Scripture!

[bbyrd009]

Bbyrd,

Please put a name to whom you're quoting. That way, those who are following along, can actually follow along.

ah, my apologies. thing is, Rick, there are no quote linkbacks here, and i like to avoid, like, nailing people to the wall, and prefer to speak generally if possible, so is there a way to achieve both? iow are you asking so that a notification will be generated, or so that one can (somehow) track back in the quotes, if they have lost the thread of thought? but i think i can adjust for both, sorry about that.

[RickD]

Bbyrd,

Please put a name to whom you're quoting. That way, those who are following along, can actually follow along.

ah, my apologies. thing is, Rick, there are no quote linkbacks here, and i like to avoid, like, nailing people to the wall, and prefer to speak generally if possible, so is there a way to achieve both? iow are you asking so that a notification will be generated, or so that one can (somehow) track back in the quotes, if they have lost the thread of thought? but i think i can adjust for both, sorry about that.

If you copy and paste a quote from someone, just post the name of the member inside the quote brackets, then paste the quote after the member's name.

bbyrd009 wrote:|[ /quote]
In other words, paste the copied quote in the space where I've shown the red line.

It just puts a name to the quote, so we all can see to whom you're responding.

[bbyrd009]

ok, i usually do that anyway, i thought, sorry.

...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Try John 20:28 also.

John 20:28
My Lord and my God!

ok look, i do not deny that God is the Head of Christ, and if one has seen Christ, then they have seen the Father, because the Father is Word, Breath, Pneuma, and Christ is our Intermediary, our High Priest, imo you, we, i am never, ever going to "see" God, iow, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father.

But the passages that Christ Himself, gives us, in order to better grasp this relationship, cannot just be ignored, imo. We are to be Priests, also; we are to become gods. We are told to pick up our crosses, too.

So making Christ into Father is deficient in a way, and also making Christ into just another man, even a special man, is also deficient. The whole concept of "Intermediary" is what we are talking about here. i could argue against people who even pray to Christ--and maybe even Mary, too--and describe my understanding of how this making Christ into God is really just a way to lend Imprimatur to one's religion, "we have God, and you don't, so you are lost, and we aren't" or whatever, but i don't wish to do that anymore.

If you want to have as one of your beliefs that Christ is God, and you feel comfortable accepting this verse--which has no other Witnesses in Scripture, note; an important thing--on its merits, and avoiding a more holistic interpretation, that understands the implications of "why do you call Me good" (et al) in this context, and disregards that Thomas

(strangely, this comes from "the Doubter," not unlike the previous, Acts passage we just looked coming from Paul, disobeying the Spirit, while at the same time instructing on how to follow the Spirit; and these implications should be reflected upon, imo)

might easily be implied here to be just recognizing both of Christ's dual natures, nodding to both Jesus, and Jesus' Head, the Father, in this verse, then i am ok with that, it is just a belief, that you feel comfortable with, right now, and might even die believing, i have no problem with that.

But i would say beware, because the next step from there, that seems inevitable to me, is to put out some book about how all Muslims are lost, or all Catholics, or i guess in the case of a Trinitarian, all Oneness people are lost--though, i dunno there, Oneness people pretty much have the exact, same message, this "Christ is God" thing--finding an "us" and a "them," iow, and of course making oneself to be in the "superior" group, ok?

[abelcainsbrother]

ok, i usually do that anyway, i thought, sorry.

...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Try John 20:28 also.

John 20:28
My Lord and my God!

ok look, i do not deny that God is the Head of Christ, and if one has seen Christ, then they have seen the Father, because the Father is Word, Breath, Pneuma, and Christ is our Intermediary, our High Priest, imo you, we, i am never, ever going to "see" God, iow, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father.

But the passages that Christ Himself, gives us, in order to better grasp this relationship, cannot just be ignored, imo. We are to be Priests, also; we are to become gods. We are told to pick up our crosses, too.

So making Christ into Father is deficient in a way, and also making Christ into just another man, even a special man, is also deficient. The whole concept of "Intermediary" is what we are talking about here. i could argue against people who even pray to Christ--and maybe even Mary, too--and describe my understanding of how this making Christ into God is really just a way to lend Imprimatur to one's religion, "we have God, and you don't, so you are lost, and we aren't" or whatever, but i don't wish to do that anymore.

If you want to have as one of your beliefs that Christ is God, and you feel comfortable accepting this verse--which has no other Witnesses in Scripture, note; an important thing--on its merits, and avoiding a more holistic interpretation, that understands the implications of "why do you call Me good" (et al) in this context, and disregards that Thomas

(strangely, this comes from "the Doubter," not unlike the previous, Acts passage we just looked coming from Paul, disobeying the Spirit, while at the same time instructing on how to follow the Spirit; and these implications should be reflected upon, imo)

might easily be implied here to be just recognizing both of Christ's dual natures, nodding to both Jesus, and Jesus' Head, the Father, in this verse, then i am ok with that, it is just a belief, that you feel comfortable with, right now, and might even die believing, i have no problem with that.

But i would say beware, because the next step from there, that seems inevitable to me, is to put out some book about how all Muslims are lost, or all Catholics, or i guess in the case of a Trinitarian, all Oneness people are lost--though, i dunno there, Oneness people pretty much have the exact, same message, this "Christ is God" thing--finding an "us" and a "them," iow, and of course making oneself to be in the "superior" group, ok?

Thomas called Jesus God

Tom Saw Ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CcVBciyc8

The Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWfTX0_uHA

[bbyrd009]

ok, i usually do that anyway, i thought, sorry.

...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Try John 20:28 also.

John 20:28
My Lord and my God!

ok look, i do not deny that God is the Head of Christ, and if one has seen Christ, then they have seen the Father, because the Father is Word, Breath, Pneuma, and Christ is our Intermediary, our High Priest, imo you, we, i am never, ever going to "see" God, iow, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father.

But the passages that Christ Himself, gives us, in order to better grasp this relationship, cannot just be ignored, imo. We are to be Priests, also; we are to become gods. We are told to pick up our crosses, too.

So making Christ into Father is deficient in a way, and also making Christ into just another man, even a special man, is also deficient. The whole concept of "Intermediary" is what we are talking about here. i could argue against people who even pray to Christ--and maybe even Mary, too--and describe my understanding of how this making Christ into God is really just a way to lend Imprimatur to one's religion, "we have God, and you don't, so you are lost, and we aren't" or whatever, but i don't wish to do that anymore.

If you want to have as one of your beliefs that Christ is God, and you feel comfortable accepting this verse--which has no other Witnesses in Scripture, note; an important thing--on its merits, and avoiding a more holistic interpretation, that understands the implications of "why do you call Me good" (et al) in this context, and disregards that Thomas

(strangely, this comes from "the Doubter," not unlike the previous, Acts passage we just looked coming from Paul, disobeying the Spirit, while at the same time instructing on how to follow the Spirit; and these implications should be reflected upon, imo)

might easily be implied here to be just recognizing both of Christ's dual natures, nodding to both Jesus, and Jesus' Head, the Father, in this verse, then i am ok with that, it is just a belief, that you feel comfortable with, right now, and might even die believing, i have no problem with that.

But i would say beware, because the next step from there, that seems inevitable to me, is to put out some book about how all Muslims are lost, or all Catholics, or i guess in the case of a Trinitarian, all Oneness people are lost--though, i dunno there, Oneness people pretty much have the exact, same message, this "Christ is God" thing--finding an "us" and a "them," iow, and of course making oneself to be in the "superior" group, ok?

Thomas called Jesus God

Tom Saw Ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CcVBciyc8

The Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWfTX0_uHA

yes, that is true, but it is pertinent to at least consider that Thomas might have been addressing Christ in a manner different than what we are led to read, as the form of "God" he used there suggests? http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm

iow he didn't use YHWH, or even Elohim, etc.

[abelcainsbrother]

ok, i usually do that anyway, i thought, sorry.

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Try John 20:28 also.

John 20:28
My Lord and my God!

ok look, i do not deny that God is the Head of Christ, and if one has seen Christ, then they have seen the Father, because the Father is Word, Breath, Pneuma, and Christ is our Intermediary, our High Priest, imo you, we, i am never, ever going to "see" God, iow, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father.

But the passages that Christ Himself, gives us, in order to better grasp this relationship, cannot just be ignored, imo. We are to be Priests, also; we are to become gods. We are told to pick up our crosses, too.

So making Christ into Father is deficient in a way, and also making Christ into just another man, even a special man, is also deficient. The whole concept of "Intermediary" is what we are talking about here. i could argue against people who even pray to Christ--and maybe even Mary, too--and describe my understanding of how this making Christ into God is really just a way to lend Imprimatur to one's religion, "we have God, and you don't, so you are lost, and we aren't" or whatever, but i don't wish to do that anymore.

If you want to have as one of your beliefs that Christ is God, and you feel comfortable accepting this verse--which has no other Witnesses in Scripture, note; an important thing--on its merits, and avoiding a more holistic interpretation, that understands the implications of "why do you call Me good" (et al) in this context, and disregards that Thomas

(strangely, this comes from "the Doubter," not unlike the previous, Acts passage we just looked coming from Paul, disobeying the Spirit, while at the same time instructing on how to follow the Spirit; and these implications should be reflected upon, imo)

might easily be implied here to be just recognizing both of Christ's dual natures, nodding to both Jesus, and Jesus' Head, the Father, in this verse, then i am ok with that, it is just a belief, that you feel comfortable with, right now, and might even die believing, i have no problem with that.

But i would say beware, because the next step from there, that seems inevitable to me, is to put out some book about how all Muslims are lost, or all Catholics, or i guess in the case of a Trinitarian, all Oneness people are lost--though, i dunno there, Oneness people pretty much have the exact, same message, this "Christ is God" thing--finding an "us" and a "them," iow, and of course making oneself to be in the "superior" group, ok?

Thomas called Jesus God

Tom Saw Ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CcVBciyc8

The Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWfTX0_uHA

yes, that is true, but it is pertinent to at least consider that Thomas might have been addressing Christ in a manner different than what we are led to read, as the form of "God" he used there suggests? http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm

iow he didn't use YHWH, or even Elohim, etc.

Did Jesus tell Thomas don't call me God? No and I think you skipped over Acts 20:28. Why don't you read Acts 20:28 and then explain what it is saying? Because it backs up Thomas calling Jesus God. Two pieces of biblical evidence you should consider.

[bbyrd009]

ok, i usually do that anyway, i thought, sorry.

Try John 20:28 also.

John 20:28
My Lord and my God!

ok look, i do not deny that God is the Head of Christ, and if one has seen Christ, then they have seen the Father, because the Father is Word, Breath, Pneuma, and Christ is our Intermediary, our High Priest, imo you, we, i am never, ever going to "see" God, iow, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father.

But the passages that Christ Himself, gives us, in order to better grasp this relationship, cannot just be ignored, imo. We are to be Priests, also; we are to become gods. We are told to pick up our crosses, too.

So making Christ into Father is deficient in a way, and also making Christ into just another man, even a special man, is also deficient. The whole concept of "Intermediary" is what we are talking about here. i could argue against people who even pray to Christ--and maybe even Mary, too--and describe my understanding of how this making Christ into God is really just a way to lend Imprimatur to one's religion, "we have God, and you don't, so you are lost, and we aren't" or whatever, but i don't wish to do that anymore.

If you want to have as one of your beliefs that Christ is God, and you feel comfortable accepting this verse--which has no other Witnesses in Scripture, note; an important thing--on its merits, and avoiding a more holistic interpretation, that understands the implications of "why do you call Me good" (et al) in this context, and disregards that Thomas

(strangely, this comes from "the Doubter," not unlike the previous, Acts passage we just looked coming from Paul, disobeying the Spirit, while at the same time instructing on how to follow the Spirit; and these implications should be reflected upon, imo)

might easily be implied here to be just recognizing both of Christ's dual natures, nodding to both Jesus, and Jesus' Head, the Father, in this verse, then i am ok with that, it is just a belief, that you feel comfortable with, right now, and might even die believing, i have no problem with that.

But i would say beware, because the next step from there, that seems inevitable to me, is to put out some book about how all Muslims are lost, or all Catholics, or i guess in the case of a Trinitarian, all Oneness people are lost--though, i dunno there, Oneness people pretty much have the exact, same message, this "Christ is God" thing--finding an "us" and a "them," iow, and of course making oneself to be in the "superior" group, ok?

Thomas called Jesus God

Tom Saw Ya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CcVBciyc8

The Word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWfTX0_uHA

yes, that is true, but it is pertinent to at least consider that Thomas might have been addressing Christ in a manner different than what we are led to read, as the form of "God" he used there suggests? http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm

iow he didn't use YHWH, or even Elohim, etc.

Did Jesus tell Thomas don't call me God? No and I think you skipped over Acts 20:28. Why don't you read Acts 20:28 and then explain what it is saying? Because it backs up Thomas calling Jesus God. Two pieces of biblical evidence you should consider.

ok, tag for tomorrow, then, i'm wiped, see you then.

[bbyrd009]

28Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock that the Holy Spirit has appointed you to as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

2. Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians

and i doubt we are going to resolve anything today, ok, but my response would be that, chiefly, one shuts themselves off from understanding the verses that i would bring up next, after answering this, and i know from experience that no one would answer, because there is no answer.

So, those verses are, essentially, unavailable to you, you literally read over them, and cannot use them, you have thrown them out, because you hold that Christ is God-

-which does bear fruit for you, don't get me wrong, it bears a very specific fruit, that i notice no one here has spoken-

-when i could easily argue that by this reading, Joan of Arc is also God, having purchased the church, also, just as you are called to do, @ "pick up your cross, and follow Me."

now, here is where i would normally list ten or so verses disputing this view, but as that has never worked yet, in 20 years, and as i am coming to believe all things, slowly but surely, i think i'll stay with my present course, which is to seek the fruit, and stay with my Scripturally bullet~proof understanding, which is not disputed--even by Muslims--that being "God is the Head of Christ," and allow other people, you, to hold whatever beliefs seem right to you.

So, briefly, i do not believe that Christ is God, in one sense, insert appropriate verse here, and i have no problem accepting anyone who does believe that Christ is God, even if it is in that same sense, while yet recognizing the fruit of that.

meaning that as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, you are going to start...walking right toward me, anyway, aren't you? With your mouth, at least? When it is what is in your heart that matters, anyway, and all i can suggest, and caution, is that the fruit should be witnessed.

Which, it has not been.

[bbyrd009]

Did Jesus tell Thomas don't call me God?

Why do you call Me good?

[Byblos]

... as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, ...

If that's your (mis)understanding of our position then you are arguing against a strawman for no one here (that I know of) holds the position that Christ is God the Father. And frankly you ought to know better considering the many years you claim you've studied the subject.

But enough with the vagueness of the so-called fruit (really, as if you're going to come up with some argument no one's ever seen before ). How about you tell us who Christ is to you then? Who is this non-God who is able to save you and all of humanity? We're all ears.

[bbyrd009]

>

[bbyrd009]

... as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, ...

If that's your (mis)understanding of our position then you are arguing against a strawman for no one here (that I know of) holds the position that Christ is God the Father. And frankly you ought to know better considering the many years you claim you've studied the subject.

are not many led to pray to Christ, in your model?

But enough with the vagueness of the so-called fruit (really, as if you're going to come up with some argument no one's ever seen before ).

are you suggesting that you hold a doctrine that bears no fruit?

if one cannot reflect upon some argument that they've never seen before, then how can they change their minds?

How about you tell us who Christ is to you then? Who is this non-God who is able to save you and all of humanity? We're all ears.

God is the Head of Christ

[bbyrd009]

Who would have the temerity to define God?

besides trinitarians, i mean?

if God is defined as 3, then what becomes of the other 4?

[bbyrd009]

... as soon as i start getting more specific, and asking you to justify how you can hold that Christ is God the Father, ...

If that's your (mis)understanding of our position then you are arguing against a strawman for no one here (that I know of) holds the position that Christ is God the Father. And frankly you ought to know better considering the many years you claim you've studied the subject.

But enough with the vagueness of the so-called fruit (really, as if you're going to come up with some argument no one's ever seen before ). How about you tell us who Christ is to you then? Who is this non-God who is able to save you and all of humanity? We're all ears.

witness the fruit of this, Trinity, doctrine. Because there is no other fruit, that i can see, being as how i have already acknowledged that i have no problem with anyone having a belief in the doctrine of Trinity. Division. That is the fruit i witness.

[Byblos]

Seriously dude if you're going to answer any part of my post at least do it in the same post, not several. I don't have the time or energy to chase your answers across multiple posts.

In any case, this

God is the Head of Christ

is not what I asked you. I asked you to define who Christ is to you.