J
jesus is not God
- Thread starter truthfull
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Z
zackabba
Guest
Yes - God is Jesus Christ's Father. Amen.
I like to take the clear meaning of the text, personally - and this text is clearly saying that, while Adam was created and made from the very dust of the earth, Jesus was *not* created, but in fact was from heaven. He came down from heaven in order to shed His blood on the cross for us. He was in the form of God, yet, not considering equality as something to be grasped, He made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a bondservant. He is definitely a man - He is the Man. In fact, He is a divine Man, as evidenced by Philippians 2:5-11. He still has the form of God, and now also has the form of a man. Amen.
Come Lord Jesus, God and Saviour, Majesty on High at the right hand of God the Father! Come!
I
IMINJC
Guest
V
virteous_man
Guest
1) Have you ever studied Biblical Typology?
Biblical Typology- is the unity of Old and New Testament.
2) Have you ever studied the rule of first mention in the bible?
Rule of first mention- when something is used the first time in the bible try and apply biblical typology to create a unity of the scripture on a point, doctrine, or dogma etc.
3) Have you ever heard the rule of unity in scripture?
Unity of Scripture- is a discipline in bible study that allows the bible to clarify it's self through the unity of scripture on a given point or question. take the number of verse's that agree with the number that don't agree etc. The unity of scripture would give more support to the one which had the most agreeing verse's. All of scripture should agree when you have divine inspired truth. If something does not agree with the unity of scripture than we need to re-examine, and look for a better understanding.
These are three methods I have learned over the years and in some classes. Not saying it is required for bible study. For the Holy Spirit Himself will teach you. However could help and bring you to a deeper understanding of rightly dividing the "Word of God".
Last edited:
Sorry, JD. You don't know what you're saying.
Believe what you will. I'll see you at the return.
M
Mich223
Guest
Matthew 28:19, 20 speaks to the Godhead and Trinity. So does 2 Corinthians 13:14 and other scriptures. Now Wycliffe Publishing (of bibles) has changed the wording of God the Father and Son of God to appease Muslims. Two other publishing companies have done the same. They have put the word Allah in where God the Father was and Messiah where Son of God is.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Yes I do. You are not a Christian. You are a liar. You are a wolf among the flock. You do not know Christ, or the Father, because you deny that Christ is God.
It is what the bible teaches.
If the trend continues, that won't be the case.
You're bold, and convinced you are right, but you are wrong.
I am a Christian, I am not "a liar", and I am not "a wolf".
Even if I am wrong, which I obviously do not believe I am, I am not "a liar". A liar is a person who purposefully tells falsehoods. I am not doing that.
It's what trinitarians say the bible teaches. I believe trinitarians are wrong.
If you have acted on Romans 10:9, you'll be there too, despite your calvinism.
Z
zackabba
Guest
Z
zackabba
Guest
Well, at least you capitalized the "Son" this time
And yes, Jesus is THE MAN. I don't see how He cannot be a divine man, for the Bible clearly shows He is.
If He isn't, then could you explain to me what it means for Him to have both the form of God and the form of a servant?
Grace and Love
Please pardon my punctuational anomalies.Well, at least you capitalized the "Son" this time
He is divine in that he is the Son of God. God is his father, which gave him untainted (innocent) blood. He came from God. That does not make him God the Son (a term not found in the bible). He is not "fully God and fully man". That's religion.
Sorry to take the quick & easy way here, but:
Philippians 2:6-8 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com
Z
zackabba
Guest
Please pardon my punctuational anomalies.
No problem! The only reason why I pointed it out because (thankfully not you) many Unitarians (especially those at BiblicalUnitarian.com) love to lowercase "Son." This, quite frankly, dishonors Christ as the Son of God.
He is divine in that he is the Son of God. God is his father, which gave him untainted (innocent) blood. He came from God. That does not make him God the Son (a term not found in the bible). He is not "fully God and fully man". That's religion.
...but He is divine. If He's divine, then how could He not be deity in nature? (that's what "divine" means)
Sorry to take the quick & easy way here, but:
Philippians 2:6-8 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com
Did you read the article? I'm not trying to be harsh, but the article doesn't address my question. It talks about how morphe ("form") means "outward appearance." I agree.
My point is (again, which they don't address - oddly, I have found no Unitarian to address it), if Christ was not somehow in a different form, then why would Paul bothered to have said that "...He was in the form of God..." then say that He took on the form of a servant? This clearly shows Christ's preexistence, and ties in with Hebrews 2:14: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil
Christ partook of flesh in blood, and took on the form of a servant.
No problem! The only reason why I pointed it out because (thankfully not you) many Unitarians (especially those at BiblicalUnitarian.com) love to lowercase "Son." This, quite frankly, dishonors Christ as the Son of God.
He is divine in that he is the Son of God. God is his father, which gave him untainted (innocent) blood. He came from God. That does not make him God the Son (a term not found in the bible). He is not "fully God and fully man". That's religion.
...but He is divine. If He's divine, then how could He not be deity in nature? (that's what "divine" means)
Sorry to take the quick & easy way here, but:
Philippians 2:6-8 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com
Did you read the article? I'm not trying to be harsh, but the article doesn't address my question. It talks about how morphe ("form") means "outward appearance." I agree.
My point is (again, which they don't address - oddly, I have found no Unitarian to address it), if Christ was not somehow in a different form, then why would Paul bothered to have said that "...He was in the form of God..." then say that He took on the form of a servant? This clearly shows Christ's preexistence, and ties in with Hebrews 2:14: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil
Christ partook of flesh in blood, and took on the form of a servant.
Did YOU reads the article?
Jesus Christ declared God, he made Him known. He said "he who has seen me has seen the Father". This is how he was "in the form of God". It is an outward appearance, as you noted. He was not in very "essence" God. He lived exactly as God wanted him to. IE: he humbled himself before God. Here is a copy/paste from the article:
No, it does not. That's what trinitarians say it shows. Again, Jesus was not "in very nature God", as some translations put it (NIV), but his walk was such that he revealed or made known his Father, God. He loved people, helped and healed them. He always did God's will.
Yes. He was, and still is, a man (albeit now he is glorified and highly exalted).
I appreciate that you are discussing this with me in a civil manner.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
The bible speaks quite clearly on this one. Jesus is God.
Is Jesus God? | Jesus is God | Deity of Jesus | Jesus Trinity | Man and God | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry <--- click
You are not a Christian. You may appear as one, and sound as one, but you are a wolf with the intent of deceit. You serve your father the devil. You intend to lead astray the flock.
You are here to deceive the flock. You do not deceive me. I see through your veil.
The deity of Christ is not a strictly trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity deals with the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Trinitarian theology starts with the three being God (one being), and that they are three distinct persons of this one being.
The deity of Christ, is much more fundamental.
Irrelevant to whether Christ is God or not.
What you believe doesn't change what scripture teaches.
Ahhh, works based salvation. How's that workin' out for ya?
Simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" doesn't make you a Christian. Muslims say that, and they're not Christian.
There is one God. Only God, the Father, is God. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
I am a Christian. I know I am a Christian, and your false accusations will not convince me otherwise.
I admit that I'm a little hurt, and somewhat amused, that you insist on your outrageous accusations. Nobody has ever accused me of being a child of the devil, or serving him. I'm certain you do it in complete ignorance, and will not be held accountable.
I am not here to "deceive the flock". You are the one deceived, voicing your ignorant opinion.
Yes, it is. There is one God, the Father. If you make anything or anyone else God, it is basically idolatry.
We agree on something. We just disagree on what is being taught.
Nope. Choosing to confess Jesus as Lord and to believe that God raised him from the dead is not works.
Why are you so adamantly accusing me for what I believe? If calvinism is true, I believe this because God is making me, right? Are you fighting against God's will, denigrating me? Because according to you I have no say in the matter.
Right. You must confess him as Lord in your life and believe that God raised him from the dead. Have you done this, JD?
I'll pray for you.
Z
zackabba
Guest
Did YOU reads the article?
Twice I have. This isn't the first time I have seen it. I have actually emailed this site (and another Unitarian site) in the past.
Jesus Christ declared God, he made Him known. He said "he who has seen me has seen the Father". This is how he was "in the form of God". It is an outward appearance, as you noted. He was not in very "essence" God. He lived exactly as God wanted him to. IE: he humbled himself before God. Here is a copy/paste from the article:
I read the section you copied and pasted - and, again, they don't address the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that "morphe" is referring to the nature of Christ. I'm referring to His appearance in the form of God.
My point is that Christ was, again, preexistent. The way it is shown in the passage is in how Paul presents Christ as having been in the form of God, yet having taken on the form of a servant. He has God's form and a servant's form. Only God can have God's form (i.e. His outward appearance, as seen in passages such as Genesis 18).
No, it does not. That's what trinitarians say it shows. Again, Jesus was not "in very nature God", as some translations put it (NIV), but his walk was such that he revealed or made known his Father, God. He loved people, helped and healed them. He always did God's will.
Again, I'm not arguing that it's talking about His *nature.* (read above)
As you would say, whoever sees Him, sees God. If I see Christ, I can say that I've seen God. Why? Because He has the form of God. He also, now as a man, has the form of a servant.
Yes. He was, and still is, a man (albeit now he is glorified and highly exalted).
Amen. He received back the glory He had with the Father, the only true God, in His presence before the world began (John 17:3-5).
I appreciate that you are discussing this with me in a civil manner.
The same to you! I have probably come across as rash at times (so forgive me for when I have), but this is a very important topic to me (as I'm sure it is to you as well).
Grace and Love
Twice I have. This isn't the first time I have seen it. I have actually emailed this site (and another Unitarian site) in the past.
Jesus Christ declared God, he made Him known. He said "he who has seen me has seen the Father". This is how he was "in the form of God". It is an outward appearance, as you noted. He was not in very "essence" God. He lived exactly as God wanted him to. IE: he humbled himself before God. Here is a copy/paste from the article:
I read the section you copied and pasted - and, again, they don't address the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that "morphe" is referring to the nature of Christ. I'm referring to His appearance in the form of God.
My point is that Christ was, again, preexistent. The way it is shown in the passage is in how Paul presents Christ as having been in the form of God, yet having taken on the form of a servant. He has God's form and a servant's form. Only God can have God's form (i.e. His outward appearance, as seen in passages such as Genesis 18).
No, it does not. That's what trinitarians say it shows. Again, Jesus was not "in very nature God", as some translations put it (NIV), but his walk was such that he revealed or made known his Father, God. He loved people, helped and healed them. He always did God's will.
Again, I'm not arguing that it's talking about His *nature.* (read above)
As you would say, whoever sees Him, sees God. If I see Christ, I can say that I've seen God. Why? Because He has the form of God. He also, now as a man, has the form of a servant.
Yes. He was, and still is, a man (albeit now he is glorified and highly exalted).
Amen. He received back the glory He had with the Father, the only true God, in His presence before the world began (John 17:3-5).
I appreciate that you are discussing this with me in a civil manner.
The same to you! I have probably come across as rash at times (so forgive me for when I have), but this is a very important topic to me (as I'm sure it is to you as well).
Grace and Love
N
Nalu
Guest
Z