Jesus is not God

[Redemptionsong]

Well, before I answer about the shepherds, how about telling me what you think about worshiping? If you think I'm wrong about that, then I would suspect you'd think I'm wrong about everything I say. You certainly have the right, but it would not seem worth going on and on saying things you don't believe. On the other hand, if you think what I said about worshiping may be right, then it would indicate that you may be open to new ideas, ideas seldom taught in church but that you do see in the scriptures. I hope you understand.

Please don't take this as an I'm right and you are wrong. I don't mean it that way. I might even say, "why do you call me right? There is none right but God."

Here is what I said about worship:

There are several verses that talk about men being worshiped. The Hebrew word is "shachah."

Gen 23:7,

And Abraham stood up, and bowed (shachah) himself to the people of the land, [even] to the children of Heth.
Gen 27:29,

Let people serve thee, and nations bow down (shachah) to thee (Jacob): be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed [be] every one that curseth thee, and blessed [be] he that blesseth thee.
Gen 42:6,

And Joseph [was] the governor over the land, [and] he [it was] that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed down (shachah) themselves before him [with] their faces to the earth.

The translation "bowed" instead of "worship" once again shows the bias of the English translators. Apparently they thought, like many Christians today, that worship is reserved only for Yahweh. But here we have several men being "worshiped." Maybe we need to rethink what it means to worship.

God bless.

I understand all forms of worship, whether of man or God, to be a type of 'service'. Our service to both God and man should come from the heart, and should be in spirit (love) and in truth.

Our priority, I believe, is to serve God first, because God is truth. Our service to man should follow our faith and service to God. Once we have the righteousness of God within us, then we are 'furnished' to serve our neighbour.

Problems arise when our worship of alien 'gods' makes our singleness of love and service for the true God impossible to juggle. We cannot hope, for example, to live by faith in money, and at the same time serve Jesus Christ in singleness of heart and purpose. Self-seeking (in terms of greed, fame, and power) is never going to sit easily with the gospel of love in Christ.

Worship and service often appear together, as in Matthew 4:10.

Matthew 4:10. 'Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.'

To me, this fits perfectly with the requirement of God that all men should serve the Son of man, now that he is crowned KING OF KINGS.

Daniel 7:14. 'And there was given him [the Son of man] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'

 

[rrobs]

I understand all forms of worship, whether of man or God, to be a type of 'service'. Our service to both God and man should come from the heart, and should be in spirit (love) and in truth.

Our priority, I believe, is to serve God first, because God is truth. Our service to man should follow our faith and service to God. Once we have the righteousness of God within us, then we are 'furnished' to serve our neighbour.

Problems arise when our worship of alien 'gods' makes our singleness of love and service for the true God impossible to juggle. We cannot hope, for example, to live by faith in money, and at the same time serve Jesus Christ in singleness of heart and purpose. Self-seeking (in terms of greed, fame, and power) is never going to sit easily with the gospel of love in Christ.

Worship and service often appear together, as in Matthew 4:10.

Matthew 4:10. 'Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.'

To me, this fits perfectly with the requirement of God that all men should serve the Son of man, now that he is crowned KING OF KINGS.

Daniel 7:14. 'And there was given him [the Son of man] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'

There is not a single thing you said that I could disagree with. Jesus himself said that the first great commandment is to worship God with all our hearts, minds and strength.

However, I would point out that nothing you said requires or even suggests that Jesus is God. Jesus did not say the first and great commandment was to worship him, but to worship God. It is the same God Jesus himself has and worships.

John 20:17,

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
​

Since Jesus has the same God and Father as the rest of us, how could he be God? There are several other verses that talk about the God and Father of Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Colossians 1:3). If Jesus is God, then God has a God and a Father? That can't be right!

According to Daniel 7:14, God gave Jesus dominion, glory, a kingdom, etc. If Jesus were God then that would mean God granted himself something He apparently didn't already have. Again, that can't be right.

It is imperative that we let the scriptures speak for themselves and take the words the same way we take words in our daily life. We use words to communicate. Therefore we must agree upon the meaning of those words. If we change them willy-nilly, we will never be able to communicate a thought so others can understand what we say. And remember, God's words are purified 7 time, so it requires that we take the same care in reading them. We do not want to read into the scriptures anything that is not really there. Just take the words for what they say. Jesus told the Pharisees that their tradition made God's word of none effect. We must never allow tradition to interfere with God's intended meaning.

That's that. Now for the shepherd verses. You asked:

"Maybe you can begin by answering the question about the shepherds. Here it is, again:
There is ONE (good) SHEPHERD [Ezekiel 34:23 and Ezekiel 37:24. Also, John 10:11]
And the LORD [Yahweh] is MY (good) SHEPHERD. [Psalm 23]"​

Ezekiel says Jesus will be a shepherd and John says Jesus is a shepherd. None of them imply he is also God. Again, just read what's written without adding extraneous ideas. There is no requirement that says to be our shepherd Jesus also has to be God.

David was talking in Psalm 23. Since Jesus was not alive when David lived, he was simply saying, as you correctly said, that Yahweh was his shepherd. Again, there is nothing precluding multiple shepherds. Before Jesus, God was Israel's shepherd. After Jesus sacrificed his life for us and God raised him from the dead, he became our shepherd also.

As you know, there are many privileges God conferred upon Jesus. God made Jesus our lord, He granted him the power to judge, He gave him a kingdom, He made Jesus king, etc. There is nothing amiss with God making Jesus our shepherd. Jesus can be our shepherd without being God Almighty, Yahweh. Then it fits with the several verses I quoted earlier that say unequivocally that Jesus was a man (Acts 2:22, 1 Timothy 2:5, et.al.). God is equally clear in saying He himself is not a man (Num 23:19). Any verses that we take as saying Jesus is God must square with these clear verses that say he is a man and God is not a man.

Does any of that make sense, or is all just a big pile of hooey?

 

[Redemptionsong]

There is not a single thing you said that I could disagree with. Jesus himself said that the first great commandment is to worship God with all our hearts, minds and strength.

However, I would point out that nothing you said requires or even suggests that Jesus is God. Jesus did not say the first and great commandment was to worship him, but to worship God. It is the same God Jesus himself has and worships.

John 20:17,

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
​

Since Jesus has the same God and Father as the rest of us, how could he be God? There are several other verses that talk about the God and Father of Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Colossians 1:3). If Jesus is God, then God has a God and a Father? That can't be right!

According to Daniel 7:14, God gave Jesus dominion, glory, a kingdom, etc. If Jesus were God then that would mean God granted himself something He apparently didn't already have. Again, that can't be right.

It is imperative that we let the scriptures speak for themselves and take the words the same way we take words in our daily life. We use words to communicate. Therefore we must agree upon the meaning of those words. If we change them willy-nilly, we will never be able to communicate a thought so others can understand what we say. And remember, God's words are purified 7 time, so it requires that we take the same care in reading them. We do not want to read into the scriptures anything that is not really there. Just take the words for what they say. Jesus told the Pharisees that their tradition made God's word of none effect. We must never allow tradition to interfere with God's intended meaning.

That's that. Now for the shepherd verses. You asked:

"Maybe you can begin by answering the question about the shepherds. Here it is, again:
There is ONE (good) SHEPHERD [Ezekiel 34:23 and Ezekiel 37:24. Also, John 10:11]
And the LORD [Yahweh] is MY (good) SHEPHERD. [Psalm 23]"​

Ezekiel says Jesus will be a shepherd and John says Jesus is a shepherd. None of them imply he is also God. Again, just read what's written without adding extraneous ideas. There is no requirement that says to be our shepherd Jesus also has to be God.

David was talking in Psalm 23. Since Jesus was not alive when David lived, he was simply saying, as you correctly said, that Yahweh was his shepherd. Again, there is nothing precluding multiple shepherds. Before Jesus, God was Israel's shepherd. After Jesus sacrificed his life for us and God raised him from the dead, he became our shepherd also.

As you know, there are many privileges God conferred upon Jesus. God made Jesus our lord, He granted him the power to judge, He gave him a kingdom, He made Jesus king, etc. There is nothing amiss with God making Jesus our shepherd. Jesus can be our shepherd without being God Almighty, Yahweh. Then it fits with the several verses I quoted earlier that say unequivocally that Jesus was a man (Acts 2:22, 1 Timothy 2:5, et.al.). God is equally clear in saying He himself is not a man (Num 23:19). Any verses that we take as saying Jesus is God must square with these clear verses that say he is a man and God is not a man.

Does any of that make sense, or is all just a big pile of hooey?

It was Solomon who posed the question, 'But will God [as Spirit] indeed dwell on earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?' [1 Kings 8:27]

Is God dwelling on earth? I believe He is. As Revelation 21:3 says, 'And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God'.

If, for a minute, we follow the line of thinking that says God has NOT come to earth, then we are left without a Saviour. If Jesus Christ were only a man, then he would have been a sinner, since scripture hath concluded all under sin [Galatians 3:22]. But Jesus was no ordinary man, for he was conceived miraculously and never sinned. He was a MEDIATOR, one that stands between God and man. To be a mediator he has to have had both the qualities of a man (flesh and blood) and the Spirit of God 'without measure'. He is, therefore, whilst on earth, BOTH God and man simultaneously.

If the man Jesus Christ were not also fully God, then we would not be able to 'know' the Father who sent him. Jesus Christ is the countenance of the Father, and makes known to us the truth of God. If Jesus Christ was not God, he would not be able to present, or express, the complete truth or life of the Father. If you say that Jesus Christ is not fully God, then which part of the Father has he withheld? As I see it, God is love, and Jesus Christ has expressed this love fully. In the risen Lord Jesus Christ I see the full glory and majesty of the Father.

And here's another thing. If God is life then only He is able to give eternal life. Is there any man you know who can give eternal life?

John 1:4. 'In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'

John 5:26. 'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.'

The Son came forth from the Father, and the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son. If this isn't God's redemption in action, then I don't know what is!

 

[rrobs]

John 1:4. 'In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'

John 5:26. 'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.'

Who is the "him" of John 1:4? According to all rules of grammar, a pronoun refers to it's nearest antecedent, in this case God from verse 2. Your preconceived ideas lead you to think it is Jesus, but from a grammatical viewpoint, that is simply not accurate.

God is life. He gave that life to His son, as well as giving him authority to judge. Why would God have to give Jesus anything? If Jesus were God wouldn't he already have everything God has? Since God gave Jesus things, would there not have been a time when he didn't have them? When exactly did God give Jesus these things? What was Jesus before God gave him these things? Some kind of God that didn't have authority?

You are reading into the text something that just isn't there.

 

[rrobs]

Is God dwelling on earth? I believe He is. As Revelation 21:3 says, 'And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God'.

Revelation, especially chapter 21, is in the future. Revelation is not for the church. It is for Israel. It tells of the final fulfillment of all the promises God made to Israel in the OT. The church of the body has nothing to do with Israel or Revelation. We will have been caught up to meet Jesus in the air before anything occurs from Revelation.

Having said that, God is in Jesus (2 Cor 5:19, et. al.) and Jesus is in us (Col 1:27), so in that sense God is here. He and Jesus are everywhere there is a born again Christian. That is why God kept the mystery secret (Rom 16:25, 1 Cor 2:7, Eph 3:9). Had the devil known it, he would not have killed Jesus (1 Cor 2:8). When Jesus was here, the devil only had one Jesus to deal with. Because he killed him, God was able to raise him from the dead, thus conquering death, and made the new birth available. That means there are millions of Jesus' walking around with which must deal. Must drive him nuts! Of course if the devil can keep us ignorant, then none of it matters. Unfortunately, he has, by and large, done a bang up good job of it in my opinion.

The fact that most (98.6% of Christians think Jesus is God) don't understand the basic nature of the two leading characters (God & Jesus) attests to the devil's success. No wonder Jesus' declaration that we would do the works he did and greater works has been largely unfulfilled. The book makes no sense if Jesus is not understood to be the son of God. Whatever anybody may say, since he is God's son, he can't be God. The idea is preposterous even on the surface. It makes zero sense.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Who is the "him" of John 1:4? According to all rules of grammar, a pronoun refers to it's nearest antecedent, in this case God from verse 2. Your preconceived ideas lead you to think it is Jesus, but from a grammatical viewpoint, that is simply not accurate.

God is life. He gave that life to His son, as well as giving him authority to judge. Why would God have to give Jesus anything? If Jesus were God wouldn't he already have everything God has? Since God gave Jesus things, would there not have been a time when he didn't have them? When exactly did God give Jesus these things? What was Jesus before God gave him these things? Some kind of God that didn't have authority?

You are reading into the text something that just isn't there.

Jesus taught that 'scripture cannot be broken', and that principle is the basis of my understanding.

Although conceived miraculously, Jesus lived the first thirty years of his life under the law. He was a man, a Jew, and for thirty years he lived without the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

The baptism of Jesus at the Jordan marks the point at which the Spirit of God takes up residence in His tabernacle on earth. This is when God begins to dwell in the body of Jesus. The formative years of Jesus on earth, under the law, are a preparation for the coming of the Spirit of God. [Note that David was anointed with the Spirit before becoming king.1 Samuel 16:13]

The Spirit of God that came to Jesus is the Word of God, and is, therefore, God. You cannot separate the breath of God from God! This is what John 1:1 tells us. Spirit gives forth Spirit, and that Spirit is life and light.

Once the 'fulness' of the Spirit of God is dwelling in Jesus, you have Jesus Christ the MEDIATOR. Jesus Christ demonstrates how it is for a perfect man of faith to live on earth. The Spirit relays to Jesus (the man) exactly what the Father wills, and the perfect man of faith responds obediently.

Did the Devil put Jesus to death? The Devil may have believed that he had succeeded in ridding the earth of God, but his confidence did not last long.

Throughout his ministry, Jesus made it abundantly clear to his disciples that he had come to earth to die. That was his mission, and such a mission could only have been made known to the Spirit (the Son, the Word) in Jesus by his Father. The same Spirit that made this knowledge available to Jesus, also made known to him the role he fulfilled. Had Jesus called upon the angels to prevent his crucifixion, this could easily have been done; but that was not the Father's will.

What did Jesus say in Gethsemane? 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?'

To say that Jesus Christ cannot be God because he is God's Son on earth is, IMO, a failure to recognize God in Christ. This recognition becomes a matter of faith, as Thomas demonstrated when he was confronted by the risen Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:19. 'To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation.'

Nowhere does it suggest that the God in Christ was any less 'God' than the Father above. When, in Ephesians 4:6 it says, 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all', Paul is saying that God is above (the Father), God is through (the Son), and God is in you all (the Holy Spirit). It's all ONE God! But he adds, 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.' So, you and I cannot claim to have the 'fulness of the Godhead bodily', as Christ was able to do. But the spiritual body of Christ includes us all, and is therefore ONE SPIRIT.

 

[rrobs]

The Spirit of God that came to Jesus is the Word of God, and is, therefore, God. You cannot separate the breath of God from God!

Do you have a breath? Are you your breath? You are one thing, and your breath is another thing. No need to make them one and the same thing. It wouldn't make any sense to do so. You can absolutely separate you from your breath and you can absolutely separate God's breath from God. Just read what's written and take the words for what they say. We all know a breath is not a person. Why would God change all of that? Does He want to confuse us?

Nowhere does it suggest that the God in Christ was any less 'God' than the Father above.

You are right. The same goes with the Christ in us (Col 1:27). That Christ is no less Christ than the Christ who is in us. Christ being in us doesn't make us Christ anymore than God being in Christ makes him God.

It would never be thought that an apple inside a box would make the apple and the box one thing. The very concept of one thing being inside another explicitly means there are two separate things. What justifies changing such a simple concept when it comes to God being in Christ?

What did Jesus say in Gethsemane? 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Interesting that God would have to pray to Himself to give Himself anything. How does that verse say Jesus and God were the same person, substance, or whatever? It says one person can pray to another...two people...one praying and the other to whom he prays. This verse is making a clear distinction between Jesus and God. It doesn't even remotely suggest the two are somehow one and the same entity. This is why I keep saying the trinity doctrine causes us to read things into the scriptures that are not there. We must read what's written, not adding to, changing, or subtracting form the pure words of God. Revelations has a rather stern warning about that very thing (Rev 22:18).

When, in Ephesians 4:6 it says, 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all', Paul is saying that God is above (the Father), God is through (the Son), and God is in you all (the Holy Spirit). It's all ONE God! But he adds, 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.' So, you and I cannot claim to have the 'fulness of the Godhead bodily', as Christ was able to do. But the spiritual body of Christ includes us all, and is therefore ONE SPIRIT.

You are reading much into Ephesians 4:6 that is simply not there.

Eph 4:6,

One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
​

How do you get "above all" = "Father," "through all" = "Jesus," and "in you all" = Holy Spirit?" Sounds like extraneous, preconceived ideas being inserted into places where they don't belong.

Ephesians 4:6 is declaring in simple grammar that there is one God. How you get that to mean He is three persons is beyond me. It says there is one God, period, end of story. Stop adding incredibly complex things to an otherwise simple declaration that God is one and that He pervades the entire universe. That can easily be said without having to make Jesus be God. We can let him be, as the scriptures say many time, the son of God, and it wold take nothing away from the greatness of God which this verse is declaring.

The one God in Ephesians 4:6 is indeed above all, through all, and in all of us. It is simply declaring His greatness and rule over all creation. No surprise there.

Eph 3:19,

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.​

I can indeed claim that the fullness of the Godhead dwells within me. How else are we to understand this verse written in a simple 8th grade reading level? How would the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Jesus and Jesus dwelling in us not mean we have the same fullness dwelling in us?

True humility is accepting what God says despite our own thoughts. At one time, I would have thought it proud and haughty to think that the fullness of the Godhead dwell within me, that I am as righteous as God Himself (Rom 3:22). That is what I was taught by my priest. But once I read Romans 3:22 I realized I was exalting my pea brain above God. While appearing to humble myself on the outside, I was actually calling God a liar. That is far from humility. It is actually blasphemy. If God says I'm as righteous as He is and that he dwells in Christ who dwell in me, then I humbly declare that I am as righteous as God and that His fullness indeed dwells with me. I humbly accept the words God inspired Paul to write in Ephesians.

Maybe you could explain how Christ in us does not make us Christ when God in Christ does make Christ God in your next reply.

God bless

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do you have a breath? Are you your breath? You are one thing, and your breath is another thing. No need to make them one and the same thing. It wouldn't make any sense to do so. You can absolutely separate you from your breath and you can absolutely separate God's breath from God. Just read what's written and take the words for what they say. We all know a breath is not a person. Why would God change all of that? Does He want to confuse us?



You are right. The same goes with the Christ in us (Col 1:27). That Christ is no less Christ than the Christ who is in us. Christ being in us doesn't make us Christ anymore than God being in Christ makes him God.

It would never be thought that an apple inside a box would make the apple and the box one thing. The very concept of one thing being inside another explicitly means there are two separate things. What justifies changing such a simple concept when it comes to God being in Christ?



Interesting that God would have to pray to Himself to give Himself anything. How does that verse say Jesus and God were the same person, substance, or whatever? It says one person can pray to another...two people...one praying and the other to whom he prays. This verse is making a clear distinction between Jesus and God. It doesn't even remotely suggest the two are somehow one and the same entity. This is why I keep saying the trinity doctrine causes us to read things into the scriptures that are not there. We must read what's written, not adding to, changing, or subtracting form the pure words of God. Revelations has a rather stern warning about that very thing (Rev 22:18).


You are reading much into Ephesians 4:6 that is simply not there.

Eph 4:6,

One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
​

How do you get "above all" = "Father," "through all" = "Jesus," and "in you all" = Holy Spirit?" Sounds like extraneous, preconceived ideas being inserted into places where they don't belong.

Ephesians 4:6 is declaring in simple grammar that there is one God. How you get that to mean He is three persons is beyond me. It says there is one God, period, end of story. Stop adding incredibly complex things to an otherwise simple declaration that God is one and that He pervades the entire universe. That can easily be said without having to make Jesus be God. We can let him be, as the scriptures say many time, the son of God, and it wold take nothing away from the greatness of God which this verse is declaring.

The one God in Ephesians 4:6 is indeed above all, through all, and in all of us. It is simply declaring His greatness and rule over all creation. No surprise there.

Eph 3:19,

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.​

I can indeed claim that the fullness of the Godhead dwells within me. How else are we to understand this verse written in a simple 8th grade reading level? How would the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Jesus and Jesus dwelling in us not mean we have the same fullness dwelling in us?

True humility is accepting what God says despite our own thoughts. At one time, I would have thought it proud and haughty to think that the fullness of the Godhead dwell within me, that I am as righteous as God Himself (Rom 3:22). That is what I was taught by my priest. But once I read Romans 3:22 I realized I was exalting my pea brain above God. While appearing to humble myself on the outside, I was actually calling God a liar. That is far from humility. It is actually blasphemy. If God says I'm as righteous as He is and that he dwells in Christ who dwell in me, then I humbly declare that I am as righteous as God and that His fullness indeed dwells with me. I humbly accept the words God inspired Paul to write in Ephesians.

Maybe you could explain how Christ in us does not make us Christ when God in Christ does make Christ God in your next reply.

God bless

Psalm 34:18. 'The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart: and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit'.

I make no personal claim to having the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and have no reason to boast except in Christ.

Ephesians 3:19 is not written to the individual but to the church at Ephesus, and as such the fulness does not reside in one individual but in the body [the Church] as a whole. We know that the Spirit divides 'to every man severally as he will', and that the body is made up of many parts [1 Corinthians 12:12]. The key factors that distinguish these members are talent and faith. None can claim the perfect faith of Christ all the time, but each manifests their talent and faith by degree.

It's simple grammar that tells us that there is one God, and simple grammar that states that God was in Jesus Christ. When the Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father and Son, I know by simple logic that it is God that comes forth. There is nothing complicated about this redeeming formula. It just happens to be the only one that makes full sense of all the scriptures.

It is also wrong to edge me towards the position that Jesus Christ is not fully human whilst on earth. This is why the distinction between the Son and the Father is made. The Son resides on earth as a body/soul/spirit, whilst the Father [Holy Spirit] is in heaven. On earth Jesus Christ bears the body of a corruptible man, and this does not change until he is resurrected from the dead. Jesus Christ is not made King [of Kings] until he sits upon His throne in heaven. However, by faith, I can see that the fulness of God resides in Jesus Christ even on earth, and that makes him my personal Saviour! I am, therefore, fully within my rights to claim him as my Lord and God [as David did in Psalm 110:1]

It's also a strange thing to argue that God's breath is not God. This is like saying that God, who is Spirit, is not life. Holy Spirit is by definition all these things: love, light, life, truth and also the breath of God.

Genesis 2:7. 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'

 

[rrobs]

Psalm 34:18. 'The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart: and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit'.

I make no personal claim to having the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and have no reason to boast except in Christ.

Ephesians 3:19 is not written to the individual but to the church at Ephesus, and as such the fulness does not reside in one individual but in the body [the Church] as a whole.

Eph 3:16-20,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
​

Verse 16 mentions the inner man, not the church.
Verse 17 mentions hearts, plural. He wants Christ to dwell in the hearts of those individuals.
Verse 18 mentions that "ye" (a person, not a church) may comprehend.
Why does verse 19 suddenly begin speaking to the church and not the individuals mentioned in the preceding verses? What makes the "ye" mean the church and not the people in the church? If God meant the church, why didn't He say, "that it might be filled..."?

Sure looks like Paul was speaking to the individual believer. You might want to rethink your refusal to believe God is in you. As you've correctly said, God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and Christ is in us (Col 1:27). If you don't accept that, then you are indeed boasting in yourself, putting your thoughts above the scriptures.

We know that the Spirit divides 'to every man severally as he will', and that the body is made up of many parts [1 Corinthians 12:12]. The key factors that distinguish these members are talent and faith. None can claim the perfect faith of Christ, but each manifests their talent and faith by degree.

Very well put. That is what the scriptures declare, but where is the trinity in what you said?

It's simple grammar that tells us that there is one God, and simple grammar that states that God was in Jesus Christ. When the Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father and Son, I know by simple logic that it is God that comes forth. There is nothing complicated about this redeeming formula. It just happens to be the only one that makes full sense of all the scriptures.

I might suggest you research the difference between God and the gift which He gives all born again believers. God is holy and He is spirit, thus he is often referred to as The Holy Spirit. But, as with many words in all languages, the same word can have different meanings. At times the words "holy spirit" refer to the gift God first poured out on the Day of Pentecost.

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.​

The article "the" is not in the original texts. This verse is not speaking of God, The Holy Spirit, but of His gift, holy spirit.

The article or lack thereof offers some clue as to whether God is talking about Himself or the gift He gives us. Usually, when the article is present it does speak of God, and visa verse. No article usually indicates the gift. But the presence or absence of the article is not always the final judge. But when it is taken together with context, it is usually pretty clear if the words "holy spirit" mean God or His gift.

It is also not logical nor scriptural that God came forth. God sent His son. That is said many times in the scriptures. His son did the works his Father gave him. God's son died on the cross, not God.

It is also wrong to edge me towards the position that Jesus Christ is not fully human whilst on earth. This is why the distinction between the Son and the Father is made. The Son resides on earth as a body/soul/spirit, whilst the Father [Holy Spirit] is in heaven. On earth Jesus Christ bears the body of a corruptible man, and this does not change until he is resurrected from the dead. Jesus Christ is not made King [of Kings] until he sits upon His throne in heaven. However, by faith, I can see that the fulness of God resides in Jesus Christ, and that makes him my personal Saviour! I am, therefore, fully within my rights to claim him as my Lord and God [as David did in Psalm 110:1]

With the notable exception that Jesus was not fully human, I agree with everything you said. However I don't see the need to introduce a trinity there.

There are numerous verses that say Jesus was fully human. He is the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. Jesus was said to come from the seed of a woman. A human seed produces another human. Read the first couple of chapters in Genesis, taking note of what God says about seed. Suffice it to day the seed of anything results in another thing of the same type. An oak see results in an oak tree, a dog seed results in a dog, a cow seed results in a cow, a human seed results in a human. Pagans would disagree and say a human can birth a God (they considered human Roman emperors to be gods), but we shouldn't go there.

Jesus was said to be like unto his brothers, i.e., us. We are not God. We are humans, so Jesus must also be human. God told humans He would raise up a prophet like them.

It's also a strange thing to argue that God's breath is not God.

Why? I have a breath, but I'm not breath. I'm a person with breath. There is no need to say anything different when it comes to God.

In fact, the very phrase, "breath of God" is speaking of something God has, not something He is. The breath of me is not me. Even if the scriptures do equate God with His breath, where's the trinity?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Eph 3:16-20,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
​

Verse 16 mentions the inner man, not the church.
Verse 17 mentions hearts, plural. He wants Christ to dwell in the hearts of those individuals.
Verse 18 mentions that "ye" (a person, not a church) may comprehend.
Why does verse 19 suddenly begin speaking to the church and not the individuals mentioned in the preceding verses? What makes the "ye" mean the church and not the people in the church? If God meant the church, why didn't He say, "that it might be filled..."?

Sure looks like Paul was speaking to the individual believer. You might want to rethink your refusal to believe God is in you. As you've correctly said, God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and Christ is in us (Col 1:27). If you don't accept that, then you are indeed boasting in yourself, putting your thoughts above the scriptures.


Very well put. That is what the scriptures declare, but where is the trinity in what you said?


I might suggest you research the difference between God and the gift which He gives all born again believers. God is holy and He is spirit, thus he is often referred to as The Holy Spirit. But, as with many words in all languages, the same word can have different meanings. At times the words "holy spirit" refer to the gift God first poured out on the Day of Pentecost.

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.​

The article "the" is not in the original texts. This verse is not speaking of God, The Holy Spirit, but of His gift, holy spirit.

The article or lack thereof offers some clue as to whether God is talking about Himself or the gift He gives us. Usually, when the article is present it does speak of God, and visa verse. No article usually indicates the gift. But the presence or absence of the article is not always the final judge. But when it is taken together with context, it is usually pretty clear if the words "holy spirit" mean God or His gift.

It is also not logical nor scriptural that God came forth. God sent His son. That is said many times in the scriptures. His son did the works his Father gave him. God's son died on the cross, not God.


With the notable exception that Jesus was not fully human, I agree with everything you said. However I don't see the need to introduce a trinity there.

There are numerous verses that say Jesus was fully human. He is the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. Jesus was said to come from the seed of a woman. A human seed produces another human. Read the first couple of chapters in Genesis, taking note of what God says about seed. Suffice it to day the seed of anything results in another thing of the same type. An oak see results in an oak tree, a dog seed results in a dog, a cow seed results in a cow, a human seed results in a human. Pagans would disagree and say a human can birth a God (they considered human Roman emperors to be gods), but we shouldn't go there.

Jesus was said to be like unto his brothers, i.e., us. We are not God. We are humans, so Jesus must also be human. God told humans He would raise up a prophet like them.


Why? I have a breath, but I'm not breath. I'm a person with breath. There is no need to say anything different when it comes to God.

In fact, the very phrase, "breath of God" is speaking of something God has, not something He is. The breath of me is not me. Even if the scriptures do equate God with His breath, where's the trinity?

In Ephesians, Paul writes to 'the saints which are at Ephesus' and he does not name any one individual. Each person reading his epistle can understand that the 'you' is one of the saints that makes up the church. I believe that I am, therefore, on a sure foundation in claiming that verse 19 refers to the church. If we look back to chapter 1:22,23 we have our confirmation.

Ephesians 1:22,23.'And [God, the Father] hath put all things under his [Jesus Christ's] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.'

If it happens that the fulness of Christ is in me, then I still know that the fulness of Christ that dwells in me is limited by my faith! Scripture, however, distinguishes between the 'head' [Christ] and the body [the Church]. If you read the Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14-30, you'll see that talents were gifted 'to every man according to his several ability'.

I do not doubt that the Spirit of Christ is in me, but it is in me 'by measure'. This distinguishes me from the head, who had the Spirit of God without measure [John 3:34].

This is confirmed in Romans 12:3, 'For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith'. In verse 6, Paul adds, 'Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us'.

Much has been written about the difference between the Giver, and the gift of Holy Spirit. One book I happen to possess on this subject is E.W.Bullinger's 'The Giver and His Gifts'. He goes to great lengths to show from the Greek text that a difference exists between the Giver and the gift, but this does nothing to alter the fundamental teaching that the gift of Holy Spirit is still the same Spirit that flows from the Father to the Son, and then to the Church.

As regards Jesus' humanity, all trinitarians, I believe, accept that Jesus was born of flesh and blood to a human mother. As I have said a number of times before, this is not the issue!

The issue is whether the Spirit that descended on Jesus at his baptism was the same spirit that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:4. The passage says, 'And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.'

Was Christ in the wilderness with Moses? How can Christ pre-exist Jesus, if Christ is just a man?