Is Jesus God?

[Oeste]

6. Yoshua indicated there was full truth within Evangelical Christianity today.:

"Now, if you are asking what one denomination has Christ’s full truth, absolute, and exact truth; it is Christianity. But Christianity is too broad. I personally would say it is the evangelical faith that accepts Christ, received his words and having a personal relationship with Him."

Absolutely! I couldn’t agree with him more. I’m sure Lutherans and Methodists would claim the same. Perhaps you know of a denomination whose members claim they believe nothing but half-truths, but I can’t think of any.

Christ is the truth. If he wasn’t I wouldn’t follow him. He is also the full truth for all Christians so Yoshua is correct when he says Christianity has the full truth because it is Christianity that has Jesus. He is also correct saying Christianity is too broad, because not all of Christianity follows Christ. There are plenty of people and churches calling themselves Christian who aren’t Christian at all. He then states that for him personally, it is the Evangelical branch within Christianity. He didn’t say Evangelical Christianity is the truth for you, me or anyone else. What part of “personally” did you not understand?

I really don’t see what is “wrong” with his statement and nothing for me to disagree with. It sounds like you’re grasping at straws.

My reply to him, before you unwisely decided to put your two cents worth without getting all the facts, this was not true:

"I never indicated the non-existence of full truth. It does exist. But not by one earthly organization. I'm saying no current earthly Christian denomination has the full truth. Paul indicates knowing the "full" truth (having all knowledge) is not a criteria for faith. Hope, love, faith and knowledge (of truth) are all individual and separate Christian characteristics. Faith, hope, or knowledge of truth are not the greatest. The greatest is love (1 Co 13:12-13)."

Two cents??? Oh, I think you overvalue my opinions way too much James, but thank you.

But here is my question to you. Who disputed your interpretation of truth? Was it me? Yoshua? Someone else? I happen to think your definition of truth is very good…for you. But I’m not sure what you mean by “having all knowledge”. Who has all knowledge but God? If full truth is having all knowledge then Christ is God because only God knows everything there is to know, and Jesus specifically stated “I am the truth, the way and the life.” If anyone wants the "full" truth, they should develop a personal relationship with Christ.

We could also say, Mormons consist of the eye, JW's the arm, Messianic's the hand, Evangelical's the stinky feet .

I don’t think so James. If the JW’s claim they’re the only “true” church which comprises the body of Christ it would be impossible for Mormons to be part of it, and vice versa.

As you correctly illustrated, Christianity consists of more than just Evangelicals. Thanks for assisting me in helping Yoshua realize the part of the body labeled Evangelical Christianity does not have the full truth.

So are you saying Evangelicals don’t have Christ, or are you saying some other part has Christ more? Of course Evangelicals have the truth which is Christ, specifically (as Yosua has already pointed out to you) those Evangelicals who accept Christ, declare him their savior, and listen to his words. There are plenty of Christians who follow another gospel, but I don’t think Evangelical Christianity is one of them. The last I checked we were still treating our bibles as direct revelation from God.

7. You mean like the Evangelicals who do not recognize as part of the body and celebrate, Mormons, JW's Messianic's, and others, but attack these parts of the body?

How can a group that considers itself the entire body be only a part of that same body? I’m sure there are evangelicals out there who recognize no church but their own but I’ve just never run into them.

8. The difference is I replied to you with a direct, relevant question--"Really? Who's definition determines something eternal has no beginning?" . You replied to me with an unrequested opinion (opinion is what you called it, right) created by your failure to get the proper context, which ended up in refuting Yoshua. So what is this new forum rule business? Do you also see rules where none exist?

Oh c’mon James! An “unrequested opinion”…really? Haven’t you noticed we’re on a debate forum?? And what’s does “I responded with a question but you responded with an opinion” have to do with anything? Isn’t that what forums are for? Isn’t the forum question “Is Jesus God”??

You unwisely (to use your term ) interjected yourself into a conversation I had with Moorea and then I simply returned a favor. That’s all. It’s no big deal.

9. Oh, I asked the right question. You answered without investigating the full context and mistakenly refuted and taught your boy Yoshua something. Love the way God works, don't you?

I haven’t refuted anything Yoshua stated, but I’d be really curious why you think I have and why you believe it would be a mistake if I did (if I'm reading your post correctly).

This is not to say that we agree on everything. I don't see how two people can, but when and if we do I'll value his experience, knowledge, comments and input. I'm not hear to teach but to learn.

 

[psychoslice]

Jesus can be anything you want him to be, now to prove that is another story.

 

[james2ko]

Christianity is a generic term. Under Christianity, there's a lot of denominations. Now, the denomination that you were mentioning within the Christian religion cannot be answered that it has the full truth.

Waitasec, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I guess since it came from Oeste, you finally agreed with me. Nevertheless. Glad you finally learned that Christianity is not a denomination

This would mean that no Christian denomination has the full truth because the term "denomination" is not the basis of the full truth. It is just only a name. The full truth is in the application of a person who trusted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Saviour. Christ did not require his followers to be in denomination to be saved, but by obeying His word and follow Him. Now, how someone will know that what he is obeying is the full truth that is in Christ? it is by following Christ's teachings. As I said before, We could not say that 100% in our church will be saved because the basis is individual--the intimate (personal) relationship between God and man. I believed that Jesus did the same thing with His disciples and followers which we may see in the Bible. I think this is very clear that it is not the denomination, but the relationship with him. Therefore, your question I think would be is not a right question but a question that is not aligned with the full truth that is in Christ Jesus.

That's correct. That was my whole point. Our discussion achieved its purpose--you learned something today. Praise God. Oh, BTW, I haven't forgotten about you Oeste.

 

[Oeste]

Oh, BTW, I haven't forgotten about you Oeste.

LOL! There may few things I can count on in this world but "James forgetting about Oeste" is not one of them!

I have a question I’ve been meaning to ask while we’re busy bashing each other against the wall.

Earlier Yoshua asked what religious denomination you identified with and I believe you mentioned none but that you were a bible student. That’s fine, as I’ll be the first to admit I’m much more of a bible student than I am church goer. I also believe there are many men of faith who don’t belong to a particular church at all but are still of the body of Christ. I’m fairly certain of this, but as we know the decision of who ultimately belongs to Christ and who does will be decided by our Lord.

When we talked about the Trinity (which seems like eons ago) you mentioned you were a former Trinitarian. I was struck by that statement since we were able to discuss this without an expected mis-characterization with Tritheism. However, in all honesty, your theology is still rather unique (I called it “novel” before which didn’t seem to sit well with you, perhaps “unique” is the better word).

So here is the lead-up and question:

I am not aware of anyone that has adopted your theology. I can’t find anyone now or when I look back through the history of the Christian church. Without sounding too much like an appeal to authority (which this blatantly is) doesn’t this disturb you? It would mean that not only the traditional church but everyone who disagreed with them…Arianism, Docetism, Monarchianism, etc.…had it wrong.

I ask this not as criticism but because you recently implied “full truth” is comprised mostly of knowledge, which would mean (as I try to look at this from your viewpoint) this truth died with or shortly after the death of Jesus and the apostles. It would also seemingly mean that the Helper, who was to be with us forever, left at some point or failed in His mission (John 14:16-17).

In short, given your perspectives, I'm asking how you see this.How do you reconcile your current beliefs on the nature of Jesus with scripture, first century Christians, and the historical/traditional church?

 

[Oeste]

Waitasec, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I guess since it came from Oeste, you finally agreed with me.

Waitasec…that’s what Yoshua has been trying to tell you all along, long before Oeste posted anything.

When you refer to “full truth” you weren’t talking about developing a personal relationship with Christ. Neither were you talking about biblical truth, like whether scripture is inerrant or contains a few mistakes here and there. Neither were you talking about Jesus Christ as the head of the church or as God in the flesh. And while I cannot speak for all Evangelicals (including Yoshua as stated earlier) these have been the traditional truths of Evangelicals as I understand them.

Instead you were talking about doctrinal truth, and we just spent a lot of time and energy discussing whether certain scriptures like Philippians 2:5-6 can only be interpreted one “preferred” way, as you claim, or two ways, as has been the belief of the traditional church.

To me Christ is the head of the church but the church is made up of many parts, and doctrine is simply one of those things that help delineate one part of the body from the other. The foot is going to have a different role or function (doctrine) in the body of Christ than the pancreas. To others, doctrine becomes "truth" used to carve out the entire body (church) for themselves. These are groups like Jehovah Witnesses, the former Church of God (which unlike the Witnesses repented and was welcomed into the church), and Inglesia ni Cristo, which is worldwide and larger than the Watchtower.

The problem when discussing issues with others is that a term like “truth” can mean one thing to you but mean something totally different to the other. It helps when we know which church or belief system a poster subscribes to. For example, I know when talking with Witnesses that Jehovah is not Jesus but the Father, that the Christian church (body of Christ) is composed of only 144,000 members, and even that a biblical understanding or term they adamantly defended earlier (Matthew 24:45) may change back and forth depending on what they read in their Watchtowers (Ephesians 4:14).

However, when discussing things with you it’s a lot more difficult. There is no statement of faith or belief one can go to find your perspective or why and how you define certain terms or beliefs. We can only get them after you write them down, or by combing through nearly three thousand former posts which no one has time to do.

Again, this NOT a criticism of your belief, as my intent here is not to criticize personal belief but to critically examine our doctrines and find out why we believe as we do…my own doctrines included. Instead it's a rather long winded attempt to explain why, when talking about certain subjects, it is relatively easy for us to misconstrue what the other is actually stating.

 

[Yoshua]

Waitasec, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I guess since it came from Oeste, you finally agreed with me. Nevertheless. Glad you finally learned that Christianity is not a denomination

Actually before Oeste commented my reply about my statement "Now, if you are asking what one denomination has Christ’s full truth, absolute, and exact truth; it is Christianity. But Christianity is too broad. I personally would say it is the evangelical faith that accepts Christ, received his words and having a personal relationship with Him." Oeste got my point post no. 20141.

That's correct. That was my whole point. Our discussion achieved its purpose--you learned something today. Praise God. Oh, BTW, I haven't forgotten about you Oeste.

Thanks for we came to that conclusion.

 

[Yoshua]

In short, given your perspectives, I'm asking how you see this.How do you reconcile your current beliefs on the nature of Jesus with scripture, first century Christians, and the historical/traditional church?

I'm also looking forward for James reply.

Thanks

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

I'm interested in hearing thoughts about (1) Where this idea comes from and (2) If you agree with it and why/why not. I have heard it described like this: Because of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and all the things done in the Old Testament were therefore done by Jesus prior to his human incarnation. Thoughts?

Isn't jesus's father god since he supposedly created the world? Other people say that jesus is god. Christianity is all too confusing. Might as well just worship 2 gods at the same time then.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Isn't jesus's father god since he supposedly created the world? Other people say that jesus is god. Christianity is all too confusing. Might as well just worship 2 gods at the same time then.

Yes, you're right.

Christianity (and the Bible) is only confusing because people make it so.

If I may, I'll continue this, but it'll have to be later? Take care.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Yes, you're right.

Christianity (and the Bible) is only confusing because people make it so.

If I may, I'll continue this, but it'll have to be later? Take care.

Sure thing.

 

[moorea944]

Isn't jesus's father god since he supposedly created the world? Other people say that jesus is god. Christianity is all too confusing. Might as well just worship 2 gods at the same time then.

Your right. Christianity is confusing since it has gone astray from what Jesus and the apostles teach. It has also brought in pagan ideas too. Shame. So many people dont read the bible, they just listen to what their church tells them.

God is the God and father of Jesus. Scripture tells us that God is one and there are no other Gods beside him and that God (Yahweh) created everything. Unfortunetly that has changed. It's awful!

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Your right. Christianity is confusing since it has gone astray from what Jesus and the apostles teach. It has also brought in pagan ideas too. Shame. So many people dont read the bible, they just listen to what their church tells them.

God is the God and father of Jesus. Scripture tells us that God is one and there are no other Gods beside him and that God (Yahweh) created everything. Unfortunetly that has changed. It's awful!

Yup. The whole religion of christianity is confusing.

 

[Notaclue]

Isn't jesus's father god since he supposedly created the world? Other people say that jesus is god. Christianity is all too confusing. Might as well just worship 2 gods at the same time then.

Col.1:12. giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;
13who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
14in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:
15who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto(into) him;
17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
18And 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.
19For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;
20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say , whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.


Jesus Christ the Son of God has never created anything. All things were created Through him and Into him.


He is the Beginning, Firstborn of all creation............. The Beginning, Firstborn from the dead.


The Son of God died.


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 Spirit, 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.


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


Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ did not create HIMSELF .......His God and Father....Did.


To me this is very clear, if you have any questions please feel free to ask.


Peace.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Col.1:12. giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;
13who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
14in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:
15who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto(into) him;
17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
18And 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.
19For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;
20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say , whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.


Jesus Christ the Son of God has never created anything. All things were created Through him and Into him.


He is the Beginning, Firstborn of all creation............. The Beginning, Firstborn from the dead.


The Son of God died.


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 Spirit, 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.


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


Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ did not create HIMSELF .......His God and Father....Did.


To me this is very clear, if you have any questions please feel free to ask.


Peace.

Not sure what to say about this.

 

[james2ko]

Mr. Ellicott CLEARLY stated: "Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context." Either means both are correct James, not one or the other. Neither does the word “either” imply “politically correct speech”. A preferred answer does not make another answer “wrong” any more than it makes the preferred answer “right”. I can prefer black shoes but that doesn’t make brown shoes “wrong”. If this is the way you interpret Ellicott, I can only wonder what you’ll do with scripture. There was nothing “wrong” about Yoshua’s interpretation. You were incorrect to suggest there was. It happens. It’s time to concede the point and move on.

1 Mr. Ellicot CLEARLY stated my interpretation is preferred. Meaning yours is not preferred. A synonym for "not preferred" is unacceptable. Which means incorrect. Unfortunately, Mr. Ellicot was speaking from both sides of his mouth. Once again, being politically correct. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Smith were more direct. They confirm your interpretation is unsatisfactory, meaning poor, essentially incorrect. You were incorrect to suggest that it was correct. It happens. It’s time to concede the point and move on.

Well I’m glad you asked this as a question and didn’t convert it into a statement. So to answer your question: No, this is not a false analogy stacked upon another, so unfortunately I cannot make claim to the creativity you believed me capable of…at least not this time.

2. I didn't ask you a specific question. It was a rhetorical question. You provided no explanation why your analogy is not false. Thus your false analogy stands. And that's ok. We all make them at times.

Thank you James! I couldn’t have asked for a better question than this, and I invite you and everyone else who believes Jesus was raised a “spirit creature” to answer it!!

Hebrews 1:14 tells us angels are composed of spirit. Genesis 19:16 tells us about angels who ate bread and grabbed a human hand. You state Jesus was raised a “spirit creature” who performed on demand materializations of his body.So I have two questions to ask: Once Jesus materializes himself a new body, doesn’t this make Jesus a “spirit creature” with flesh and bones? But what does Jesus say about spirits who have flesh and bones?

7 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

Jesus was very clear spirits do not have flesh and bones,so he can't possibly be a spirit with materialized flesh and bones, unless the flesh and bones are in the form of a shell. And as you already pointed out, we have Hebrews 1:14 to consider. So if he is a “spirit creature” any flesh and bones materialized must be like a tent surrounding his spirit, kind of like what we have now, and it would have to be disposed of prior to re-entering heaven, much like our spirit leaves the body when we die. Or is this wrong too? Do you see it this way or is there some other explanation I’m not seeing? So, Jesus tells them a spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as he does. Why? According to your analysis, because Jesus IS a spirit creature with flesh and bones! Or did I get this wrong?

3. The disciples' fear invoked Jesus to calm their fears by assuring them He, at the time, is not a ghost (spirit). He did so by stating, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Jesus made a statement of assurance, not one of exclusivity. We know this is the correct context because He is not exclusively made of solid flesh and bones (1 Co 15:45 and 2 Co 3:17) .

Honestly, I’m trying, but I fail to see the inherent logic here James. Perhaps you can explain this better? Please, don’t feel like I’m picking on you. Anyone can answer this for me. I already know what you and others believe on this subject…what I want to know now is why. After all, it could be something I should believe myself!

According to our JW friends, “flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” which they take to mean our physical bodies. You apparently share this belief. So what happens to the spirit creature’s materialized flesh and bones shell once he’s through with it?

4. You are thinking of our supernatural body in terms of our current physical one. Spiritually speaking, our current bodies consist of a separation between shell and spirit. We cannot transform ourselves between the two. Our supernatural body will be absent of that separation. It will have the ability to transform itself between the two states (flesh and bone shell and invisible spirit) instantaneously.

I understand how sound logic works, but what I’m trying to understand is your logic, which is why I ask so many questions. While doing this you get to understand mylogic as well. What survives as sound logic can be left to the individual reader. We may not agree, but it’s still a win-win.

5. I'm sorry to say but I've clearly demonstrated how you do not at times understand how sound logic works.

The answer you gave would be great answer if I had asked you whether Adam or Jesus sinned. It would even do well if I asked you if deceit was a sin. But that wasn’t the question asked so I apologize for not making it clearer.

6. You are right. You were not clear. That's not the question you asked. The question you asked was : "What does Jesus being "sinless" have to do with it" [it meaning Jesus being deceptive] ? [emphasis mine]" see post here.

That’s why I’ve come to you James. Anyone can say there are multiple false analogies, but showing how they're false analogies would be of benefit to everyone, including me. So give us more choices, and show us how my “false analogies” are actually false. You don’t have to be long winded. I’m sure a few terse comments from you are all we’ll need.

7. Boy how quickly we forget. The false analogy of a sinless Jesus and Adam which you denied but failed to address (see point 2 in this reply). As well as the one you made earlier in the thread about a counterfeit $20 bill and the terms everlasting and eternal being similar but not equivalent, which I exposed in point 1 here. Is that terse enough for ya?

I am simply asking whether you believe existing in a sinless state prevents one from ever sinning. If you can answer this question, we can move on to other questions…like which attributes (if any) would prevent one from sinning. It’s not a “trick” question that I’m trying to snap you with. It’s simply an inquiry on what you think on the subject, and why you think it. It also offers further avenues of discourse for everyone here on the forum, especially on the nature of man and deity. That’s it. Really.

8. In our context, simply asking whether you believe existing in a sinless state prevents one from ever sinning is a leading question presupposing Jesus' could have been deceptive. Another fallacy BTW....How many is that, three so far? The logical question should be, "Was Jesus being deceptive?" Since deception is a sin and Jesus whole life was sinless, the answer is no. He was not being deceptive.

Why not quote the rest of the scripture?: Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. To answer your question, it’s because this verse talks of “flesh and blood” and not “flesh and bones”. This verse is referring to our spiritual, not physical nature. I cannot inherit until my spiritual self has been transformed. In other words my corrupt self is not worthy nor capable or inheriting incorruption.

"Aaah! So what you're really saying is Jesus rose with a body and spirit, just like we have now! Why didn't you say so from the beginning? Or are you saying Jesus rose as a spirit only, and manufactured bodies, as needed, on demand? If the former, I don't see you're argument being much different from traditional Christianity, but if it's the latter there are further questions to ask:

9. I asked the question based on your statement indicating traditional Christianity believes we will be raised with our current body (flesh and blood). Which I do not believe. It is a supernatural one composed of flesh, bone, and spirit. With the ability to transition between flesh/bone and spirit.

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're saying here and would like to be clear. By "was" do you read it to imply Jesus was no longer a spirit creature when he took on flesh because of Hebrews 1:14, or is it your belief he was still a spirit creature and simply wore the flesh like a coat, or was he a spirit with flesh and bones which spirit creatures, according to Jesus,simply do not have, or is it something else entirely?

10. Sorry. Should have been more precise. The correct verb tense should have been "is" a spirit. My statement implied He "was" spoken of by Paul as being a spirit, at the time Paul penned those words.

Well now you’re back at it again James. First you argue Jesus was resurrected with a spiritual body, now you’re claiming a glorified body! Could you be a little more succinct and lucid with how you believe Jesus was resurrected? Was there a bodily resurrection or not? I trust you understand that by “bodily resurrection” the traditional Christian church believes Christ rose with a body and spirit and not as a spirit only as the Witnesses believe, nor as a body only which no one I know believes.

11. Yes. A supernatural, spiritual, glorified "body" with the ability to transform from flesh and bone to spirit, and vice versa at will. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

 

[james2ko]

]Well with the exception of your last point I sure do!

12. This is the text of the longest point on my last post you imply was too long (excluding the explanation of your poor logic and comment of yours being too wordy)

"... I'm not advocating either. First off, how could you and Christianity propose Jesus has been raised with a body like we have now when scriptures state flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co 15:50)? Second, the scriptures explicitly state the resurrected Christ "was" a spirit (1 Co 15:45; 2 Co 3:17)-- not "had" a spirit (as you implicate)-- demonstrated by His instant appearance. He also demonstrated His flesh and bones. So then simple logic would dictate He was resurrected with one (not many), glorified, supernatural body with the ability to transform from flesh and bone to spirit, and vice versa at will...."​

If you think this point is too long, you've got much bigger problems than engaging in wordy dialogue.

And I can’t wait for you to explain how the Word transformed himself from spirit to a flesh and bones spirit creature when he just go through explaining spirit creature don’t have flesh and bones…all with just a few lines of clean, concise text. Then perhaps we can finally get an explanation of why the stone was moved, and what Jesus decided (if anything) to do with his old body. When you (or anyone else who cares to answer) are ready I’ll be sure to have the popcorn out. I'l get to the other post later

13. You don't have to wait at all. You've already read the answer. In the points above. Make sure you cross your t's and dot your i's on your logic. I've already exposed your fallacious reasoning and as many before you have found out the hard way, the longer we go, the more I will expose. Oh, and please make sure you add plenty of butter to mine. .

Absolutely! I couldn’t agree with him more. I’m sure Lutherans and Methodists would claim the same. Perhaps you know of a denomination whose members claim they believe nothing but half-truths, but I can’t think of any.

14 Another long winded, and this time, seemingly deceitful response. The context to my question to Yoshua had to do with truth in terms of having “full” knowledge of it—everything there is to know about Christ, which you replied to me and admitted no one has. Now you knowingly and deceitfully twist the context of “full truth” in terms of deceit by calling it "half truth". You baaaad boy

Christ is the truth. If he wasn’t I wouldn’t follow him. He is also the full truth for all Christians so Yoshua is correct when he says Christianity has the full truth because it is Christianity that has Jesus. He is also correct saying Christianity is too broad, because not all of Christianity follows Christ. There are plenty of people and churches calling themselves Christian who aren’t Christian at all. He then states that for him personally, it is the Evangelical branch within Christianity. He didn’t say Evangelical Christianity is the truth for you, me or anyone else. What part of “personally” did you not understand? I really don’t see what is “wrong” with his statement and nothing for me to disagree with. It sounds like you’re grasping at straws.

15. He personally believes the denominational branch labeled Evangelicals has full knowledge of everything there is to know about Christ and no one else does, that was the context of Yoshua’s answer. And you knew it. So What part of the context did you not understand?

Two cents??? Oh, I think you overvalue my opinions way too much James, but thank you.

16 You’re right. My apologies. Opinions full of poor logic and deceit have no value.

But here is my question to you. Who disputed your interpretation of truth? Was it me? Yoshua? Someone else? I happen to think your definition of truth is very good…for you. But I’m not sure what you mean by “having all knowledge”. Who has all knowledge but God? If full truth is having all knowledge then Christ is God because only God knows everything there is to know, and Jesus specifically stated “I am the truth, the way and the life.” If anyone wants the "full" truth, they should develop a personal relationship with Christ.

17. I was speaking to Yoshua before you began littering our conversation with fallacious rhetoric.

I don’t think so James. If the JW’s claim they’re the only “true” church which comprises the body of Christ it would be impossible for Mormons to be part of it, and vice versa.

18. I don’t think so Oeste. Christ admitted the Sadducees and Pharisees were part of the OT church when He told the people they sit in Moses seat, even though they had different beliefs and other issues. Christ implicated them both as being part of the OT church, while each thought they were the “true” church..Not much has changed.

So are you saying Evangelicals don’t have Christ, or are you saying some other part has Christ more? Of course Evangelicals have the truth which is Christ, specifically (as Yosua has already pointed out to you) those Evangelicals who accept Christ, declare him their savior, and listen to his words

19 That’s like asking, “Did Jesus think the Pharisees did not have God? Or did He think the Sadducees had God more? Not very logical, once again, considering point 18.

There are plenty of Christians who follow another gospel, but I don’t think Evangelical Christianity is one of them. The last I checked we were still treating our bibles as direct revelation from God.

20. Interestingly, that same sentiment is echoed by Mormons, JW’s, etc about your faith. Each of you thinking you are right and the other wrong. Eerily similar to the sentiments shared by the different religious sects of Jesus’ day. And what was Jesus' thought?..see point 18. I'd be very careful about condemning and judging others who claim to follow Christ.

How can a group that considers itself the entire body be only a part of that same body? I’m sure there are evangelicals out there who recognize no church but their own but I’ve just never run into them.

21. Simple. See point 18. You would be correct.

This is not to say that we agree on everything. I don't see how two people can, but when and if we do I'll value his experience, knowledge, comments and input.

22. Yeah you did refute him. In a reply to me, Yoshua admitted to something I’ve been trying to tell him, only after reading your reply to me..

I'm not hear to teach but to learn. I'm not hear to teach but to learn.

23. You could have fooled me. Learners don’t write sermons as replies to simple points.

 

[james2ko]

LOL! There may few things I can count on in this world but "James forgetting about Oeste" is not one of them!

I have a question I’ve been meaning to ask while we’re busy bashing each other against the wall.

Earlier Yoshua asked what religious denomination you identified with and I believe you mentioned none but that you were a bible student. That’s fine, as I’ll be the first to admit I’m much more of a bible student than I am church goer. I also believe there are many men of faith who don’t belong to a particular church at all but are still of the body of Christ. I’m fairly certain of this, but as we know the decision of who ultimately belongs to Christ and who does will be decided by our Lord.

When we talked about the Trinity (which seems like eons ago) you mentioned you were a former Trinitarian. I was struck by that statement since we were able to discuss this without an expected mis-characterization with Tritheism. However, in all honesty, your theology is still rather unique (I called it “novel” before which didn’t seem to sit well with you, perhaps “unique” is the better word).

So here is the lead-up and question:

I am not aware of anyone that has adopted your theology. I can’t find anyone now or when I look back through the history of the Christian church. Without sounding too much like an appeal to authority (which this blatantly is) doesn’t this disturb you? It would mean that not only the traditional church but everyone who disagreed with them…Arianism, Docetism, Monarchianism, etc.…had it wrong.

I ask this not as criticism but because you recently implied “full truth” is comprised mostly of knowledge, which would mean (as I try to look at this from your viewpoint) this truth died with or shortly after the death of Jesus and the apostles. It would also seemingly mean that the Helper, who was to be with us forever, left at some point or failed in His mission (John 14:16-17).

In short, given your perspectives, I'm asking how you see this. How do you reconcile your current beliefs on the nature of Jesus with scripture, first century Christians, and the historical/traditional church?

In short? I don't think you know what short means . Here is an example of a short answer to your loooong question. Your long dissertation implies that beliefs must fit into one of the historical/traditional interpretations of scripture, deemed heretical or not, in order for them to be validated or correct. Is it possible for those who interpret what the 1 st century Christians and the historical/traditional church believed are incorrect? Of course. Paul tells us to prove all things (1 The 5:21). He didn't say "believe" all things. I have proven from my studies of the original languages that some traditional beliefs are correct. Some are wrong.

I ask this not as criticism but because you recently implied “full truth” is comprised mostly of knowledge, which would mean (as I try to look at this from your viewpoint) this truth died with or shortly after the death of Jesus and the apostles. It would also seemingly mean that the Helper, who was to be with us forever, left at some point or failed in His mission (John 14:16-17).

Yes. But the spirit does not possess us. It merely guides us. Our human nature can subdue its guidance. We still have human nature battling for position with our Helper, hence the many differing Christian beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sure thing.

I'm sorry I haven't replied to you earlier, but I've been busy.....you know, life and all. I'm sure you understand! Just wanted to tell you....I haven't forgotten.

And it's very late now, where I am!

God's purpose was for mankind to procreate, and each one living stress-free forever in a Paradise Earth. But Genesis 3:1-15 informs us that issues were raised regarding God's right to rule over man, or should (and can) man rule himself, without God?

Even though these issues needed time to be settled, thereby postponing Jehovah God's purpose, it didn't change it -- He still wants this Earth filled with people who love what is right!

I know you hear a lot of Christians talk about 'going to Heaven' -- and the Bible says some people are chosen to do so, to rule as kings with Jesus (more on this, later) -- but for the majority of mankind, the Bible holds out the hope of living here, on Earth. With all wickedness being gone. - Psalms 37:10-11; Revelation 21:3-4. Compare Isaiah 45:18, stating why God made the Earth.

Even Jesus said "the meek will inherit the Earth." Didn't say Heaven!

And for all those who are "sleeping" in death (yes, death is just a sleep (John 11:11-13), no torment), even the unrighteousness will be resurrected, and given another chance to live good lives! - John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15.

More on all this later. If you'd like. Good night! Any questions, please ask.

 

[Yoshua]

Yup. The whole religion of christianity is confusing.

No at all. This is why Jesus stated that He is the way, the truth and the life. There is truth in Christianity. Jesus came here not to confuse people but to bring peace and salvation to those who will follow Him.

Thanks

 

[moorea944]

No at all. This is why Jesus stated that He is the way, the truth and the life. There is truth in Christianity. Jesus came here not to confuse people but to bring peace and salvation to those who will follow Him.

Thanks

Yes, we totally agree. But.... that was not the point we were making. But you are right on your words. Thank you.