23 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71no i dont believe he did, in fact, he cannot even distinguish between the father and the
He answered you a few post back I believe.
Manny
son, the creator and the created, they even have different names which distinguish
them, yet it has evaded him, perhaps due to poor translation, 'The Lord', not being a
name at all, but a title.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergIt amazes me that atheists (some of whom don't even play chess) waste their lives reading and posting in the Christianity thread of a spirituality forum when they think it's such fairy tail rubbish. Seriously don't you have a life, mates, girlfriends?
It amazes me that theists on either side of the fence find the other's position incredulous on this issue!
[b]Astrologer: wtf??? you believe in palm reading?
Palm reader: wtf??? you believe our lives are mapped out by star signs?[/b]
Or is it something deeper, perhaps the need to see if there is perhaps something in what the silly theists are on about?
Or is it something shallower, the need to scoff?
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesternever mind Agers what about these insurmountable obstacles to your claim?
It amazes me that atheists (some of whom don't even play chess) waste their lives reading and posting in the Christianity thread of a spirituality forum when they think it's such fairy tail rubbish. Seriously don't you have a life, mates, girlfriends?
Or is it something deeper, perhaps the need to see if there is perhaps something in what the silly theists are on about?
Or is it something shallower, the need to scoff?
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI did robbie twice, but I'll do it again as you answered my "how many saviours" question.
no i dont believe he did, in fact, he cannot even distinguish between the father and the
son, the creator and the created, they even have different names which distinguish
them, yet it has evaded him, perhaps due to poor translation, 'The Lord', not being a
name at all, but a title.
Jesus does not have or need a saviour. The scripture you quoted is not needed to make your very valid point that Jesus to the human eye was completely physically separated from God, he prayed to his Father, could have called for him to take him down from the cross etc. I get that, I see with all Christians what Paul saw when writing to the churches "the mystery of God in Christ." In Acts it talks about the patriarchs of the old testament having "the spirit of Christ in them" and interchanges the terms spirit of Jesus with Holy Spirit almost at will in some chapters. These are strange sayings if we consider the Godhead 1 dimensionally by what we see and not remember that God being eternal is outside of time and sees the being to the end of all things.
23 Apr 11
1 edit
To those interested I suggest taking a big step back and consider the nature of God's character as revealed over the whole Bible. I see without any contradiction a single deity reconciling all things to himself, revealing himself over the ages through Laws and Prophets and finally though an image of himself - in physicality a begotten son, but in essence the bared right arm of the almighty God who made himself lower than the angels and wrapped himself in a veil of flesh. In doing this he made himself prone to our weaknesses and required to be obedient to set an example. The outworking of this is we SEE Jesus praying to his Father and we SEE him being tempted to throw himself down etc. What we see is not a God sending a completely separate being to do his own dirty work - we see (step back remember) a single deity reconciling HIMSELF to man.
The scriptures I have given in this thread I believe show the unified deity that is the one God of Abraham and is unchanging for all eternity, saving his people himself in the flesh. The offices of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just offices held by the same single deity and personage.
The following is important if we are to see the big picture of God revealing himself. The disciples were instructed by Jesus himself to spread the good news in this manner:
Matt 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Immediately afterwards we see the disciples in the book of Acts obeying Jesus command and in EVERY baptismal situation without exception the disciples baptised people in the name of Jesus. Did they get it wrong!
Note that "name" is singular, it doesn't say names or titles, it says NAME. The singular name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is the only name given amongst men by which we may be saved is - JESUS (God saves).
23 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterwhat a cop out, you expect us to answer all your questions in detail and when you are
To those interested I suggest taking a big step back and consider the nature of God's character as revealed over the whole Bible. I see without any contradiction a single deity reconciling all things to himself, revealing himself over the ages through Laws and Prophets and finally though an image of himself - in physicality a begotten son, but in essenc it which is the only name given amongst men by which we may be saved is - JESUS (God saves).
pressed in the same way you evade it! Its nothing short of fraud!
Its states clearly in the name of the Father, last time i looked, Jesus was the name of
the son, but hey if you are unwilling to acknowledge that the son himself had a saviour
making all your other claims erroneous, you are hardly likely to differentiate between
the name of the father and the name of the son, let it be known, you have evaded the
truth of the matter for days now while trying to find a pretence against it.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCalm down.
what a cop out, you expect us to answer all your questions in detail and when you are
pressed in the same way you evade it! Its nothing short of fraud!
I answered your question (for the third time) in my previous post, trying to use different language.
I've not asked you or Galveston for any "detail" in fact I make a point of trying to get yes/no answers from you to keep it simple.
You and Galv chose to enter this thread and both chose at various points to copy/paste mass detail and references - I never ask for that.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere is the scripture - it's in my post.
Its states clearly in the name of the Father, last time i looked, Jesus was the name of
the son.
Matt 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've answered your question three times, very clearly and with some thinking behind my rational in my post on the previous page.
but hey if you are unwilling to acknowledge that the son himself had a saviour
making all your other claims erroneous, you are hardly likely to differentiate between
the name of the father and the name of the son, let it be known, you have evaded the
truth of the matter for days now while trying to find a pretence against it.
Jesus did not need a saviour.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesterMatthew 27:46 (New Living Translation)
I did robbie twice, but I'll do it again as you answered my "how many saviours" question.
Jesus does not have or need a saviour. The scripture you quoted is not needed to make your very valid point that Jesus to the human eye was completely physically separated from God, he prayed to his Father, could have called for him to take him down from the cro ...[text shortened]... er that God being eternal is outside of time and sees the being to the end of all things.
46 At about three o’clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
If Jesus did not need a saviour or help from his father, why did Jesus say this?
Please no side stepping or changing the subject here. Just a to the point explination by you.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75I've not side stepped anything Galv and my post accepts that robbie's point of observation is a valid one - did you read that bit?
Matthew 27:46 (New Living Translation)
46 At about three o’clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
If Jesus did not need a saviour or help from his father, why did Jesus say this?
Please no side stepping or changing the subject here. Just a to the point explination by you.
“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
Jesus bore in his body the burden of our sins at Calvary, when he was on the cross his flesh bore the sin alone. He was not able to share that burned supernaturally but by himself. He felt what every sinner feels - separated from God. There is nothing that we feel or suffer that he has not.
Did you read my post at the top of this page? Take a step back from every detail and look for the truth of God's nature and character as a single deity reconciling himself to the world.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesterIn the name of:
To those interested I suggest taking a big step back and consider the nature of God's character as revealed over the whole Bible. I see without any contradiction a single deity reconciling all things to himself, revealing himself over the ages through Laws and Prophets and finally though an image of himself - in physicality a begotten son, but in essenc ...[text shortened]... it which is the only name given amongst men by which we may be saved is - JESUS (God saves).
With appeal to; often used to introduce oaths; By the authority of; Under the name or possession of; Under the designation or excuse of
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_the_name_of
So, probably, it is best interpreted as "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them by the authority of of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In other words, what is conferred by baptism is conferred by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not by that of the baptizer, who is only the "administrator." This is theologically sound and works grammatically whether the predicate of "in the name of" is singular or plural.
Of course the original language could be looked at.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesterFair play...that was me being a bit of a dick, apologies. :]
It amazes me that atheists (some of whom don't even play chess) waste their lives reading and posting in the Christianity thread of a spirituality forum when they think it's such fairy tail rubbish. Seriously don't you have a life, mates, girlfriends?
Or is it something deeper, perhaps the need to see if there is perhaps something in what the silly theists are on about?
Or is it something shallower, the need to scoff?
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm not really understanding your comment it seems. Did Jesus need his Fathers help or did he not? Did he need to be saved from the tomb after his death or could he have resurrected himself without his Fathers help? Or was Jesus never really dead at all?
I've not side stepped anything Galv and my post accepts that robbie's point of observation is a valid one - did you read that bit?
“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
Jesus bore in his body the burden of our sins at Calvary, when he was on the cross his flesh bore the sin alone. He was not able to share that burned supernaturally but by hi ...[text shortened]... r the truth of God's nature and character as a single deity reconciling himself to the world.