“Well, if you are using those passages (from 1Kings 2, and John 2) for your tradition of praying to those that have died (other than Jesus Christ), then you need to toss the interpretation thing, and just notice that nowhere in the scriptures is there a good example of praying to anyone that has died, except to Jesus Christ (who didn’t pray to anyone other than the Father, while he lived on this earth).”
No. Again, the fact that insist on trying to strip Christianity of doctrines or practices YOU don’t like as a Protestants doesn’t demand anything of me. YOU refuse to accept a particular interpretation of scripture. That’s YOU. YOU’RE the one who is wrong, not me. Again, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, many Anglicans, and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox see no problem with the secondary interpretation. YOU do. YOUR opinion simply doesn’t matter.
“James wasn’t writing to those that were asleep in Christ.”
I didn’t say he was - but the principle is the same. It’s one Church.
“I saw that. Why do you think I referenced that verse?”
To show how little you understand about scripture.
“But if you are convinced that it is speaking of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, where is the wine mentioned? More interpreting?”
It has to be specifically mentioned now? Isn’t that just “interpretation” on your part? Read 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. See how St. Paul mentions wine in the first verse but then talks about the breaking of bread in the next verse?
“So when I define God the way the scriptures define God, I’m not defining him correctly?”
You’re not defining God the way the scriptures define God because the scriptures never “define” God. The scriptures tell us some things about God, but no scripture could define God. And that is in scripture: Job 11:7, Ps. 145:3, Job 26:14, Isa. 55:8–9, Rom. 11:33–34; cf. Job 42:1–6; Ps. 139:6, 17–18; 147:5; Isa. 57:15; 1 Cor. 2:10–11; 1 Tim. 6:13–16.
“That was carefully worded; with you basically saying that the Father and the Son have the same attributes (except for human flesh); while avoiding the fact the Son declared that he received all things from the Father.”
And that changes nothing I said. You keep beating not only the dead horse, but the WRONG dead horse. Why?
“And who gave the Son his humanity?.....”
Again, you’re going on and on about something we’re not even arguing over.
“Let’s go back about 150 years.”
Let’s not. You’re failing now and I have no reason to believe your chances would have been better back then.
“If you were born and raised in Nebraska, and came to know more about that state than any other man, this could be said about you:”
Your analogy is still wrong. I realize you seem to be struggling with how logic works. I can’t correct whatever education you gained or not years ago. Only you can fix that at this point. The point I made in the beginning is still unanswered by you: PERSON the PERSON. That is how the analogy MUST be for it to be a correct analogy. Anything else is a failed analogy.
“Nebraska the vladimir998”.
Again, the correct analogy would have to be “vladimir998 the Nebraskan”. I’m a person. A Nebraskan is a person. You keep making this ridiculously wrong blunder of analogizing “Son” with a U.S. State - “Nebraska.” That’s completely illogical and someone who knew basic logic would never make that mistake. You keep making it over and over again and then make ridiculous arguments trying to defend your error.
“Because the state of Nebraska is not a man, but a place that men have originated from.”
And what do we call a person who originated in Nebraska? A Nebraskan! “vladimir998 the Nebraskan.” Not only did you make an erroneous analogy but you then completely undermined it by just admitting what I said before in post #471 was correct all along: “Now, if we take your ‘Nebraska’ and ‘vladimir998’ analogy and actually make the proper analogy rather than the incorrect one you used it would be this: “vladimir998 the Nebraskan”. You mistakenly used “Nebraska”. Nebraska is a place, not a person. Jesus is a Person. God is a Person. The Son is a Person. The Father is a Person. The Holy Spirit is a Person. Thus, the correct analogy must be “PERSON the PERSON””
Notice, my argument has been the same - and absolutely correct - since the beginning whereas yours has been erroneous all along and you are now trying to defend your argument by undermining your own statements.
“God is not a man.”
Jesus is the God-man. He was always God and then became man. John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”
“God is a Spirit (John 4:23,24).”
And now the Son is a man as well.
“But, God the Father dwells IN a man, and that man dwells in the Father (John 14:10). That is the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
Who is a man now too. 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
“You can dwell in Nebraska,
and Nebraska can dwell in you: the life it has given you (sustenance), and all that it has taught you.”
No, Nebraska cannot dwell in anybody because it is not an animate thing. It is merely a man-made geographic unit. Or it is a place of soil, trees, rivers, and grain. It cannot dwell in a man because man has no capacity for Nebraska the land and no geographic unit can dwell in a man because “Nebraska” is merely an arbitrary and abstract designation. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of how to make a logical argument.
God the Son is Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God. He is Divine. And He is man as well. He was always God and took on human nature. There is no contradiction in any of that.
“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (NIV John 1:18)
Really short on time. Got a quick turn around. I’ll try to cover what I skipped tomorrow night.
**analogizing “Son” with a U.S. State - “Nebraska.”**
No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.
The Son is of God. That is what the Son testified.
**Nebraska is a place, not a person.**
It is an origin for many. A source of food. A place of learning.
Don’t like places and people in the same phrase? (Jesus of Nazareth).
Have you ever talked to a place? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah.....”(Micah 5:2)
Or talked to a tree? “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever”. Matt. 21:19
**“PERSON the PERSON””**
You mean like “Billy the Bob”?, or “Jenny the Susan”?
Your problem is how you define the phrase.
“God the Father”, is defining a person and his title, not two persons.
“The Son of God” is a two person phrase. The first person mentioned is “OF” the second person.
That’s why you don’t find the phrase “God the Son” in the scriptures. God is the source of the Son. God is the Father. God the Father is continually in the Son, giving all power and wisdom.
But your model has to create separation: making the Son, God, along side God the Father. And you further show your misunderstanding of the scriptures by quoting......
**John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”**.......
...whereby you seem to think you have proven the Son to be God, separately and distinctly, from God the Father. When the reality is that you can’t take the Son of God out of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God the Father; or God the Father out of the Son.......not even long enough to quote John 1:14.
**“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (NIV John 1:18)**
..”who is himself God”...
See,...your version even tries to show separation. I prefer the old KJV:
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:14 KJV