As a christian, is there a such thing as putting too much emphasis on christ?
Options
Comments
-
Jesus = ? the Son.
It’s not a ‘trinity’ though. The father and Jesus are not one and the same being. They are two separate beings. -
kids in america_ wrote: »It’s not a ‘trinity’ though and they [the Father and Jesus/ The Word] are not one and the same being. They are two separate beings.
How are they separate?
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: ? was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
ALL FROM JOHN 17, you should read that and get back to me. I'll post up what subject we're on all from John 17 though.
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]
21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Read all of John 17 if you'd like. I'm sure you have but this all speaks of them as one. -
*scratches head*
So you’re saying Jesus is the Father? How can a "father" and a "son" be the same person? -
...kings sometimes spoke as "us" when talkin bout themselves...
-
kids in america_ wrote: »*scratches head*
So you’re saying Jesus is the Father? How can a "father" and a "son" be the same person?
That's why I said, ? the Son. He isn't ? the FATHER. ? is ? , he is one spiritual being. He manifested himself into the flesh, right there bro. 1 Tim. 3:16 -
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
-
That was a rhetorical question about who is good. You misunderstand what he says bro.
We could be but the nature of sin prevents it. If it's done right you can be on the brink of it. Thoughts will always prevent it, i.e. sexual ? , pride etc..It still is ONE ? . Jesus says so himself, there is ONE ? . ? has a trinity though, which is who the "US" is in the beginning.
Philippians 2: 5 - 11 ---
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] ? ,
did not consider equality with ? something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore ? exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of ? the Father.
If Jesus is not ? , then this description would not apply to him. We woudln't call Jesus Lord nor would he be exalted to the highest place whose name is above every name. Sounds like ? to me
What is there to misunderstand he's called good and asks why when the only thing that is good is ? alone. There's no way he could be ? if he makes that distinction himself clearly there was a difference in HIS MIND between himself and ?
If Jesus is ? how is possible for the devil to tempt him then? Like really just think about that you think it's possible for and omnipotent ? to be tempted by one of his creatures? nevermind the fact that it says in the Bible itself that ? cannot be tempted. Also If Jesus is ? how is it that there are things that the father knows that he does not know? I'm talking about the Us in the bible which the article i gave the link to clearly deals with because like PUPU IZ DRO said i've heard royalty refer to themselves with the plural of respect but does anybody think they're ever more than one person? of course not? Did you even read the article because all you did was quote a verse from somebody else on what they thought of Jesus not what he said about himself and that's my biggest problem with christians. Prove it with his own words or don't bother because it's hard enough proving he even SAID the things attributed to him, let alone taking the word of some nameless "author" who may not even have really known him during his life? Yea, ok. -
supaman4321 wrote: »What is there to misunderstand he's called good and asks why when the only thing that is good is ? alone. There's no way he could be ? if he makes that distinction himself clearly there was a difference in HIS MIND between himself and ?
If Jesus is ? how is possible for the devil to tempt him then? Like really just think about that you think it's possible for and omnipotent ? to be tempted by one of his creatures? nevermind the fact that it says in the Bible itself that ? cannot be tempted. Also If Jesus is ? how is it that there are things that the father knows that he does not know? I'm talking about the Us in the bible which the article i gave the link to clearly deals with because like PUPU IZ DRO said i've heard royalty refer to themselves with the plural of respect but does anybody think they're ever more than one person? of course not? Did you even read the article because all you did was quote a verse from somebody else on what they thought of Jesus not what he said about himself and that's my biggest problem with christians. Prove it with his own words or don't bother because it's hard enough proving he even SAID the things attributed to him, let alone taking the word of some nameless "author" who may not even have really known him during his life? Yea, ok.
If Jesus was not good then he would have sinned. If Jesus was not good then he couldn't bear our sins and forgive us. If Jesus was not good, we couldn't have salvation. Jesus is saying no one is good except ? so how would you call me good unless you knew that I was ? ? Jesus isn't saying he's not good or that he's not ? , he's posing a question to this man and challenging him.
? , the man in the heavens cannot be tempted. Since he is now manifested in the FLESH, he can be.
Also, what do you mean I'm quoting someone else? Because I quoted the bible? -
That's why I said, ? the Son. He isn't ? the FATHER. ? is ? , he is one spiritual being. He manifested himself into the flesh, right there bro. 1 Tim. 3:16
Study 1 Corinthians 15:28, John 14:28, and 1 Corinthians 11:3 -
How are they separate?
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: ? was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
ALL FROM JOHN 17, you should read that and get back to me. I'll post up what subject we're on all from John 17 though.
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]
21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Read all of John 17 if you'd like. I'm sure you have but this all speaks of them as one.
Do you people actually read what you put? In each one of those verses from John 17, Jesus is asking that that ? make the people left on Earth one with him, just as Jesus is one with him. Those verses far more support the idea that Jesus is simply the "Son of ? " in the way that we are all sons and daughters of ? . In other words, him being one with the father is not something unique to him clearly since he's requesting that ? show that same favor to all people. This is pretty much the foundation of Protestantism. It's why we don't confess to priests. We believe that we all have personal connections to ? . Jesus is not saying that he's ? in those verses. Seriously, why would Jesus even pray to ? if he was ? . And why would he show such deference to a being who is of no greater stature than himself? That doesn't make sense.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
I'm convinced you just post scriptures at random and have no real understanding of what you put. -
If Jesus was not good then he would have sinned. If Jesus was not good then he couldn't bear our sins and forgive us. If Jesus was not good, we couldn't have salvation. Jesus is saying no one is good except ? so how would you call me good unless you knew that I was ? ? Jesus isn't saying he's not good or that he's not ? , he's posing a question to this man and challenging him.
? , the man in the heavens cannot be tempted. Since he is now manifested in the FLESH, he can be.
Also, what do you mean I'm quoting someone else? Because I quoted the bible?
people will interpret things however they want i suppose but i'm having a hard time understanding how you would interpret all of that when he speaks so plainly. If he really was ? then what would be the point of saying why did you call me good when only ? is good, notice how when the man who he was speaking to talks to him again he only calls him teacher instead of good teacher so apparently he got the message don't you think? If it was as you interpreted it then he would've continued to call him good or better yet there would have been no need for Jesus to say only ? is good, you make him sound like he has some serious psychological disorder.
James 1:13 not only says that ? can't be tempted but that he doesn't tempt any one(which is entirely different discussion) it doesn't say it's possible for him to be tempted when he comes in the flesh but that HE CANNOT BE TEMPTED, there are no loop holes no matter how badly you would them to be there. Now look at the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil, for the sake of argument let's say you're right, let's say that Jesus is ? in the flesh, if Jesus is ? why would the Devil EVER think of tempting ? into worshiping and rewarding him with things that already would've been in his possession!?
"8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy ? , and him only shalt thou serve"
Matthew 4: 8 - 10
does that make sense to you that the devil would even be able to just man handle ? and take him to some mountain and try to run game on him like some ? and tempt him into worshiping him with things that the True ? and ONLY the True ? would already own. Really?
You're quoting somewhere else in that i'm pretty sure you quoted the words of Paul i'm asking you to prove this in Jesus' own words he spoke well enough for himself without needing somebody that persecuted his followers then "maybe" thinking he met him in a dream/revelation to speak for him
Jesus is not ? end of story, the ? of the Torah boasts constantly that he's ? and constantly warns people of what happens if you will follow somebody that isn't ? , Jesus on the other hand never claims he is ? , prays to and worships ? , and warns people not to worship anybody but "My ? and your ? ". ? don't half step and he doesn't infer that he's ? he speaks explicitly which is something that Jesus doesn't do with regard to him being divine. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Do you people actually read what you put? In each one of those verses from John 17, Jesus is asking that that ? make the people left on Earth one with him, just as Jesus is one with him. Those verses far more support the idea that Jesus is simply the "Son of ? " in the way that we are all sons and daughters of ? . In other words, him being one with the father is not something unique to him clearly since he's requesting that ? show that same favor to all people. This is pretty much the foundation of Protestantism. It's why we don't confess to priests. We believe that we all have personal connections to ? . Jesus is not saying that he's ? in those verses. Seriously, why would Jesus even pray to ? if he was ? . And why would he show such deference to a being who is of no greater stature than himself? That doesn't make sense.
I'm convinced you just post scriptures at random and have no real understanding of what you put.
I see that man and what He means by the world being one with ? is that they believe. When I read my bible, pray, do not sin, whatever then I am at one with ? . I am NOT ? but I am at one with Him because I believe. Read John 17, not just my verses. John 17 states they are a part of ? now because they believe and they aren't apart of this world any more.
That's all. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart/mind of the believer, a true believer. That is what the "world" would have if they are believers.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of ? : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of ? : And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of ? : and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:2-3 -
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our ? [is] one Lord:
Deuteronomy 6:4
Here it states there is ONE Lord, the Lord our ? . ? !
But to us [there is but] one ? , the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
Here it states Jesus Christ as LORD. But there is only one LORD, which is ? . If Jesus isn't ? , then how can all He be "all things" such as it previously says about ? ?
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: ? was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
I'll post this again. This says itself, ? WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. What else could that possibly mean? YOU give me an explanation. (any one here in general)
He was manifest in the flesh = Jesus
Preached unto the Gentiles = BY Jesus
Believed on in the world = BY Jesus
Received up into glory = BY Jesus
Lastly, explain this to me. Since there is no trinity, explain this verse to me.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8
These 3 ARE 1. It's point blank. There is no need to break this down, to do anything to but read and understand. -
I see that man and what He means by the world being one with ? is that they believe. When I read my bible, pray, do not sin, whatever then I am at one with ? . I am NOT ? but I am at one with Him because I believe. Read John 17, not just my verses. John 17 states they are a part of ? now because they believe and they aren't apart of this world any more.
That's all. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart/mind of the believer, a true believer. That is what the "world" would have if they are believers.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of ? : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of ? : And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of ? : and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:2-3
I agree completely with you. That's exactly what it means to be one with ? . The point is that Jesus is asking ? to make the one with him just as he is one with him. That means that Jesus is making the request that ? give man the same relationship that he gave Jesus. Look at the words closely:that they may be one, as we [are]may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in theethat they may be one, even as we are one
In every single one of those quotes, he is asking that the disciples have the same relationship with each other that Jesus has with ? . He's not literally asking t hat the disciples become one person. He's asking that they be joined together in a common goal and understanding. He's likening that relationship exactly with his to ? , so he can't possibly be saying that he and ? are the same person unless you think he's asking ? to make all the disciples the same person. Basically, from this it makes more sense if you look at Jesus relationship with ? being exactly the same as what you just described our relationship with ? . -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I agree completely with you. That's exactly what it means to be one with ? . The point is that Jesus is asking ? to make the one with him just as he is one with him. That means that Jesus is making the request that ? give man the same relationship that he gave Jesus. Look at the words closely:
In every single one of those quotes, he is asking that the disciples have the same relationship with each other that Jesus has with ? . He's not literally asking t hat the disciples become one person. He's asking that they be joined together in a common goal and understanding. He's likening that relationship exactly with his to ? , so he can't possibly be saying that he and ? are the same person unless you think he's asking ? to make all the disciples the same person. Basically, from this it makes more sense if you look at Jesus relationship with ? being exactly the same as what you just described our relationship with ? .
I can see what you're saying. What about my post below yours? -
I love how you completely disregard the points i brought and don't even bother to answer them it's kinda funny
http://quranmalayalam.com/program/jesus/ch1.2.2.5.html that article deals with the fabricated verse of 1 John 5 - 7
and i'm not asking you to throw more verses at me to try and prove your point i'm waiting on your to explain the incompatibility of the ones i've presented to you already trust me there are plenty more for you to tackle later on, and like i said before just point the verse to me where Jesus says "I Am ? " or even "We are both One ? " and i'll drop this and preach right along with you but we both know that's not gonna happen because he never even said the word "trinity"
"The most reliable manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16 do not say "? was manifested in the flesh." Rather our most reliable manuscripts say "who" or which" was manifested in flesh." When the Christological controversies were occurring in the fourth and early fifth centuries, we do not see even one solitary person making a reference to this passage as evidence for the deity of Christ. This undeniably proves it was unknown to them. If indeed 1 Timothy 3:16 really said "? was manifest in the flesh," we can most definitely be sure this passage would have most been brought forward as "Exhibit A." Yet, not one soul mentions it even though this passage more than any other would have supported the teaching that the incarnate Christ was "? ." But the facts remain as they are and it was never mentioned once in the myriads of documentation that exist illustrating what was argued in these debates. There is a good reason that no one in the fourth century church ever mentioned the passage. The word "? " did not appear in 1 Timothy 3:16 until much later. It first appeared in manuscripts after Trinitarian dogma was fully developed and canonized and is an obvious later alteration. The oldest and best manuscripts do not have the word "? " (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16 which is why modern Bible translations do not have the word "? " at 1 Timothy 3:16 either."
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/1Tim3_16.html
I actually make attempts at making rebuttals to what you say but instead of you doing the same you just bring up more stuff that's supposed to help you but doesn't
Also the reason why I disregard Paul is because i'm fairly certain there's a verse where he states he will conform to the people and act the way they do and believe what they do in an attempt to win them over to Christ, does that honestly sound like the practices that a ? fearing man what use, does that even sound like something ? would approve of? ? would be ok with you distorting his message in order to win over a few pagans? yea ok.
I'll be waiting on responses to the stuff i said earlier let alone this stuff, please don't post anything new and deal with the stuff that's already been brought fourth
salaam -
Well, I will sit back and see what this is about.
-
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our ? [is] one Lord:
Deuteronomy 6:4
Here it states there is ONE Lord, the Lord our ? . ? !
But to us [there is but] one ? , the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
Here it states Jesus Christ as LORD. But there is only one LORD, which is ? . If Jesus isn't ? , then how can all He be "all things" such as it previously says about ? ?
Ok, this is something you can't do with the Bible. Those books were written by two different people at two different times. You can't take a random line from one book, combine it with a random line from another book, and then make a logical conclusion. It doesn't work like that. Not only that, but you're even mixing Testaments. The Deuteronomy verse predates Jesus' introduction to the world.And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: ? was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
I'll post this again. This says itself, ? WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. What else could that possibly mean? YOU give me an explanation. (any one here in general)
He was manifest in the flesh = Jesus
Preached unto the Gentiles = BY Jesus
Believed on in the world = BY Jesus
Received up into glory = BY Jesus
I've never argued that other people attributed that kind of title to Jesus. I've said that Jesus never made that kind of claim about himself. He said he was ? 's Word made flesh. That's different from saying that he is ? made flesh. Again, if the truth was as simple as saying that Jesus was ? in human form, why did he spend so much time talking to ? and praying to ? . If he was ? , why would he need to pray to himself? Why would he scream out to ? asking why he had forsaken him? That doesn't make sense right.Lastly, explain this to me. Since there is no trinity, explain this verse to me.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8
These 3 ARE 1. It's point blank. There is no need to break this down, to do anything to but read and understand.
I never said there wasn't a trinity. I said that there is nothing that says that trinity is equal. The topic is about whether too much emphasis is put on Christ. Jesus himself said ? is higher than him. Jesus' whole purpose was to deliver ? 's message, so how much sense does it make to worship the messenger just as much as the one whose message was being delivered? Also, by your argument the Holy Ghost should be worshipped too, but no one does that. No one worships the Holy Ghost in the same way they worship Jesus -
They were translating between languages. Translation is not an exact science. Depending on the translators interpretation of the source greek word, they chose to translate "? " or "He".
BUT as for the KJV being so different, I now look at it differently now. I never realized because I only read the KJV to be honest. So thanks for that, I'll be looking into that. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
Also this, quoted from a response in a blog."Some Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this.
1 John 5:7 quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT.
5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
Other Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this.
1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.
5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.
http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5
The Latin versions of John’s first epistle that do NOT include the Johannine Comma say this.
1John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, 8 spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.
5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give, 8 Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.
http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/69005.htm
Cyprian says this in Latin regarding John 10:30 and 1 John 5:8 (as quoted by Martin Shue).
dicit dominus, ego et pater unum sumus, et iterum de patre et filio et spiritus sancto scriptum est, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.
He-says, Lord, I and Father one we-are, and again, of Father and Son and Spirit Holy, written it-is, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.
http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html
The factual truth of the matter is that the clause “ET TRES UNUM SUNT” appears ONLY in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle, NOT in the Comma, whereas the clause “ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT” always appears in the Comma in any Latin version of John’s first epistle that includes the Comma.
Therefore, the factual truth of the matter is that Cyprian is quoting from 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle that was available to him, NOT from the Comma.
This is not a matter of personal interpretation. It is a fact.
Why did Cyprian quote 1 John 5:8 (“ET TRES UNUM EST”] instead of quoting the Comma (“ET HI TRES UNUM EST”)?
The answer is obvious, which is that the Latin version of John’s first epistle that Cyprian was quoting did NOT include the Comma—otherwise, Cyprian would have quoted the Comma—and that Cyprian was giving the phrase “spiritus et aqua et sanguis” (Spirit and water and Blood) in 1 John 5:8, which he was quoting, saying, “et tres unum est” (and three one they-are), the Trinitarian interpretation “patre et filio et spiritus sancto” (Father and Son and Spirit Holy).
As for Jesus saying He doesn't know things that His father does type things. I think it's called Kenosis? -
kids in america_ wrote: »*scratches head*
So you’re saying Jesus is the Father? How can a "father" and a "son" be the same person?
thats he whole poin of the trinty though -
supaman4321 wrote: »Plural of respect
Allah says "we" and "us" in the Qur'an but no Muslim will ever say that ? is anything more than One ? with no partners or associates
http://www.wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch14.html
This article goes more in depth into the plural of respect and the website in general deals with the divinity of 'Isa
Salaam
This is highly unlikely.
As far as I know, there is no ‘biblical’ king (or else leader for that matter) who referred to himself as “we” and "us" in the Hebrew text. According to my studies, the “plural of respect” concept is foreign to the Hebrew scripture. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »If you can't follow the message how can you follow the messenger to get to ? ?
This should have been the thread closer right here. -
-
MY HOW IVE GROWN SPIRITUALLY
