Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, I believe He was divine, and that as such, He could appear anywhere at will. Why go back and forth if He could do that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
james2ko
Well-Known Member
You answered your own question. He could appear anywhere and go back and forth between the two states at will because He was divine.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Yeah, but I don't think He was ever without His body of flesh and bones once He was resurrected. He could just do things we are unable to explain a body with flesh and bones could do. Maybe we're sort of saying the same thing. I don't know.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
The resurrected Christ is also the holy spirit (2 Co 3:17). This explains why He could do things flesh and bones cannot, like dwell in each Christian simultaneously (Gal 2:20). I believe this one scripture refutes the trinity doctrine, as the resurrected Christ and the hs are one and the same, not two separate entities.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Christ is also currently a life-giving spirit
Last edited:
moorea944
Well-Known Member
No he's not. It Jesus "thee Holy Spirit"? No. Is Jesus a spirit that is Holy Spirit. That would be different. The Holy Spirit is the power of God. Can the Holy Spirit work through people? Of course, God's Spirit can work through anyone, apostles, Jesus and even angels.
"Spirit" can also be written differently, like "soul" can too. Spirit can be written as "mind" or a way of thinking.. Look at 2 Cor 3v17
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty"
That verse is not saying that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The Lord is "that" spirit. Well, what spirit? Re-read it again. Doesnt match up with your context does it....
"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."
Again, look at the context. What kind of mind do we have? Do we have the mind of Christ? Do we think of heavenly things? Christ lives in me doesnt actually mean Jesus is living in my body. We know that Jesus is in heaven and not coming back to earth unto the Father sends him.
I think any bible doctrine refutes the trinity doctrine. I agree.
Well the HS is not a person, it's the power of God. It is not Jesus, but the HS can work in Jesus or the power of God our Creator can work in Jesus, which we see all through scripture.
32This 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.
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
both Lord and Christ.
1Cor.12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Peace.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Great verses, thank you. Just goes to show you that Jesus did recieve the Holy Spirit to do the things that he did throughout his life. The apostles recieved the Holy Spirit too, along with other people.
So what are you saying? What does Spirit in these verses say to you? Just curious.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. It most certainly does match the context and grammar. The two Greek definite articles "to" and "ho" are both in the nominative case. The nominative is used to identify "what" the subject is. The passage very clearly reads--the (ho-nominative) Lord is the (to-nominative) spirit. Indicating Jesus is the holy spirit. As opposed to the article "that" which is used to point to someone other than the subject. For example:
Heb 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that (to-accusative)of Abel.
The subject here is Jesus. The term "that" is in the accusative pointing to Abel, not Jesus. In an attempt to make the hs and Christ two separate persons, the KJV translators inserted the English article "that" in 2 Co 3:17. Both articles should have been translated as "the". The vast majority of translations have the grammatically correct article "the" in both appearances of the definite article in vs 17, except the KJV and few others.
2. The holy spirit is distributable. A portion of it can be given or live inside many individuals. Being that the scriptures clearly state Christ is the hs, we can safely conclude He has supernaturally distributed a portion of Himself to each Christian.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
3. The scriptures above do not say the spirit "in" Christ, as you propose. It plainly states the spirit "of" Christ.The Holy Spirit is the resurrected Christ. The are one in the same. It is not a separate entity. Thus making two not three beings in the Godhead.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Act 2:32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
Act 2:33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
Read the verses carefully. The passages reflect the glorified Jesus receiving the promise of the hs from the Father. What promise of the hs did He receive? The promise that He will be the hs (2 Co 3:17) and would be distributed to all of his witnesses (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:9)!
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Christ is the life giving holy spirit.
Last edited:
2Cor.1:20. For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us. 21Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God 22Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.
Eph.1:10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of (the)promise,14Which is the earnest(pledge) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
When we are on earth we have the (Spirit) as a guarantee of our future inheritance, which is the Tree of Life(Eternal Life).
2Cor.11:2. For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
Eph.5:25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by(through) the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph.5:30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
When you receive the Holy Spirit you are sealed. Which is the guarantee of your future inheritance(Eternal Life).
Peace.
Jn.17:1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – 2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. 3. Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
22And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
Rev.22:1. Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
glorify thou me with thine own self
1Jn.1:5. This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
God is Light.
They will need no light of lamp(Lamb).
Jn.17:5 glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created.
2Cor.5:18. Now all things are of(the) God, the One having reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and having given to us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 how that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning their trespasses to them, and having put into us the word of reconciliation.
Peace.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Posting verses without your interpretation is like attempting to solve a rubiks cube.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I think you get your facts confused more often than not. I did not state they were equivalent but not similar, I stated they were similar but not equivalent, and that the two are not the same. I even gave an example:
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.
Yes.
Is it equivalent?
No.
That was a clear example. They are similar because they look the same, but they are not equivalent because they don’t have the same value. But what was your response?:
The problem of course is that I never attempted to compare the "abstract with the physical". What I was doing was comparing "similar to equivalent" which is NOT a comparison between the physical and abstract.
A few comments on this “desperate attempt” here:
1. We were discussing subjective and objective genitives, and all the quote from Wallace means is that I am seeing this verse in the objective. If we were both looking at Rev. 3:4 solely in the subjective we wouldn’t have much of a disagreement…but I don’t look at it that way.
2. I’m really not sure what this other thread, on which we agreed to disagree, has to do with this thread. Pointing out your errors on other threads does not make my arguments on this thread more correct or vice versa. That would be a logical fallacy, since we could both be wrong.
3. Even if I was wrong (which given the context I consider unlikely) you would be essentially asking readers to engage in an inductive fallacy called a hasty generalization. In other words: “If the weatherman was wrong about today, he must be wrong about tomorrow as well”.
4. If you really want to show where I was wrong and you were right, this is the post where it happened:
james2ko said:
oeste" said:
I don't see where you have "proved" I have a knack for making false arguments. I think the only thing you've proved is that you disagree with them, and the only "knack" I've seen is a tendency to rebut positions I've never held.
URAVIPTOME already gave one, and I don't really have the time to search for her post.
My whole argument has been that we use standard English definition on English words, not Greek words. I’m also insistent regarding the reverse…that we impose Greek definitions on Greek words, and not English.
There are certain words that we “borrow” from other languages, like “gumbo” (Bantu), “safari” (Swahili), “a la carte” (French), and “delicatessen” (German) where the source language gets carried into the target language, Unfortunately “eternal” and “everlasting” are English words not borrowed from ancient Greek.
You're arguing against a position I haven't taken; against an assertion I've never made. I have never suggested we redefine Greek or Hebrew through English. However you've certainly taken the converse...that we redefine English according to Greek.
Wow! We've reached agreement on something! Yes, James2ko, we can agree on stuff. Not often perhaps, but it’s possible.
It wouldn't matter if the English words have an equivalent word in modern, Kione, or Classical Greek. English words are first and foremost defined in English. Neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are Greek words.
Now you’re confusing me. The English word “Eternal” certainly has the connotation of “forever in the past” while “everlasting” does not. I graphically displayed this in post 1836.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Deny? Where did I say I was denying my own post??? I’m stating the theologian/philosopher did not give a philosophical but theological definition.
English words represent English definitions, not Greek, Hebrew or any other language definition (unless it’s a borrowed word). Hence, English words are doing exactly what they were designed to do.
No...I've never insisted that eternal and everlasting are accurate representations of a Greek term. That's something a translator or translation committee might do, not me.
It's late and I can hardly keep my eyes open. I'm enjoying our discussion and will do my best to comment tomorrow.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
I see we are on an unproductive merry go round basically repeating our points. I'll have mercy and let you off the hook this one time
. Enjoy your day...
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Hi James,
This is because of people are led with deception in regard with Christianity. In the Bible, Jesus warned us that there are many who will claim He is Jesus plus the false teachers. They may have the same Bible but preaching false Jesus. Many will hear the word of God but not all of them will become fruitful, and continue their walk in the truth of the gospel. Many are led into cult teachings and false gospel.
Yeah. I accepted his interpretation. Now, if you are forcing me to tell that my interpretation is incorrect, then I will ask you to summarize to me where am I incorrect in compare with your interpretation.
Thanks
james2ko
Well-Known Member
You said, "The basis is still the truth that lies inside the word of God—the Bible." Which leads me back to the original question which you continue to dodge, which one of the thousands of denominations within the Christian religion has the full truth?
Good. So you admit you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that. My original interpretation matched Mr. Wallace's and Mr. Martin's, your original interpretation did not. You posted a quote from the living bible in reference to Php 2:5-7 stating:
"who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God", source
This means you once agreed with the LB's interpretation. Based on the grammar of Php 2:5-7 and the usage of the term "harpagmos" elsewhere in scripture, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Martin disagrees with yours and the LB's interpretation in that Christ was not clinging to his rights as God, but instead chose not to grasp at being equal with the Father. Big difference between the two. The former indicates Christ was equal to God. The latter indicates He was not. Mr Wallace, Mr Martin, and I agree with the latter. And now you do also. Nothing wrong with growing in grace and knowledge
Oeste
Well-Known Member
LOL, you are fun to talk with James! I will be merciful also, and allow you off the hook. Just don't tell anyone or they'll expect me to do it with them all the timeI see we are on an unproductive merry go round basically repeating our points. I'll have mercy and let you off the hook this one time
And thank you...I did have a very good weekend and hope you did as well.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
It would be deceptive because of what he stated:
"Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do." (Luke: 24:39).
This one verse thoroughly refutes the notion that Jesus rose as a spirit creature who would later haunt the apostles.
I remember preparing dinner and setting it on the table. I then went to my computer to check on a recipe when I heard some paper rattling. Thinking my little nephew might be into something, I asked "Are you eating my cookies?"
"No", he replied.
When I went into the kitchen I saw the opened package and asked why he had lied to me. "But I didn't" he responded. "I'd already finished the cookies by the time you asked".
If Jesus's answer to the apostles is correct because he had just finished transforming himself from spirit to flesh, his answer would be every bit deceptive as my nephew's.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I won't answer for Yoshua, but I will give you my opinion on this:
The truth is Jesus Christ: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and the term "Christian" means a follower of Christ. So to the extent you follow Christ you have the truth (1 John 4:15). True religion focuses on a relationship with God (see: http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html). It doesn't come from setting up orphanages and widow houses (James 1:27), instead these things come as a natural outflow of one's relationship with God.
Yoshua was not wrong, and it's not one or the other, with one interpretation "wrong" and the other "right". The fact that he was in the "form of God" makes him equal to God since there is only one God, not two. Both interpretations are correct. I like the way Ellicott's commentary puts it:
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God.—There are two main interpretations of this passage; first, the interpretation given in our version, which makes it simply an explanation and enforcement of the words “being in the form of God”; secondly, the translation thought it not a prize to be grasped at to be equal with God, which begins in it the statement of our Lord’s voluntary self-humiliation, to be completed in the words, “but emptied Himself of glory.” The former preserves the literal translation of the original word “robbery;” the latter, in accordance with a not uncommon usage, makes it equivalent to “the thing snatched at,” and if this be allowed, has abundant examples in other writings to support the meaning thus given to the whole phrase. Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context. But the latter is to be preferred; first (1) because it suits better the idea of the passage, which is to emphasise the reality of our Lord’s humility, and preserves the opposition implied in the “but” following; (2) because it has the great preponderance of the ancient Greek interpreters in its favour; (3) because it can, on the whole, appeal more confidently to ordinary usage of the phrase. The sense is that, being in the form of God, and therefore having equality with God, He set no store on that equality, as a glory to Himself, compared with the power of giving salvation to all men, which He is pleased to consider a new joy and glory.