from the letter and the Spirit? How do you reconcile Jesus Christ is the Spirit (based on your literal understanding), the veil that was removed in Christ and the liberty that was mentioned here in v.17??

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I explained and showed you my supporting Scripture (1 Thess. 5:2) and your quoted supporting Scripture (Acts 1:7) to let you know why Jesus (the Son) is omniscient. Saying that He is not omniscient does not count at all.

You are actually asking your own question again in a cycle that backfired your own analogy.

Now for equality, this is because of one God who exists in the person of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are equal and divine in nature.

(Quote)
Saying that He is not omniscient does not count at all.

You are actually asking your own question again in a cycle that backfired your own analogy.


Could you explain these two statements, I don't have a clue what you are saying here?

Thanks.


Peace.

Ok. Notaclue. Thanks for letting me clarifying my statements.

Notaclue = Jesus is not omniscient
Yoshua = Jesus is omniscient

When I say that it does not count at all, it means that Jesus cannot be--not omniscient because Jesus will come like a thief in the night. A thief does not want everyone to know where and when he will come to rob our things (1 Thess. 5:2).
2. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

Therefore what you are claiming that Jesus is not omniscient based on your passage in Acts 1:7 does not tell us that Jesus is not omniscient at all. It does not mean that Jesus did not know the times or epochs but it is not for us to know it. We don't need to know about the times and epochs.
Acts 1:7
7. He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

So when I answered you before, you ask me again and claimed that Jesus is not omniscient. It is like a cycle question that has nowhere to go because in the first place, Jesus said that it is not for us to know it, and He will come again (like a thief), God would'nt tell us when He will return.

I hope this clarified my explanation.

Thanks

 

[james2ko]

Hi James,

Are you a unitarian?

I believe assigning Christian denominational "labels" form barriers in our minds that hinder us from rightly dividing God's word. I consider myself a bible believing Christian, who will adopt any belief that is solidly supported by the context and grammar of the original languages.

2 Cor. 3:12-18
12. Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
13. and are not as Moses, who used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
14. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16. but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Of course, an interpretation should consider the whole context and not confined in verse 17. May I ask you if how do you understand the whole passage of 2 Corinthian 3 starting from the letter and the Spirit? How do you reconcile Jesus Christ is the Spirit (based on your literal understanding), the veil that was removed in Christ and the liberty that was mentioned here in v.17??

Context is the very first thing I consider before adopting any interpretation. Based on vs 17 and 18 proclaiming Jesus as the holy spirit himself, verse 14 should have been better rendered, "by" Christ. The preposition "en-G1722" is translated "by" in 106 other places in the KJV. But "in" Christ works just as well, as the holy spirit, who is Christ, is "in" believers (Gal 2:20).

I think what Paul is trying to convey is the veil that hardened the hearts of the Israelites in the wilderness still exists and can only be lifted by one who turns to the Lord, who is the holy spirit (vs 17-18). Once the veil is lifted, they are liberated from their blindness and are free to become more like Him . The NLT brings this out nicely:

2Co 3:12 Since this new way gives us such confidence, we can be very bold.
2Co 3:13 We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory, even though it was destined to fade away.
2Co 3:14 But the people's minds were hardened, and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth. And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ.
2Co 3:15 Yes, even today when they read Moses' writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand.
2Co 3:16 But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2Co 3:17 For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18 So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like Him as we are changed into His glorious image.​

 

[james2ko]

That’s a synonym, not a definition. I never argued they weren’t similar, I’m arguing they are not equivalent. Look, I have a $20.00 bill that I printed in my garage. Is it similar to other $20.00 bills? Yes.Is it equivalent? No.

1. And I'm trying to convey the fact you are utilizing synonyms in an attempt to define two different, abstract English terms. Attempting to compare a quantifiable, physical object (money) with an abstract, qualitative concept (everlasting/eternal life) is apples to oranges.

You have yet to prove why we need to go to scripture rather than a good English lexicon to find the difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Etymologically, “eternal” and “everlasting” are sourced from Latin, not Koine Greek.

2. You mean I have to actually prove to you that a "good" English lexicon's definition takes precedence over the bible's usage of the inspired word???

I do not understand how scripture can "correctly reflect" “eternal” and “everlasting” as interchangeable when the New Testament is written in Koine Greek and not English.

3. That is self-refuting. The reason you claim they cannot be interchangeable, is the very reason why they are! The NT was written in Greek and the insertion of either English term for aionios does not accurately reflect the definition of the Greek term. This is why many of the translations utilize the two English terms interchangeably.

The question is whether “eternal” and “everlasting” can be used interchangeably and they cannot. Eternal is defined as no beginning or end. Everlasting is defined as without end, but never as “without beginning”, so while the terms are similar they are not equivalent.

4. Perhaps according to your philosopher's definition they cannot be used interchangeably. Based on the original Greek term's (aionios) definition, from which they have been translated, yes, they can and have been used interchangeably.

When defining Greek words we go to a Greek dictionary, for Spanish a Spanish dictionary, and for English words we go to an English dictionary. No one goes to a Spanish dictionary to define English terms any more than they go to a Greek dictionary to define Italian. Words, concepts, and ideas have to be translated first, which is the objection you raised to URAVIPTOME and me in point #2, above.

5. Before Greek words are translated, some translators consult Greek and English dictionaries, other resources, consider the cultural context, and examine the term's usage and grammar elsewhere in order to come up with an accurate translation. Often times, there is no exact match. Hence the synonymous translation insertion of the two English terms--everlasting and eternal.

I believe the thrust of your argument is how “aionios” was used interchangeably to convey different concepts by the Greeks. But how “aion” or “aionios” was defined or used by the ancient Greeks is a separate issue from how “eternal” and “everlasting” is defined or used in English.

6. I'm not that interested in knowing how the two English terms are defined.. I'm only interested in how the original, inspired Greek term was defined and utilized.

Rather, it is better to take the Greek word and find the most appropriate English word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the Greek word being translated. The same goes when translating English to Greek…it’s better to find the best Greek word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the English word, and not redefine the English based on what it means in Greek.

7. And this is precisely what the translators of the KJV and others did in Mat 19:16 and Joh 3:36, supporting the conclusion, the two English terms are synonymous.

Theologically, I believe the only being with eternal life is God, regardless of how the Greeks (or our translators) use the term. Lexicologically, the words are different in English.

As a student of Greek grammar, you already know “aion” and the adverbial “aionios” are Greek words which can convey multiple meanings in English. Exactly which English word conveyed is dependent upon the translator. Once translated, it’s possible the translated word will convey meanings in English never envisaged by the original Greek. It’s the nature of language.

8. But we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use, among other factors, of the original language, not our native tongue. To do otherwise would limit our ability rightly divide God's word.

I am simply unaware of any body of scholars who will take English words, translate them into Greek, and then allow the Greek word to define the English word just translated. IMO, such an approach lends itself to unorthodox exegesis. So “everlasting” can only mean eternal in its colloquial or informal sense, but never in its literal sense of “without beginning”. Everlasting starts from a point in time. Eternal can start from a point in time in a colloquial sense. In its literal sense “eternal” extends back beyond time’s beginning:

Since English words can have nuanced meaning not evidenced in Greek, I believe it poor exegesis to reverse engineer a translated English word back into Greek and allow the Greek word to define what the English word should mean.Otherwise we could very well end up in the absurd position that sometime in the future we will gain “eternal life”, extending not only forever into the future but back beyond God’s inception of time itself, and I don’t think anyone here believes that.

9. Yet, in principle, that is exactly what you are doing. Forcing two distinctively contrived English definitions on one Greek term-- aionios.

This simply means that he has a doctorate in Philosophy and Theology, and he didn’t simply give the “philosophical” but the lexicological and theological difference between the terms. In fact, he left the philosophical out of his summary altogether, so I do not understand your objection. Are you basing your objection on his credentials rather than his statement? I don’t believe that’s what Paul or Col 2:8 is asking us to do.

10. The Theologian/Philosopher shared his definition of the two English terms. I suspect the reason he did not utilize any scriptural references is because he is smart enough to know the distinction you believe exists between the two English terms, is non-existent in the original languages of scripture.

Unfortunately, your chart reflects the English eisegetical fallacy created for the Greek term "aionos".

 

[Notaclue]

Ok. Notaclue. Thanks for letting me clarifying my statements.

Notaclue = Jesus is not omniscient
Yoshua = Jesus is omniscient


Matt.24:30. “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
32“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
34. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.35“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.


nor the Son, but the Father alone.


Mk.13:30. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.31“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.32“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

nor the Son, but the Father alone.



Notaclue = Jesus is not omniscient
Yoshua = Jesus is omniscient


How in God's name can you say Jesus is Omniscient?


Peace.

 

[Yoshua]

Context is the very first thing I consider before adopting any interpretation. Based on vs 17 and 18 proclaiming Jesus as the holy spirit himself, verse 14 should have been better rendered, "by" Christ. The preposition "en-G1722" is translated "by" in 106 other places in the KJV. But "in" Christ works just as well, as the holy spirit, who is Christ, is "in" believers (Gal 2:20).

I think what Paul is trying to convey is the veil that hardened the hearts of the Israelites in the wilderness still exists and can only be lifted by one who turns to the Lord, who is the holy spirit (vs 17-18). Once the veil is lifted, they are liberated from their blindness and are free to become more like Him . The NLT brings this out nicely:

2Co 3:12 Since this new way gives us such confidence, we can be very bold.
2Co 3:13 We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory, even though it was destined to fade away.
2Co 3:14 But the people's minds were hardened, and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth. And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ.
2Co 3:15 Yes, even today when they read Moses' writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand.
2Co 3:16 But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2Co 3:17 For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18 So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like Him as we are changed into His glorious image.

Hi James,

Absolutely, that was obviously stated in NLT. No problem with that. What I’m trying to clear out is the claim that Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
We may consider KJV as to explain about the ministration of the spirit which is the righteousness. It is still talking about the spirit of the Lord that gives us liberty.

If we try to read 2 Co 3:17, and period without “wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” as example: For the Lord is the Spirit.
We may say that it define Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit. I believe that the continuation of “wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” describes what Paul is trying to convey here.

Same as your quoted Gal. 2:20 that Christ liveth in me, does it mean literally speaking it is Christ who lived in us?? We may know the answer to this what he meant by Christ lives in me in the next statement such as this: the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. Therefore it is clear now that if we lived by faith (of Christ), that would mean that Christ lives in us.

Gal. 2:20
20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Just to support my explanation, Rom. 8:9 tells us that the Spirit of Christ dwells.

Rom. 8:9-11
9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor. 3:16
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Now, how would you connect or reconcile that Jesus is the Holy Spirit with John 14:16 from the statement “he shall give you another Comforter”?
How can Jesus say it is another for Holy Spirit?? Is this sounds that there is a distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Matt.24:30. “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
32“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
34. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.35“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.


nor the Son, but the Father alone.


Mk.13:30. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.31“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.32“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

nor the Son, but the Father alone.

How in God's name can you say Jesus is Omniscient?

Peace.

Hi Notaclue,

First, if you believe that Jesus is God, then I don't think that I have to elaborate why Jesus is omniscient.

Second, If we look at Phil. 2:5-8, Jesus is in the form of God (deity), and in the form of a servant (human likeness). He is human and divine. He is in the flesh, I don't think that would surprise us why It is said that even the Son did not know the day and hour of His coming. Jesus take the form of human and lived with us, He take the limitation of being a man but not His deity.

In Luke 2:52, it says He increased in wisdom and stature. There is a process for He would need to increase in wisdom and stature because of His state of condition as man. He should be like man to propagate His ministry and accomplish the Father's will.
52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

John 21:17
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Peter confessed that He knows all things, I don't see Jesus rebuked and replied to Peter that He did not know all things.

Thanks

 

[james2ko]

Hi James,

Absolutely, that was obviously stated in NLT. No problem with that. What I’m trying to clear out is the claim that Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
We may consider KJV as to explain about the ministration of the spirit which is the righteousness. It is still talking about the spirit of the Lord that gives us liberty.

If we try to read 2 Co 3:17, and period without “wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” as example: For the Lord is the Spirit.
We may say that it define Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit. I believe that the continuation of “wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” describes what Paul is trying to convey here.

Same as your quoted Gal. 2:20 that Christ liveth in me, does it mean literally speaking it is Christ who lived in us?? We may know the answer to this what he meant by Christ lives in me in the next statement such as this: the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. Therefore it is clear now that if we lived by faith (of Christ), that would mean that Christ lives in us.

Gal. 2:20
20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Just to support my explanation, Rom. 8:9 tells us that the Spirit of Christ dwells.

Rom. 8:9-11
9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor. 3:16
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Again, I do not see anything in those passages that contradicts the fact Jesus is the holy spirit, which originated from God the Father, who dwells in each Christian.

Now, how would you connect or reconcile that Jesus is the Holy Spirit with John 14:16 from the statement “he shall give you another Comforter”?
How can Jesus say it is another for Holy Spirit?? Is this sounds that there is a distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

You asked me this same question last week. It was answered in point 3 here

 

[Muffled]

Brother. It is a discussion on the language. What Jesus means by saying One. It really doesnt matter if its a prayer or not, its the same language.

Hope you understand my point.

I know that this is your theology and how much value you will have on it. Of course. But do you understand this point?

When Jesus says 'one', he means unity.

• My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one,
• Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
• May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
• I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—
• I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
• Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Thats the Gospel of John.

Do you see the usage of the word one?

I believe I see it as it is. One means one not unity.

I believe you are in error. It does matter. Prayer is for things that haven't happened yet but a statement of what is reveals what has already happened.

For instance people pray for peace. Has it happened yet?

 

[firedragon]

I believe I see it as it is. One means one not unity.

I believe you are in error. It does matter. Prayer is for things that haven't happened yet but a statement of what is reveals what has already happened.

For instance people pray for peace. Has it happened yet?

If one means one, it would apply to the one referred with the disciples as well. This is language, prayer or not.

Anyway brother, this is your faith and I do not wish to speak deragotary stuff. Just wish these discussions can purely be Academic. I wish you all the very best.

Cheers.

 

[Yoshua]

Again, I do not see anything in those passages that contradicts the fact Jesus is the holy spirit, which originated from God the Father, who dwells in each Christian.

You asked me this same question last week. It was answered in point 3 here

Hi James,

Noted.
3. The Greek term for "another" can also mean "different". The spirit is not an "additional" person added to his disciples, but it was to be Christ in a "different" form within His disciples (Joh 14:19-20; 2 Co 13:5).

Since Christ was the epitome of humility (Php 2:6), he referred to himself (holy spirit) in the third person. Much like John speaking of himself in the third person when he referred to himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (Joh 13:23). Trinitarians insist on the holy spirit being an additional [third] person, when it is actually Christ in a "different" (spirit) form (2 co 3:17-18). by James

When you say different, does it mean they are both (Jesus and Holy Spirit) deity and share the same nature?
John 14:16-17 (KJV)
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, why Jesus uttered the word "another" or "different," and uses he, him instead of I, me or himself?

Thanks

 

[Notaclue]

Hi Notaclue,

First, if you believe that Jesus is God, then I don't think that I have to elaborate why Jesus is omniscient.

Second, If we look at Phil. 2:5-8, Jesus is in the form of God (deity), and in the form of a servant (human likeness). He is human and divine. He is in the flesh, I don't think that would surprise us why It is said that even the Son did not know the day and hour of His coming. Jesus take the form of human and lived with us, He take the limitation of being a man but not His deity.

In Luke 2:52, it says He increased in wisdom and stature. There is a process for He would need to increase in wisdom and stature because of His state of condition as man. He should be like man to propagate His ministry and accomplish the Father's will.
52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

John 21:17
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Peter confessed that He knows all things, I don't see Jesus rebuked and replied to Peter that He did not know all things.

Thanks

Jn.14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


1Jn.2:20 But ye have an unction(anointing) from the Holy One, and ye know all things.21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Do you think all the sons of God know when the Day of the Lord is coming?



Matt.20:22. But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to Him, "We are able." 23He said to them, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."


Mk.10:35. James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” 38But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40“But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”


Do you think all the sons of God know where they will sit in the Kingdom?


Peace.

 

[james2ko]

If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, why Jesus uttered the word "another" or "different," and uses he, him instead of I, me or himself?

John 14:16-17 (KJV) 16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.​

​

1. For the same reason John did not refer to I, me, or himself when he spoke of himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved"

Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. ​

Joh 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
​

In both passages, the author --John-- is referring to himself, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. According to your reasoning, why didn't John simply say, "Now I was leaning on Jesus' bosom", or "And from that hour I took her to my home? John was speaking as if it was someone other than himself (third person). The commentators believe John engaged in this rhetorical technique out of modesty and humility (see Barnes commentary on John 13:23).

I believe Jesus, who was the epitome of modesty and humility (Php 2:5-8), engages in the same technique when speaking of himself as God's power/holy spirit in Joh 14:16-17 and other passages. Paul confirms this conclusion in 2 Co 3:17-18, by referring to the glorified Jesus as the holy spirit.

When you say different, does it mean they are both (Jesus and Holy Spirit) deity and share the same nature?

2. The holy spirit is a power or force (not a separate person) that originates and emanates from the Father (Luk 1:35). The human Jesus "had" this power (the holy spirit --Mar 1:10). The glorified Jesus "was" or "became" this power (holy spirit--Joh 7:39;2 Co 3:17-18). When Jesus was glorified, The Father made Christ a representation of His (The Father's) power---the holy spirit (Joh 14:26; 15:26). In other words, the glorified Jesus and the hs are not sharing a nature as if they are two separate entities. They are actually one in the same.

Representing God's holy spirit, Christ had the ability to distribute himself to others. This is why Christ said in Joh 16:7, "I will send him to you". He did not say, " I will send me to you" for the reason given in point 1. In a sense, Christ as the hs, was distributing or sending a limited piece of himself (the holy spirit) to believers.

This explains why the hs in many passages is referred to in the masculine, which Trinitarians believe is an additional or third entity of the Godhead. When in fact, it is simply Christ in spirit (a different) form.

 

[james2ko]

First, if you believe that Jesus is God, then I don't think that I have to elaborate why Jesus is omniscient.

Second, If we look at Phil. 2:5-8, Jesus is in the form of God (deity), and in the form of a servant (human likeness). He is human and divine. He is in the flesh, I don't think that would surprise us why It is said that even the Son did not know the day and hour of His coming. Jesus take the form of human and lived with us, He take the limitation of being a man but not His deity.

In Luke 2:52, it says He increased in wisdom and stature. There is a process for He would need to increase in wisdom and stature because of His state of condition as man. He should be like man to propagate His ministry and accomplish the Father's will.52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

John 21:17
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Peter confessed that He knows all things, I don't see Jesus rebuked and replied to Peter that He did not know all things.

The scriptures indicate Christ, neither as a human or spirit being, was omniscient. As a human, it was The Father (through the hs) who told Him what to say and do (Joh 5:30; 8:26; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8). After He was glorified, Christ's knowledge was also limited. Rev 1:1 tells us The Father gave a revelation to the glorified Christ, which He (Christ) in turn would reveal to His servants. If Christ were equally omniscient to The Father, why would the Father have to "reveal" anything to Christ? This forces us to interpret Joh 21:17 differently.

The term "all" [pas-G3956] is not always defined as the totality of everything. It usually has limitations. Joh 1:3 states "all" things were made through Christ. Did Christ himself or The Father?? Or is all things limited to everything except the Father and himself? In Rom 14:2, are we really to believe we can eat "all" things? Or is "all" things limited to the things which will not harm us?

So we see the term "all" has limitations. Even more so when the scriptures support the notion, as it does with the glorified Christ's limited knowledge in Rev 1:1. In Joh 21:17, Peter acknowledges Jesus knew all things about him (Peter), but that is no indication His knowledge was equal to the Father's.

 

[Notaclue]

2. The holy spirit is a power or force (not a separate person) that originates and emanates from the Father (Luk 1:35). The human Jesus "had" this power (the holy spirit --Mar 1:10). The glorified Jesus "was" or "became" this power (holy spirit--Joh 7:39;2 Co 3:17-18). When Jesus was glorified, The Father made Christ a representation of His (The Father's) power---the holy spirit (Joh 14:26; 15:26). In other words, the glorified Jesus and the hs are not sharing a nature as if they are two separate entities. They are actually one in the same.

They are actually one in the same.


Amen.


Acts2:32 This Jesus, hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the 'promise' of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

God hath made both Lord and Christ.


To a Trinitarian this verse is in a foreign language! It cannot be comprehended......?



Phil.2:5. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and
bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Jer.3:16. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

17At that time they shall call Jerusalem. the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Rev.21:9. Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”


Acts3:18. "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.



Is.62:1 For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet,
until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,
and her salvation as a burning torch.
2The nations shall see your righteousness,
and all the kings your glory,
and you shall be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will give.
3You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
4You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
5For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you.

so shall your sons marry you,



Peace to you.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="firedragon, post: 4691871, member: 45358"]If one means one, it would apply to the one referred with the disciples as well. This is language, prayer or not.

Anyway brother, this is your faith and I do not wish to speak deragotary stuff. Just wish these discussions can purely be Academic. I wish you all the very best.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

I believe It does mean one.

 

[Yoshua]

Jn.14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


1Jn.2:20 But ye have an unction(anointing) from the Holy One, and ye know all things.21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Do you think all the sons of God know when the Day of the Lord is coming?

Hi Notaclue,

Sorry for my late reply. I'm busy for the past few days.

First, who are those sons of God you are referring?

I don’t know when is the second coming of Jesus Christ? How about you?

What do you want to point out with those Scriptures above “teach you all things”?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

1. For the same reason John did not refer to I, me, or himself when he spoke of himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved"

Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
In both passages, the author --John-- is referring to himself, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. According to your reasoning, why didn't John simply say, "Now I was leaning on Jesus' bosom", or "And from that hour I took her to my home? John was speaking as if it was someone other than himself (third person). The commentators believe John engaged in this rhetorical technique out of modesty and humility (see Barnes commentary on John 13:23).

I believe Jesus, who was the epitome of modesty and humility (Php 2:5-8), engages in the same technique when speaking of himself as God's power/holy spirit in Joh 14:16-17 and other passages. Paul confirms this conclusion in 2 Co 3:17-18, by referring to the glorified Jesus as the holy spirit.

Hi James,

There is no problem on how John did not use “I” for he was speaking about himself. But your example does not justify 2 Cor. 3:17-18.

Paul is not John. Their style of writing or narration can’t be both the same. Do you know the background of Paul?

John is narrating in a story; Paul is narrating in doctrinal sense. Paul speaks in defense of his faith, he used to comment and explain things in a question (see v.1 & 8). If you really look at the context, I think you should see those things. A big difference, James.

2 Cor. 3:17-18
17. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

2. The holy spirit is a power or force (not a separate person) that originates and emanates from the Father (Luk 1:35). The human Jesus "had" this power (the holy spirit --Mar 1:10). The glorified Jesus "was" or "became" this power (holy spirit--Joh 7:39;2 Co 3:17-18). When Jesus was glorified, The Father made Christ a representation of His (The Father's) power---the holy spirit (Joh 14:26; 15:26). In other words, the glorified Jesus and the hs are not sharing a nature as if they are two separate entities. They are actually one in the same.

Representing God's holy spirit, Christ had the ability to distribute himself to others. This is why Christ said in Joh 16:7, "I will send him to you". He did not say, " I will send me to you" for the reason given in point 1. In a sense, Christ as the hs, was distributing or sending a limited piece of himself (the holy spirit) to believers.

This explains why the hs in many passages is referred to in the masculine, which Trinitarians believe is an additional or third entity of the Godhead. When in fact, it is simply Christ in spirit (a different) form.

I just want to cite this scriptures and ask you something. The Holy Spirit is obviously the one saying those messages. Look at Ps. 95, who is the one who said those message? It is God, Isn’t it?

Now, how will you reconcile those two that the Holy Spirit is speaking in Heb., and God speaking in Psalm??

Heb. 3:7-11
7. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice,
8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9. When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

Ps. 95:7-11
7. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today if ye will hear his voice,
8. Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9. When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11. Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

If the Holy Spirit is a force (non-personal) like the Jehovah Witnesses believe, does a force speaks, grieve, teach, convicts, guide, rebukes, intercedes, have emotions, testifies, …..??

Kindly prove how come that a force have those attributes?

Regarding his personality, I don’t say that the Holy Spirit is a separate person but one God exists in three persons.

In your quoted John 16:7,
7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

May I ask this question:

Where is Christ now, and where is the Holy Spirit now?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

The scriptures indicate Christ, neither as a human or spirit being, was omniscient. As a human, it was The Father (through the hs) who told Him what to say and do (Joh 5:30; 8:26; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8). After He was glorified, Christ's knowledge was also limited. Rev 1:1 tells us The Father gave a revelation to the glorified Christ, which He (Christ) in turn would reveal to His servants. If Christ were equally omniscient to The Father, why would the Father have to "reveal" anything to Christ? This forces us to interpret Joh 21:17 differently.

I thought you are interpreting scriptures in its literal sense, the scripture is simply telling Jesus knows all things. Why not for this verse and ok for 2 Cor. 3:17-18??

Do you think that Jesus will be above God’s authority?? Of course not. That is why He is called a servant, a begotten SON. So if there is a Father, there should be a Son. Therefore, logically the Father’s will were accomplished by Jesus Christ (the Son). There is ranking here but not His deity.

Additionally, how could God show, communicate with us and accomplish his purpose if He (himself) did not came here in the person of Jesus Christ?

The term "all" [pas-G3956] is not always defined as the totality of everything. It usually has limitations. Joh 1:3 states "all" things were made through Christ. Did Christ himself or The Father?? Or is all things limited to everything except the Father and himself? In Rom 14:2, are we really to believe we can eat "all" things? Or is "all" things limited to the things which will not harm us?

So we see the term "all" has limitations. Even more so when the scriptures support the notion, as it does with the glorified Christ's limited knowledge in Rev 1:1. In Joh 21:17, Peter acknowledges Jesus knew all things about him (Peter), but that is no indication His knowledge was equal to the Father's.

Then we go back to Philippians 2:5-6

6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Why it is being said or it should be mentioned that He did not regard equality with God if Jesus is not equal with God?

Thanks