Posted on 05/14/2016 8:48:31 AM PDT by Salvation
Jesus Christ is God.
**Isaiah 43:10-11)
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”**
So, how does that passage deny that the Son of God is divinely powered by the glory of God the Father?
Without Christ being raised from the dead by the glory of the Father (Romans 6:4), there would be no hope for fallen man.
The glory of the Father is what makes it possible for the Christ to be our saviour.
God the Father has given the Son ALL things, including his throne. But, God the Father is not comatose somewhere. He is still in Christ, giving him all power. God does not change. He is still a Spirit.
“..in Christ shall all be made alive......Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father: when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power.” 1Cor. 15:22-24
According to your doctrine the Father alone is God, and according to this passage only He can be the Savior. Your doctrine falls apart.
The Father is God. Jesus Christ and the Apostles testify of that fact. The scriptures also prove that God the Father is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever.
He was in the Father, and the Father in him, yesterday.
He is in the Father, and the Father in him, today.
And he will be in the Father, and the Father in him, forever.
God the Father has not ceased to be the Son’s source of power and authority.
The Father sent the Son.
The Father kept the Son sinless.
The Father spoke through the Son.
The Father did works through the Son.
The Father raised the Son from the dead.
Your challenge is to prove that the Father is no longer (or pick a period of time if you please) in the Son giving him all power and authority.
When you attempt to slice and dice God......
**Your doctrine falls apart.**
If we take your doctrine to it's logical conclusion, God the Father, stopped being the Father, He became the Son, and is now the Father again.
**Why, does there need to be a Son, God the Father alone is God, and He does the saving.**
Because, FRiend, God is a Spirit, yet he made a physical world (through his Son) that he needed to redeem physically. The Son was only able to do this (as the scriptures prove) through the power of God the Father in him.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Peter got a big atta boy for that admission.
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
You say, No,that's not correct, there is a saviour 'beside God', however that saviour is not God, but empowered by God?
**You say, No,that’s not correct, there is a saviour ‘beside God’, however that saviour is not God, but empowered by God?**
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
You seem to be determined to kick the Father out of the Son. Even the Son says that can’t happen. Jesus said that “I and my Father are one”.
That hasn’t changed. Like I said, show me where the Father is not in Christ.
I'm not kicking the Father out of Christ, and I'm not kicking out the Scriptural teaching that He's eternal God. You believe they are mutually exclusive, and that is contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible.
**I’m not kicking the Father out of Christ,**
If not, then what, in your opinion, is the Father’s official capacity while residing in Christ?.....official observer?
The baptism of the Holy Ghost is real experience, just as witnessed in the Book of Acts. When one received the Holy Ghost, that person knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone else abides within....forever (John 14:16).
But, only one has received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Christ couldn’t have become the saviour any other way. Surely you agree that Peter’s testimonies in Acts are quite accurate. I would recommend you read them again very slowly:
Acts 2:31-36; 3:13-26; 4:24-30; 5:29-32; 10:36-43
Notice how Peter just says “God”, with no three persons of God gobbledegook.
You’re welcome to interpret this one from Acts 4:26, using your doctrine:
“The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together.”
Are you suggesting that God the Father, only resided in Christ for a period of time, and then exited Him? That goes against even your own doctrine, doesn't it? In other words, God the Father resided in Christ just long enough, until Christ could stand on His own two feet as a deity, and then God the Father could exit out of Christ, because Christ became a legit god. worthy to be worshiped. WOW! That's some strange doctrine, dude.
Actually, Paul does say it better than I can.
2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
**Are you suggesting that God the Father, only resided in Christ for a period of time, and then exited Him?**
Almost a clever dodge on your part, but I said, ‘IS’, not ‘WAS’.
But, you still haven’t defined the Father throughout all of this, so I’m not surprised.
Gotta go, the 18 wheeler must roll.
If not, then what, in your opinion, is the Father’s official capacity while residing in Christ?..
The 'IS' in this sentence refers to the 'Father's official capacity.'
As in: What is the Father's official capacity?
The 'while' in this sentence refers to how long that 'official capacity' resided in Christ.
This is the logical conclusion of your faulty doctrine, which I tried to explain to you earlier, falls apart
My advice to you is to REPENT and ask the true and living Jesus Christ, King of kings, and Lord of lords, God Almighty, and your creator, to forgive you of your sin, and be washed in the blood of the lamb.
This a statement I made previously:
But, you still haven’t defined the Father throughout all of this, so I’m not surprised.
I will reword it, but with the same meaning:
But, you still haven’t defined the Father ALL THE WHILE that we’ve had this debate.
All the while, or, for the duration, or, from beginning to ending.
**This is the logical conclusion**
No, it’s your opinion.
So when, in your opinion, is the Father NOT in the Son? And what divine attribute(s) did the Son NOT receive from the Father?
**..forgive you of your sin, and be washed in the blood of the lamb.**
Peter clearly explains where that happens:
“..Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38
Actually, it was the light of God's preserved Word, shining the light of His truth unto the darkness of your false doctrine. That's how you discovered for yourself, with your own words, that your doctrine, falls apart.
But, you still haven’t defined the Father ALL THE WHILE that we’ve had this debate.
EXACTLY! The preserved Word of God doesn't need my help, it defines the Father for you, it's as clear and as plain as can be.
**EXACTLY! The preserved Word of God doesn’t need my help, it defines the Father for you, it’s as clear and as plain as can be.**
Then you should be able to answer my questions EXACTLY:
So when, in your opinion, is the Father NOT in the Son? And what divine attribute(s) did the Son NOT receive from the Father?
With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?
You quoted this a couple of times:
**Isaiah 43:10-11)
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”**
Do you not understand the sentence structure? “saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen,” is the same servant found in Is. 42:1 (the Messiah)
It doesn’t say, “Ye are my witnesses, and my servant whom I have chosen, saith the LORD..”.
Now, Isaiah 44:1,2 shows the servant as Jacob (Israel): “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the LORD that made thee,...”.
And you made your personal interpretation of Hosea 13:4, back in #101:
**Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.**
**Obviously, this verse is referring to Christ being God, because there have been many people over the course of history, who have saved other people from many things, And I’m sure we both agree that they were not God. So this verse is referring to a particular saviour, isn’t it?**
And thus, with your separate and distinct theory, you deny that God the Father had any part in saving Israel from the Egyptians.
Using your doctrine: If God the Father is not literally IN Christ, then the Father is not omnipresent.
**The preserved Word of God doesn’t need my help**
Then why do you offer occasional personal interpretations?
Here's an idea, let's start a new topic, what does the Word says about what happens to those who promote false doctrine?
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Not a good thing, dude.
**The doctrine part of the discussion is over, it has been shown to you by the Word of God that your doctrine does not stand up in the light of Scripture.**
Al Gore (and others) said that the discussion is over on climate change.
I’ve been giving you the light of the scripture as well. You brought up Isaiah....here’s more:
“And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” Isaiah 49:5,6
And for a little refresher, here again is the excerpt from Isaiah 42:1-6...
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles..........Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light unto the Gentiles......”.
**Here’s an idea, let’s start a new topic, what does the Word says about what happens to those who promote false doctrine?**
I’m not the one promoting a phrase (God the Son) that is not found in the light of the Word of God. Are you wiser than the Lord and his apostles?
God the Father is in Jesus Christ. I know this because the Son and his apostles declared it to be so.
**And I’m not going to go around & around in doctrinal circles**
Which is what you are doing, when you promote a theory of separation, yet don’t prove that the Father is not in Christ giving him all power.
Ok. I guess God Himself will straighten one of us out on judgment day. Bye
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.