**Pretending scripture doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.**
You mean like you ignoring John 14:10 doesn’t exist? That verse is as black and white as they come, but you won’t touch it.
**I again gave you Scriptures (Hosea 13:4 - Isaiah 43:10-11) that show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Saviour is God Almighty, and you ignored them,**
I told you that since the Father is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he is right there in Christ empowering him in every way.
You like Isaiah?...so do I....
“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......”. Isaiah 42:1-6
**..and went right into your diatribe of Jesus being some kind of a sock-puppet that..**
Yes that sounds ridiculous, since a sock puppet has no life in himself, nor a will of his own, contrary to the Son’s own testimony. As I pointed out, the Son testified as to where he received his life, and declared that he was not a witness to his own will, but the will of the Father.
**..the Father created, because he needed SOMETHING to fill up with divinity.**
“..the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgement. And he saw that there was no man, and that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.” Isaiah 59:15,16
**After His resurrection, Christ was in His glorified body,**
Then why couldn’t Mary touch him, yet eight days later, he encouraged it? Granted it’s a question that seems off topic, but there was a reason for everything that the Son did.
**how long do you think it would have taken Him to ascend into heaven and come back? Days? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?**
Well, you tell me, since you seem to think that you know.
**Please remember, God is not the author of confusion,**
No problem there. For example, I believe that the apostles were obedient to Matt. 28:19, fully knowing the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore baptized in the name of Jesus (it’s the name that the Son inherited, and is the name that the Holy Ghost is sent in). Trinitarians have confused that teaching.
**Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.**
Your sock puppet talks? (you brought up the woeful concept)
remember that I brought up Heb. 10:5...”a body thou hast prepared me”. And, Heb. 1:5...”Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
**According to Scripture, Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that God the Father has, including being eternal God.**
The glorified Son said, “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth. “ Matt. 28:19
And how is that?...it’s because of the Father in him.
**(Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”**
So, under your ‘separate and distinct’ theory, when does the Son start being the everlasting Father? Paul opens most of his epistles with this in the greeting: “..from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ...”.
**John 10:30 I and my Father are one.**
Yet you seem to believe that to be separate persons, but still in unity, not as the Son taught throughout the book of John.
Then you go to various verses to attempt to prove that the Son is a separate and distinct person of God, concluding with this statement:
**Now, we have a true understand of what is meant by that verse in Revelation. That Jesus Christ was there in the beginning, and that all things were created by him and for him.**
Paul explains it better than your statement:
“but unto us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things..” (remember that the Son did not call himself God the Son, but the Son OF God)..”..and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him.” 1Cor. 8:6
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and though all, and in you all”. Eph. 4:4-6
**John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.**
So, in your ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ theory, why does the Son credit the Father as the source of all divine will, words, doctrine, works, etc.
Under my belief, the Son came from the Father. That’s not only his teaching, but his disciples. That’s why he is called the Son OF God, not God the Son.
“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father...’ John 6:57
“And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” John 8:29
**John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.**
“..glorify thou me with thine own self..”.
The Son is telling you right there that it is the Father’s glory that the Son dwells in.
**Yes, Jesus humbled Himself, when he took on human flesh, and even though He had every legal right to His divinity, He did not exercise His divine rights, but submitted Himself entirely to the Father, and took everything that the Father gave Him.**
So what do you believe?...Was the separate and distinct Father only active during Christ earthly ministry, since you ascribe all creation to the separate and distinct Son?
**That’s flat out heresy.**
The Son said that he is of the Father. I take it that you disagree with him.
The verdict about who is ignoring scriptures is certainly not settled, IMO.
(John 14:10)
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Oh, I'll touch on it, I'm not scared. Two points, first Jesus is not merely God. Unlike the Father, He is truly God, and truly man.(Son of God & Son of man) He is the God-man. As the God-man, He is perfect man, who worships, honors, obeys, and prays to God the Father. In Fact, the incarnate Son is dependent on the Father.
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gives us the answer as to how the Son could be dependent on the Father if the Son is God.
(Philippians 2:6-8)
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: {7} But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Isaiah 42:1-6?
Prophesying the coming of the God-man(See above for explanation of Son of God Son of man )
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......”.
Yes that sounds ridiculous, since a sock puppet has no life in himself, nor a will of his own, contrary to the Son’s own testimony.
And yet, this is where your Jehovah Witness/Jewish/Muslim/Unitarianism doctrine leads you.
More (Son of God/Son of man)God-man prophecy
“..the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgement. And he saw that there was no man, and that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.” Isaiah 59:15,16
Then why couldn’t Mary touch him, yet eight days later, he encouraged it? Granted it’s a question that seems off topic, but there was a reason for everything that the Son did.
The text is clear Mary couldn't touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, but as the resurrected Christ, He would now be free to ascend to the Father, once he did that, (perhaps it was all done in the "twinkling of an eye") He then returned in enough time to encourage the disciples to touch Him.
No problem there. For example, I believe that the apostles were obedient to Matt. 28:19, fully knowing the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore baptized in the name of Jesus (it’s the name that the Son inherited, and is the name that the Holy Ghost is sent in). Trinitarians have confused that teaching.
You must be using your New World Order Bible again, or adding your own words to it, the preserved Word of God says
(Matthew 28:19)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Your sock puppet talks? (you brought up the woeful concept) remember that I brought up Heb. 10:5...”a body thou hast prepared me”. And, Heb. 1:5...”Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
That concept was sprung from your "private interpretation" of the word of God.
The glorified Son said, “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth. “ Matt. 28:19
And how is that?...it’s because He is truly God, and truly man, the God-man.
(Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
So, under your ‘separate and distinct’ theory, when does the Son start being the everlasting Father?
He doesn't start, that's the whole case being made to you, Jesus is not a 'created being' and this verse describes the Oneness nature of the Godhead. Christ has always had ALL the same attributes, He is the God-man
Paul opens most of his epistles with this in the greeting: “..from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ...”.
Right, and Paul making clear to you and to all, the separate and distinct part of the nature of God.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Yet you seem to believe that to be separate persons, but still in unity, not as the Son taught throughout the book of John.
I believe it, because the whole of Scripture teaches it, God is one, consisting of three separate and distinct personages.
Paul explains it better than your statement:
I don't disagree, why then don't you believe Paul?
“but unto us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things..” (remember that the Son did not call himself God the Son, but the Son OF God)..”..and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him.” 1Cor. 8:6
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and though all, and in you all”. Eph. 4:4-6
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So, in your ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ theory, why does the Son credit the Father as the source of all divine will, words, doctrine, works, etc.
(John 6:57 John 8:29 John 17:5)
So what do you believe?...Was the separate and distinct Father only active during Christ earthly ministry, since you ascribe all creation to the separate and distinct Son?
The Father and the Son have different roles within the economy of the Godhead. There is equality in nature, but subordination in their personal roles. For instance, the Son submits to the Father, but not vice versa. Therefore, in the above verses, we see that Jesus affirms His relational subordinate role, but He never denies His full deity in any of those verses, and that is where your doctrine falls apart.