The Trinity and Bible Proofs that Jesus Christ is God

[Shiwiii]

25 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

By reading scripture correctly, I cannot agree with your assessment. Jesus was being symbolic as to the intent, whoever literal as to his Father's power to raise him. This is indeed how the interpretation is rendered within Christendom.

what was symbolic was "His body" and this is also confirmed by Scripture. John 2:21and 22 attest to this. Not symbolic as to who was going to do it. This is proven by the answer by the Jews. 

[Shiwiii]

31 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I'm afraid it does. When dealing with the word firstborn, it doesn't mean Jesus was born in the heavens but was created to be part of God's creation of the heavens and earth. This means every spirit entity, the heavens, earth, animals, vegetation, and humans. The only difference, everything after Jesus was second.

again, you mention created and there is no scriptural support for Jesus being created. No scripture says that AFTER Jesus was created, THEN He created everything else. 

[Shiwiii]

25 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The only factor that plays against you is the fact Jesus was/is able to do nothing himself expect the Father who is able to do these things.

irregardless, What John 1:3 says is that Jesus created everything that was created. It does not say everything after He Himself was created. 

 

27 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Not to mention they misinterpret what he said, as is done before.

yes they did, as mentioned to Billy. They thought of the temple THEY built. 

 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So how, according to you does that relate back to Acts 2:24 when Acts 13:2 is not a cross-references to the core passage in of itself?

It correlates just as I said, It is another instance of the Holy Spirit. 

 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

We also should not be leaving out the fact the verse professed before states that He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit which dwells in you. So yes.

agreed

 

29 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

nothing points back in references to Jesus being risen from the tomb.

well John 2:19 does.  It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself.  

[Shiwiii]

22 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

• God raised him up again, having loosed the pangs of death, since it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:24).
• This Jesus God raised up again. (Acts 2:32). 
• You put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. (Acts 3:15). 
• Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 4:10). 
• The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. (Acts 5:30). 
• God raised him up on the third day (Acts 10:40). 
• God raised Him from the dead... God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, "You are My son; Today I have begotten You." He raised him up from the dead, no longer to return to corruption... He whom God raised did not undergo corruption (Acts 13:30-37). 
• His Son, who came to be out the seed of David according to the flesh, fixed son of God in power by the resurrection out of the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:3-4) 
• Those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. (Romans 4:24). 
• Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)
• But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 8:11).
• God raised him from the dead. (Romans 10:9). 
• Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. (1 Corinthians 6:14). 
• Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. (1 Corinthians 15:15). 
• We also believe, therefore we also speak knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus.
• (2 Corinthians 4:13-14). 
• The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.... He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenlies (Ephesians 1:17-20). 
• You turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead. (1 Thessalonians 1:10) 
• ...through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:21)
• God the Father, who raised him from the dead. (Galatians 1:1).

I cannot argue that these clearly state God raised Jesus. It is my personal belief that Jesus is YHWH with my support from scripture. I thank you for always providing scripture to support your position as well Space.  The only thing I can do is accept also that John 2:19 states Jesus did it. You can dismiss this account in John 2 if you'd like with other scriptures, but the fact of the matter is I cannot and to me scripture cannot contradict itself, so there HAS to be some way to reconcile these within what is written. So far nothing in scripture shows me otherwise. 

If I die and God says to me "you dummy, that's not what it meant" well, then I can only ask for forgiveness for taking His word literally where it is clear as crystal to me. To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. That is what I will be judged on when it comes time I guess.  

[Shiwiii]

13 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I will have to disagree with you on this one. by understanding the nature in which Christ meant in 1 Corinthians 8:6

we can understand the intent in Colossians 1:16. another text favored by Trinitarians. However, you have admitted this is how you wish to interpret scripture. Then is no need to continue.  We will be judged by our creator regardless. God made it a choice. You have chosen. Now it's up to the rest of us, to adequately learn scripture from our heavenly father Jehovah, through his son Jesus Christ, and may we duel in God's Holy Spirit.

By all means please show me a scripture that corrects my thinking and makes John 1:3 clear as crystal. 1 Cor 8:6 does not solve the perceived contradiction. 

Do you at least agree that John 1:3 says that Jesus created everything that was created and without Him nothing was created? 

[John Houston]

You tend to use the scripture written by John, who learn by the time he penned this gospel the true nature of Christ. And he truthfully states that Jesus was WITH God, not that he WAS God, right? At the very beginning verse 1, in the beginning the Word was WITH God. Verse 2 then says again WITH God. John calls the Word ' an only-begotten son'. And how could this person do what verse 18 says? " who is at the Father's side"? At verse 29, right before being baptized how did John the Baptizer identify him? As God? No! The Lamb of God! And he was sent by One above him, his Father. And at verse 34, the apostle John writes and calls Jesus, 'this one is the Son of God.' It was only after Jesus died and returned to heaven there was confusion about who,he was. His apostles knew he was the Son of God. The demons knew he was the Son of God. Gabriel the angel who announced his birth knew he was the Son of God. The angels who sang praises at his birth also knew. Yet, we now are confused following a teaching that he never supported. A lie that smears his Father's name that which he said he came to make known. Yes, this is a discussion that will only be made if one has a humble heart to listen to the truth of scripture. Not the treacherous things of ones own heart.

Rockafeller was a well financed man and many structures are attributed to him, but how many did he actually build? But by his will of money they were erected through construction companies, architects and the rest. It happens daily around the world, yet we can not agree that the Almighty God could delegate such to,his Son, which is how the scriptures read. Having Christ sitting at his right side until the time is right for him to rule in the kingdom over the earth. It is there, many will not see. And as you said you have made your choice. Being told that it was a mistake.... it is! One other thing, none of Christ's parables spoke of him as God, but as the Son in all of them, not the Father. He was to be subjective again as he was in the beginning as Paul wrote in Corinthians. Jehovah God would be the One over all even Jesus, not being him, or vice versa. Yes, it is true the Bible does not contradict itself, all scripture are inspired for setting things straight. But many still abuse them for their own agenda. Please keep reading it, you just may find what it really teaches.

[Space Merchant]

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I cannot argue that these clearly state God raised Jesus.

Nowhere does in the bible does it state Jesus is God because the verse tells you of what he met by the Temple, which is the Temple of his Body. For if Jesus was indeed God, it would discredited the very fact that in other verses it is made known that God also dwells in True Christians as he dwells in Jesus, the fullness of deity that dwells in him and them, according to the verses.

The additional verses listed above, several of them, if not most, cross-references with each other regarding that passage, not only does it show that it I.D.s both the Father and Son, it shows you clearly that God had a role in Jesus' resurrection, for the Bible speaks of God as being the life-giver, and in giving life he does to the Son, and giving the authority and power to the Son so that he too can resurrect a great multitude of people and I agree with what was said to Jesus in the same gospel, that whatever he asks from God, God will give to him.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

It is my personal belief that Jesus is YHWH with my support from scripture.

That is understandable, but the Bible does not show anywhere that the Son is El Shaddai, the Son was sent [Shaliach] by El Shaddai. It is wiser to take in what the Bible says and what the followers of the Christ taught, in turn, taught to the people, the church.
That being said, in Trinity doctrine, the Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Father. For one to say Jesus raised himself is also to say the Father did not raise Jesus because Jesus is not the Father, or perhaps to say the Father raised Jesus is also to say that Jesus did not raise himself.

To profess that Jesus raised himself from the dead is also to say it was not the Triune God who raised Jesus since Jesus is not the Triune being and the Triune being is not Jesus, for what it lands in another factor of confusion when a claim is made that Jesus raised himself and then insist that two other persons raised that same "himself". 

Which makes the problem an even bigger fire is that it puts one in a position to believe in 4 that different identities raised this particular himself:

 

• (1) the Father
• (2) the Son
• (3) the Holy Spirit
• (4) the Triune God

Resulting in such ones who believe somehow Jesus is El Shaddai, YHWH, they are put in a situation that renders them unable to see or acknowledge their own contradictory confusion.
Another factor is that YHWH himself, is incorruptible, not like a man or a son of man, and only YHWH, all of which the Bible makes it clear of several times, furthermore, is identified as the Father, as well as God, and by the Law, this is stated as well, something of which I believe I stated before.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

 I thank you for always providing scripture to support your position as well Space.

Anytime, for the Bible and the context that comes from Scripture is always key- nothing cannot be left out and everything must be taken to understand the apostolic church's position - which lines up with that age.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The only thing I can do is accept also that John 2:19 states Jesus did it. You can dismiss this account in John 2 if you'd like with other scriptures, but the fact of the matter is I cannot and to me scripture cannot contradict itself, so there HAS to be some way to reconcile these within what is written. So far nothing in scripture shows me otherwise. 

I never dismiss Scriptures, if I had, it would defeat the utmost respect and practice of Biblical Hermeneutics in my case, after all, I respect the verse and passage by making use of the cross-references and as with anyone who practices Biblical Hermeneutics, all things must be taken into account and anything pertaining to how the passage connects harmonious with anything pertaining to an event read in the Bible, that includes all verses that line up with that time-frame of Christ Jesus and the meaning of what he said, furthermore, there is no contradiction, granted that among the source gospel accounts, John's gospel was the unique one, if I may add. The specific account in John 2 (the passage in question being 13-22).

Now, the claim here regarding John 2:19 to some means Jesus raised himself. For after reading this without further study and or ignoring the cross-references that brings forth the context, one would read into it as is and look no further after that. This brings the reason of such ones who don't see the problem with their claim; [God the Father raised Jesus from the dead], [the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead], and [Jesus raised himself from the dead]. 

When context is taken seriously and the references, it is clear of who raised Jesus from the Dead to fulfill what was said, as well as what was in use by means of it, and as we can see when Jesus actually died, he was actually dead for that time when he was later resurrected.

To believe that all 3 persons of Trinity doctrine raised Jesus from the dead, therefore, it is concluded to such ones that the Triune God raised Jesus from the dead and here is where the confusion manifests in of itself.

Outside of the realm of confusion, as the Bible itself professes when context is put forth in application.

Unfortunately, people who take this claim seriously without application of context don't always understand that they aren't making any sense at times. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father is not the Triune being, the Son is not the Triune being, and the Holy Spirit is not the Triune being, and conversely, the Triune being is not the Father, the Triune being is not the Son, and the Triune being is not the Holy Spirit; to say Jesus raised himself is therefore to say the Triune being did not raise Jesus because Jesus is not the Triune being in Trinity doctrine or to say the Triune being raised Jesus is to say that Jesus did not raise himself since the Triune being is not the Jesus, for the Father raised Jesus from the dead in addition with Jesus raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead - that amounts to the Triune God raising Jesus from the dead, granted that Jesus himself actually did perish, in this case actually died, or as the Bible says - expired.

What some fail to see is that if they make such a claim, they can't say the Father raised Jesus from the dead nor can they say Jesus raised Jesus from the dead nor can they say the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead because any one of these 3 is not the Triune God in their own doctrine of the Trinity.

Simply put, to claim the Triune God raised Jesus contradicts the claim that Jesus raised himself. In the Doctrine of the Trinity, you simply cannot say that the Triune God raised Jesus from the dead and also insist Jesus raised himself from the dead, and hope to make any kind of sense whatsoever because Jesus is not the Triune God, and the Triune God is not Jesus. The Triune God raised Jesus from the dead or Jesus raised himself from the dead. Therefore, in the doctrine of the Trinity, you can't claim both without contradicting yourself in the process.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

If I die and God says to me "you dummy, that's not what it meant" well, then I can only ask for forgiveness for taking His word literally where it is clear as crystal to me.

And yet when God speaks, he wants us to understand His Word, and but forth the application, and his own Son speaks God's Word, hence Shalich Principle in play on Jesus' part.

All things should be taken into consideration.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

John 2:19 does not amount to any evidence that Jesus is God at all (especially if you take in the meaning of his words along with the references), he speaks of the Temple of His Body, and the very fact Jesus, while on earth was corruptible, capable of dying and has died, thus showing you that he was like us of mankind, who was indeed born a Jew into the Law (Galatians 4:4).

The next factor is the fact that Jesus profess Shema, God cannot profess Shema because he is the one who gave this Law to Moses in which he and the people followed well into Paul and Jesus' day and into present day - us. And the other regarding Jesus being a mediator between 2 parties [God and the disciples he spoke regarding the Covenant with in regards to Spiritual Israel].

In the Bible we only see the Father identified as God, many times, and we see people who know, even demons and the fallen one himself, that Jesus is God's Son, and Jesus himself is well aware of the one who sent him and the Will of whom he is doing as well as the one who raised him from the Dead, thus making him the Firstborn out of the Dead and the First of the Firstfruits.

 

There is only one God, not three.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

That is what I will be judged on when it comes time I guess.  

Well I suggest you make more research regarding the Bible and not wait around for Judgement. Just as when Jesus was a child who observe, recite and read the Old Testament, learned of who the God of Israel is and what he had done, for us today we must do the same, and read the word daily and take everything into consideration as with the cross-references and context that comes from the Bible.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

irregardless, What John 1:3 says is that Jesus created everything that was created. It does not say everything after He Himself was created. 

for John 1:3, it is also best to carefully consider John 1:5, the Light shines in the darkness, it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus  as seen in John 3:19-21, 8:12, 9:5 and 12:35-36, granted the very first chapter of John is John's Introductory. Moving into verse 4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be taken into consideration here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation at this point. The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (John 1:9). The last part of verse 3, in connection with verse 4 indicates that life and light came into existence by means of the Word. (Colossians 1:15, 16).

With this information in view, it is obviously apparent that John 1:3 is not referring to the Genesis act of creation but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word, through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, It is finished (it has been accomplished) later down the road when he was killed by means of Crucifixion; just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation, the same regarding the one sent by means of Shaliach Principle. Jesus' ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, whereas our risen Lord, Christ Jesus, is the first of the firstfruits of that new creation (as well as the one Firstborn out of death), the beginning of the creation of God, mainly when it can be understood what the new earth and new heavens entails regarding said new creation.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

yes they did, as mentioned to Billy. They thought of the temple THEY built. 

Indeed, but the Temple in question is His Body, the Body of our Lord, Christ Jesus, in turn the Father's Temple due to the very fact God does his Purpose and Will through his Son. That temple of which they were thinking about was The Temple of Herod.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

It correlates just as I said, It is another instance of the Holy Spirit. 

Yes, the Holy Spirit is mention in both verses, but you have one instance regarding the Christ regarding him being risen on the 3rd day and the other regarding those who are ministers. Because the Holy Spirit is mention in both instances, does not equate the two into being the same event, despite Holy Spirit being one of 90 or so occurrences in various instances in the Greek New Testament.

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

agreed

If so why state Jesus raised himself when the Bible itself has made it clear he had expired?

20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

well John 2:19 does.  It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself.  

You sure? Can you show me Acts 13:2 references regarding John 2:19? Regarding my response to you is as followed: [Acts 13:2 focuses on such ones ministering for God. The references for this verse points to Ac 9:15 and 1 Timothy 2:7, even while outlined nothing points back in references to Jesus being risen from the tomb....], I do not see Acts 13:2 pointing back to John 2:19 - anywhere, even while outlined.

• https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jhn/2/1/t_corr_999019
• https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=John+2%3A19
• https://biblehub.com/john/2-19.htm

The only verses Acts 13:2 cross-references to and points back to even in outline form is
Deuteronomy 10:8, 1 Samuel 2:11, Daniel 9:3, Matthew 9:38, Luke 2:37, 1 Timothy 2:7 (as mentioned), 2 Timothy 1:11, Acts 8:29, 9:15 (as mentioned), 22:21, 14:26, Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 1:15, 2:8-9, Ephesians 3:7, Hebrews 5:4, etc and dozens more, including the ones above amounting to a total of 41 verses (with 1 Chronicles 16:37-43 bringing the count up by 47 verses).

That being said, even regarding Acts 13:2, both John 2:19 and Romans 18:11, is nowhere to be found, even in cross-references without outline in the Bible itself does not say and it only points back to the 2 verses already mentioned, granted that both instances were and are entirely different, despite the Spirit of God being mentioned in both instances.

And the bible informs us the Christ had expired and God had a hand in his resurrection.

[Shiwiii]

56 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Nowhere does in the bible does it state Jesus is God because the verse tells you of what he met by the Temple, which is the Temple of his Body. For if Jesus was indeed God, it would discredited the very fact that in other verses it is made known that God also dwells in True Christians as he dwells in Jesus, the fullness of deity that dwells in him and them, according to the verses.

The additional verses listed above, several of them, if not most, cross-references with each other regarding that passage, not only does it show that it I.D.s both the Father and Son, it shows you clearly that God had a role in Jesus' resurrection, for the Bible speaks of God as being the life-giver, and in giving life he does to the Son, and giving the authority and power to the Son so that he too can resurrect a great multitude of people and I agree with what was said to Jesus in the same gospel, that whatever he asks from God, God will give to him.

Of course the verse tells us what He meant by the temple, at this time we're not talking about the temple, we're talking about who was going to raise it. The verse says Jesus. This particular point is one of a few that I base my belief on . If Jesus said He would raise Himself, He is either a liar, or it is true.  We know that Jesus is not a liar, so it HAS to be true. The verse quotes Jesus saying that He would raise Himself. This, coupled with the other verses that state God would raise Him, leaves a tough position for those who claim that Jesus isn't God because of the direct parallel between who raises Jesus. There is no denying that Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days according to John. 

 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, in Trinity doctrine, the Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Father. For one to say Jesus raised himself is also to say the Father did not raise Jesus because Jesus is not the Father, or perhaps to say the Father raised Jesus is also to say that Jesus did not raise himself.

To profess that Jesus raised himself from the dead is also to say it was not the Triune God who raised Jesus since Jesus is not the Triune being and the Triune being is not Jesus, for what it lands in another factor of confusion when a claim is made that Jesus raised himself and then insist that two other persons raised that same "himself". 

I think you may have an idea of what the trinity is, but lack understanding of how it works. By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit. There are verses which we have quoted each other in this thread that testify to all three being attributed to raising Jesus. Since the scriptures cannot be contradictory then there has to be an explanation and all of those verses have to be true. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Another factor is that YHWH himself, is incorruptible, not like a man or a son of man, and only YHWH, all of which the Bible makes it clear of several times, furthermore, is identified as the Father, as well as God, and by the Law, this is stated as well, something of which I believe I stated before.

and yet, many many scriptures are quoting the OT about YHWH and attributes those same qualities or actions to Jesus. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Well I suggest you make more research regarding the Bible and not wait around for Judgement.

so what you are saying is research until I come to your conclusion? like I said, if I am wrong for taking God's word directly as it is clear to me, so be it. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

John 2:19 does not amount to any evidence that Jesus is God at all (especially if you take in the meaning of his words along with the references), he speaks of the Temple of His Body, and the very fact Jesus, while on earth was corruptible, capable of dying and has died, thus showing you that he was like us of mankind, who was indeed born a Jew into the Law (Galatians 4:4).

To me it most certainly does, by means of Jesus saying He Himself would raise Himself. You do have to admit that this IS what Jesus said He would do. 

We can go off on another tanget about the temple and His body, but we'll leave that for a different thread.

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

for John 1:3, it is also best to carefully consider John 1:5, the Light shines in the darkness, it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus  as seen in John 3:19-21, 8:12, 9:5 and 12:35-36, granted the very first chapter of John is John's Introductory. Moving into verse 4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be taken into consideration here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation at this point. The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (John 1:9). The last part of verse 3, in connection with verse 4 indicates that life and light came into existence by means of the Word. (Colossians 1:15, 16).

With this information in view, it is obviously apparent that John 1:3 is not referring to the Genesis act of creation but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word, through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, It is finished (it has been accomplished) later down the road when he was killed by means of Crucifixion; just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation, the same regarding the one sent by means of Shaliach Principle. Jesus' ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, whereas our risen Lord, Christ Jesus, is the first of the firstfruits of that new creation (as well as the one Firstborn out of death), the beginning of the creation of God, mainly when it can be understood what the new earth and new heavens entails regarding said new creation.

You are making it waaay more difficult then necessary. It reminds me of how the Jews back in that time had rules upon rules that they developed based on their extensive knowledge of the Law. When Jesus came, He made it very simple and said so in Matt 22:36-40. This destroyed the whole list of laws the jews had created. I feel that you are using the duality of scripture (where a verse has more than one meaning and application) to dismiss what is being said. To me it is crystal clear that Jesus created everything that has ever been created. That is what John 1:3 says. It looks as though we are never going to get around this because it makes it too hard for you to accept what is exactly written, and this is because it does not fit your view point. I get it. Instead it has to be assumed that John meant something else because by John stating that Jesus created all things it makes Him God, and we just can't have that. Nevermind that Jesus is to be worshiped and Honored just as the Father (Revelation 4:9-11 and 5:11-14). 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Indeed, but the Temple in question is His Body, the Body of our Lord, Christ Jesus, in turn the Father's Temple due to the very fact God does his Purpose and Will through his Son. That temple of which they were thinking about was The Temple of Herod.

I agree, but don't even get started on "His body", because jws do not believe He was resurrected in the same body. Thus making Jesus a liar. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Yes, the Holy Spirit is mention in both verses, but you have one instance regarding the Christ regarding him being risen on the 3rd day and the other regarding those who are ministers. Because the Holy Spirit is mention in both instances, does not equate the two into being the same event, despite Holy Spirit being one of 90 or so occurrences in various instances in the Greek New Testament.

I NEVER said it was the same event. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

If so why state Jesus raised himself when the Bible itself has made it clear he had expired?

Because that is what Jesus said HE would do. 

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

You sure? Can you show me Acts 13:2 references regarding John 2:19? Regarding my response to you is as followed: [Acts 13:2 focuses on such ones ministering for God. The references for this verse points to Ac 9:15 and 1 Timothy 2:7, even while outlined nothing points back in references to Jesus being risen from the tomb....], I do not see Acts 13:2 pointing back to John 2:19 - anywhere, even while outlined.

• https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jhn/2/1/t_corr_999019
• https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=John+2%3A19
• https://biblehub.com/john/2-19.htm

The only verses Acts 13:2 cross-references to and points back to even in outline form is
Deuteronomy 10:8, 1 Samuel 2:11, Daniel 9:3, Matthew 9:38, Luke 2:37, 1 Timothy 2:7 (as mentioned), 2 Timothy 1:11, Acts 8:29, 9:15 (as mentioned), 22:21, 14:26, Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 1:15, 2:8-9, Ephesians 3:7, Hebrews 5:4, etc and dozens more, including the ones above amounting to a total of 41 verses (with 1 Chronicles 16:37-43 bringing the count up by 47 verses).

That being said, even regarding Acts 13:2, both John 2:19 and Romans 18:11, is nowhere to be found, even in cross-references without outline in the Bible itself does not say and it only points back to the 2 verses already mentioned, granted that both instances were and are entirely different, despite the Spirit of God being mentioned in both instances.

And the bible informs us the Christ had expired and God had a hand in his resurrection.

yes I am sure, because that is what John 2:19 says. 

[Shiwiii]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We can agree if you can agree in the context in which it is intended. Not as a creator or co-creator, but someone who shared in God’s creative work.

If we meet your understanding, once again we would have to nullify scripture to accept that interpretation. Moses would have made no sense, Genesis 1:2 and the psalmist would be mistaken, Psalms 33:6, Psalms 36:9

When the Pharisees went to test Jesus for the grounds of divorce, what was Jesus reply, Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus used the phrase, “created them” why would Jesus need to speak to the Pharisees as a third person. Under the Trinity, it becomes confusing. We know God is not a God of confusion, then why oppose God’s words. This ideologically is adding to scripture, which God forbids.

How can Trinity under these circumstances be of sound judgment? We can agree that God used Michael as an instrument to continue his creation.

All scriptures mentioned, attest to that fact. That Jesus shared in Gods creative work, and God used Jesus as an instrument for that creation.

there is no nullification anywhere, John 1:3 states clearly that Jesus created everything that has been created. This does not make any scripture mistaken, only the interpretation made by some. 

The confusion is there because those who are so opposed to the idea that God can do anything and be everywhere. There is a common mistake that people have in regards to the trinity, they only have heard a slight idea of it but profess to know it has to be wrong. 

Michael? hardly. Michael is and was and will for ever be Michael, not Jesus nor the Son of God. This notion of Michael being Jesus is not found within scripture, it is made up by men. If you'd like, start another thread on this topic and I'll discuss it. 

I have no problem with Jesus sharing in the creation work, or having been used and an instrument. John 1:3 makes it clear that He did create everything that has ever been created. So it fits. 

[Space Merchant]

21 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Of course the verse tells us what He meant by the temple, at this time we're not talking about the temple, we're talking about who was going to raise it. The verse says Jesus. This particular point is one of a few that I base my belief on . If Jesus said He would raise Himself, He is either a liar, or it is true.  We know that Jesus is not a liar, so it HAS to be true. The verse quotes Jesus saying that He would raise Himself. This, coupled with the other verses that state God would raise Him, leaves a tough position for those who claim that Jesus isn't God because of the direct parallel between who raises Jesus. There is no denying that Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days according to John. 

I've already made mention to what the Temple actually is, granted that verse 21 tells us he was speaking about the temple of his body. For he was in noway talking about the Temple of Herod and the Jews themselves did not understand what he was talking about. Regarding the body of the Christ, that is God's Temple for the very fact God dwells in the Christ as he does with the early Christians.

I understand that but are trying to profess that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead when it was by God's hand that Jesus was raised, resurrected, the firstborn from the dead. But the thing is, the dead cannot raise themselves and Jesus was not capable of taking himself out of the pangs of Death (Hebrews 5:7) John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Plus to speak of someone dead who can somehow raise himself. the verse is in regards to Jesus verbally saying speaking about the Temple of his Body, if he is quoting something it would point a foretelling of him [The Messiah] being a cornerstone (Psalms 118:22, Isaiah 28:16, 17 and once again we see Acts 4:10, 11).

No one is denying what Jesus is saying, the truth of the matter is one is merely taking in the context of this passage as a whole, not a sole verse, for if we are to take one verse and one verse only, we ignore the passage as a whole in of itself, something that anyone who professes hermeneutics would never do. Furthermore, it would contradict anything else that connects with this passage if we ignore them, the very reason why cross-references should be taken into consideration.

22 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I think you may have an idea of what the trinity is, but lack understanding of how it works. By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit. There are verses which we have quoted each other in this thread that testify to all three being attributed to raising Jesus. Since the scriptures cannot be contradictory then there has to be an explanation and all of those verses have to be true. 

I know the Christology of Trinitarians, granted I had dealt with them many times before, among them being James White followers or that of the KJV-Onlyist crow or the FLDS and so forth. Trinitarians believe that the Father is God, that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, thus making up the Triune God, after all, you yourself stated each to be God thus making up the Triune itself of the Godhead. granted, the Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit making up this Triune God. Furthermore, this is seen as some centralized mystery in the Trinity Doctrine.

But if that was the case, you just stated that Jesus raised himself, for if Jesus indeed raise himself, the dead rising themselves out of death, how would you explain the involvement of the Father or God using His Spirit to raise Jesus if the claim is already posed of Jesus somehow raising himself out of the pangs of death?

It can be seen as a contradiction for if let's say for example I did agree with you, Jesus raised himself from the Dead, in this sense, I'd have to totally ignore the whole passage and it's references and accept this verse without merit, it would put me in contradiction to the very true fact that Jesus was able to do nothing from himself and be a list of other things and it would counter fact cross-references and testimonies made in Scripture. And quite frankly, I want to take all Scripture into consideration, as with the parallel to this case regarding the Mark of Jonah and surely Jonah wasn't able to bring himself out of the big fish by his own hand.

22 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

and yet, many many scriptures are quoting the OT about YHWH and attributes those same qualities or actions to Jesus. 

So if that was the case why was it that Jesus cursed a fig tree or not have known a ill woman had touched her?

More importantly why was Jesus corruptible, thus making him susceptible to death whereas the Hebrew Old Testament tells you God himself cannot die and is incorruptible, even brought up in the Greek New Testament?

God cannot die, as the bible even tells you. Jesus could because unlike YHWH, Jesus was under Shaliach Principle, came to earth as a man by means of a woman named Mary, therefore he was able to taste death, even expire only to be resurrected and made incorruptible.

23 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

To me it most certainly does, by means of Jesus saying He Himself would raise Himself. You do have to admit that this IS what Jesus said He would do. 

We can go off on another tanget about the temple and His body, but we'll leave that for a different thread.

But did you not just say the following: By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit.

And

On 11/5/2018 at 3:03 PM, Shiwiii said:

To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

If Jesus and only He, had raised himself from the dead, there would be no mention of God or the Holy Spirit, but only by Jesus' own hand and if HE will do this as you said, why bring up the Father or the Holy Spirit if the concept of the Triune God is not at work according to the Trinity? After all, you said the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone.

We are not going off in a tangent because regarding the Temple of his Body it is of the passage itself - that is if you take into account the whole passage or one verse.

The expression Jesus is God'is not same as Jesus as God as in an example, Jesus is worshiped as God. So which is it then granted you follow this that is factual true about Trinitarians regarding John 2:19:

Trinitarians interpret the text to mean Jesus raised himself from the dead and somehow suppose this means he must be God who raised himself from the dead.

23 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You are making it waaay more difficult then necessary. It reminds me of how the Jews back in that time had rules upon rules that they developed based on their extensive knowledge of the Law. When Jesus came, He made it very simple and said so in Matt 22:36-40. This destroyed the whole list of laws the jews had created. I feel that you are using the duality of scripture (where a verse has more than one meaning and application) to dismiss what is being said. To me it is crystal clear that Jesus created everything that has ever been created. That is what John 1:3 says. It looks as though we are never going to get around this because it makes it too hard for you to accept what is exactly written, and this is because it does not fit your view point. I get it. Instead it has to be assumed that John meant something else because by John stating that Jesus created all things it makes Him God, and we just can't have that. Nevermind that Jesus is to be worshiped and Honored just as the Father (Revelation 4:9-11 and 5:11-14). 

Not really, I am being simplistic.

• Matthew 22:36-40 - [36] “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

I am glad you made mention of this verse because here we see Jesus affirming the Shema, which is to be heard by God to affirm that the one who professes the Shema Law HAS a God. And we know that Jesus, as with Paul, affirmed Shema and as others have also even in testimony.

It does not destroy the list of the laws granted that Jesus is the mediator between God and the men he made the Covenant with as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. We are of Spiritual Israel and the Law still hangs on in the New Covenant.

Clearly if you are serving God, you are in application to that Law and I totally agree with Jesus.

As far as I am concern, Trinitarians are not that open about the Shema nor do they accept it as much.

1 Corinthians 8:6 is Paul affirmation of the Shea Law so clearly anything of Spiritual Israel still remains.

And no I am not using duality of Scripture just basic Hermeneutics.

Now your next problem is if you attest that Jesus is God and raised himself, why did you bring up the Shema Law when that is against your view of Jesus being YHWH when it is known God cannot profess Shema, he was the one who created it and Jesus obverse and applied the Shema since he was a child? When I discuss with Cos about this in a debate of some sort, you were briefly there when I said this.

And no, it isn't that hard, I understand John 1:3 clearly, as with Paul making mention of this, and John 1:3 does not prove Jesus is God granted and it ads on to what the New Creation entails about the very man God made superior to the angels in Hebrews.

Proskuneo can man many things but Jesus was never religious worshiped. If we are to say he was worshiped, what of Lot tot he Angels? Abraham to the Hittites, surely the latter isn't God yet worship and homage was done - it does not equate to religious worship. That being said an act of worship and or homage does not make that God, and those who religious worship and give self sacrifice to God know of whom they truly render worship and servitude to.

In your case, you have 3 Gods which make up a Triune God, of whom you render religious worship to?

23 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree, but don't even get started on "His body", because jws do not believe He was resurrected in the same body. Thus making Jesus a liar. 

Granted that when the disciples saw Jesus he was like a Spirit, having a Spirit Body if you will. And no the bible even tells you of his Spirit Body and the fact Paul spoken of him as if he was an angel -malak.

So Paul is the lair or perhaps Luke?

Furthermore, As a Spirit, Jesus was able to appear/disappear suddenly instantly as seen in Luke 24:31 and John 20:19, 26 and he was not recognized y those who followed him until he spoke with them and made it known as seen in Luke 24:30, 31, 35 and John 20:14-16, 21:6, 7 - and I am sure we were, as seen here, agree with the gospel of John.

23 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I NEVER said it was the same event. 

So according to you how does John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 to the other instance of the Holy Spirit in use?

I even told you the verses to do not cross-references at all with Acts 13:2. So the first 2 verses in question correlates with Acts 13:2 why state this if that isn't the case at all even with evidence against that? I do not see the connection.

However, it would have made sense if you said Acts 13 verse 26 and onward (26-52) but that would granted both John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 not only correlates, but harmonizes with the passage as a whole.

On 11/6/2018 at 3:43 PM, Shiwiii said:

Because that is what Jesus said HE would do. 

So you agree with that Triune God statement of which I posed before, right? If that is the case.

On 11/6/2018 at 3:43 PM, Shiwiii said:

yes I am sure, because that is what John 2:19 says. 

But the Scriptural evidence says otherwise and John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 has no connection to Acts 13:2 whatsoever, therefore the Spirit of God is in play in both verses and passages, but clearly both events are not same, moreover, if we one cannot take the passage in full and solely a single verse than another, why say otherwise of the actual cross-references in your own Bible?

Clearly both John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 are in connection with each other and it does correlates to the passage itself as we can see and read with our very eyes of both these verses.

• John 2:19 - Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
• Romans 8:11 - If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[a] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Acts 13:2 does not make any claim to what is mention about, ironically enough, the very outline regarding this passage even tells you Acts chapter 13, especially 1-14 regarding Paul’s First Missionary Tour for it records the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Cyprus and to Pisidia.

• Acts 13:2 - While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

We do not see anything in Acts 13:2 about Jesus being raised out of a tomb here, let alone raising himself, therefore the cross-references are proven true and what was mentioned before is unfounded, for even the evidence amounts to that in regards to what I linked to you - that is - if you checked it, if not, if your Bible contains footnotes and cross-references, it will tell you, i.e. the NIV Bible.

So if you are sure of what you are saying I will pose the question again:

Can you show me Acts 13:2 references regarding John 2:19?

On 11/6/2018 at 3:51 PM, Shiwiii said:

there is no nullification anywhere, John 1:3 states clearly that Jesus created everything that has been created. This does not make any scripture mistaken, only the interpretation made by some. 

So if I were to say do you agree with Peter, John, Paul's testimony of who the True God is, after all you posted Matthew 22:36-40 thus we see Jesus affirming Shema, which in this sense if you understand the Law of the Jews is affirming that the one who profess Shema has a God.

Clearly in the Scriptures it is silly to say and or even fathom that God has a God.

You also will fall into a mistake if you go just the next verse or two over regarding the Light of this World, moreover, other John's (John the Baptist) Testimony of the Christ.

God isn't a mystery, nor is the Christ granted what Paul conveyed in Ephesians of what has been revealed.

On 11/6/2018 at 3:51 PM, Shiwiii said:

The confusion is there because those who are so opposed to the idea that God can do anything and be everywhere. There is a common mistake that people have in regards to the trinity, they only have heard a slight idea of it but profess to know it has to be wrong. 

But the thing is, there are those who understand and can see for themselves an exegesis that does not match up with Scripture, i.e. if a persons accepts a single verse and say Moses is God, clearly that person isn't understanding and or taking into account of the passage and and sticks to a single verse. Basic Biblical Hermeneutics can even tell you that this isn't the case and can even point out to the Law of the Jews of which both God professed in Psalms, to what Jesus said in the Gospel of John and to what Paul had said in the First Epistle to Corinthians.

On 11/6/2018 at 3:51 PM, Shiwiii said:

Michael? hardly. Michael is and was and will for ever be Michael, not Jesus nor the Son of God. This notion of Michael being Jesus is not found within scripture, it is made up by men. If you'd like, start another thread on this topic and I'll discuss it. 

But then you have some evidence of Suborintaionist who believed Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Granted only a superior of God fought and battle with Satan and his demons in Heaven, therefore if you are making the claim it is a man doctrine you have to back it up. What can be said the belief to some degree predates the Trinity - granted early Christians were Subornationist, just as the early Church was, the very church Jesus built 2,000 years ago.

So you have to ask yourself, who was it really among God's Son who fought Satan the Devil and His Demons? Who was it that will defeat the Dragon and have the backing of God's Army behind him?

After all, Jesus did say he can call unto God anytime for high ranking angels to his side, to rally, to flank, to command, to defend and support him.

We can discuss this on another thread with this one but I believe at some point I did discuss this with someone.

On 11/6/2018 at 3:51 PM, Shiwiii said:

I have no problem with Jesus sharing in the creation work, or having been used and an instrument. John 1:3 makes it clear that He did create everything that has ever been created. So it fits. 

All things were made through Jesus.

God the Father takes delight in the Son; The Son rejoices over the works and marvels of the Father's hands.

It may fit perfectly to you, but the cross-references and what that Light is pretty much counters that.

 

[Shiwiii]

6 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I've already made mention to what the Temple actually is, granted that verse 21 tells us he was speaking about the temple of his body. For he was in noway talking about the Temple of Herod and the Jews themselves did not understand what he was talking about. Regarding the body of the Christ, that is God's Temple for the very fact God dwells in the Christ as he does with the early Christians.

why even mention this again? We are in agreement. Jesus spoke of His body, His physical body. 

 

7 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

So either Jesus did it or He did not, you are claiming He did not. That is what you have been saying all along. Ok, no problem. I see that you as well as others here do not take this scripture to mean what Jesus said, but instead somehow claim He didn't really mean it by means of another verse that states God did. So then what you are saying is Jesus is a liar. I don't mean to put it so harshly, but it IS what you are saying. 

 

11 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I know the Christology of Trinitarians, granted I had dealt with them many times before, among them being James White followers or that of the KJV-Onlyist crow or the FLDS and so forth. Trinitarians believe that the Father is God, that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, thus making up the Triune God, after all, you yourself stated each to be God thus making up the Triune itself of the Godhead. granted, the Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit making up this Triune God. Furthermore, this is seen as some centralized mystery in the Trinity Doctrine.

But if that was the case, you just stated that Jesus raised himself, for if Jesus indeed raise himself, the dead rising themselves out of death, how would you explain the involvement of the Father or God using His Spirit to raise Jesus if the claim is already posed of Jesus somehow raising himself out of the pangs of death?

It can be seen as a contradiction for if let's say for example I did agree with you, Jesus raised himself from the Dead, in this sense, I'd have to totally ignore the whole passage and it's references and accept this verse without merit, it would put me in contradiction to the very true fact that Jesus was able to do nothing from himself and be a list of other things and it would counter fact cross-references and testimonies made in Scripture. And quite frankly, I want to take all Scripture into consideration, as with the parallel to this case regarding the Mark of Jonah and surely Jonah wasn't able to bring himself out of the big fish by his own hand.

If you have this grasp, then why did you make such comments about the Father not being the "triune God" etc. That is interjecting a fourth being from the context of your argument you posted earlier.

You are attributing Jonah and Jesus now? Really? Do you not believe that Jesus can/could do things mere mortal could not? Sure He placed limitation upon Himself when taking for form of man (Phil 2:7), but that didn't mean He couldn't use His power for whatever He wanted (John 2:7-11). 

irregardless, this is just one instance we are discussing, this John 2:19. It does clearly state Jesus said He would raise Himself. You really can't ignore that without some sort of bias. We can gladly choose other verses to discuss and why I believe that Jesus IS God, but we just happen to be on this one. So with that being said, sure lets take all of scripture and continue. 

20 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So if that was the case why was it that Jesus cursed a fig tree or not have known a ill woman had touched her?

More importantly why was Jesus corruptible, thus making him susceptible to death whereas the Hebrew Old Testament tells you God himself cannot die and is incorruptible, even brought up in the Greek New Testament?

God cannot die, as the bible even tells you. Jesus could because unlike YHWH, Jesus was under Shaliach Principle, came to earth as a man by means of a woman named Mary, therefore he was able to taste death, even expire only to be resurrected and made incorruptible.

Again, Jesus allowed restrictions upon Himself while a man.  Of course God cannot die, thus the very reason why Jesus was subjected to become a man, to show us how we are suppose to act/be obedient to God and live according to Gods purpose AND so we can know that death is not the end. Our bodies die/decay, but our spirit belongs to God and will live after our bodies are dust again. God does not cease if Jesus, as a man dies, because our spirit as well as God's Spirit lives on no matter what. 

Jesus is very much YHWH.

29 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

But did you not just say the following: By saying Jesus raised Himself it does not reject the idea that the Father raised Him, nor the Holy Spirit.

And

On 11/5/2018 at 12:03 PM, Shiwiii said:

To me, the evidence shows me that yes, Jesus IS God as well as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

If Jesus and only He, had raised himself from the dead, there would be no mention of God or the Holy Spirit, but only by Jesus' own hand and if HE will do this as you said, why bring up the Father or the Holy Spirit if the concept of the Triune God is not at work according to the Trinity? After all, you said the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone.

We are not going off in a tangent because regarding the Temple of his Body it is of the passage itself - that is if you take into account the whole passage or one verse.

Who said that Jesus and ONLY He raised Himself? No one, and certainly not me. I would be making God a liar by making such a statement based on the very scriptures you brought up. 

 

31 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

so surely all 3 persons would take part in the Resurrection and not Christ Jesus alone.

yes

 

32 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

I am glad you made mention of this verse because here we see Jesus affirming the Shema, which is to be heard by God to affirm that the one who professes the Shema Law HAS a God. And we know that Jesus, as with Paul, affirmed Shema and as others have also even in testimony.

It does not destroy the list of the laws granted that Jesus is the mediator between God and the men he made the Covenant with as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5. We are of Spiritual Israel and the Law still hangs on in the New Covenant.

Clearly if you are serving God, you are in application to that Law and I totally agree with Jesus.

No it does not destroy the law, you are correct, but it does destroy the laws that the Jews enacted that were above the law (John 15:25).  That was all I was saying. The law stands and will stand just as Jesus said it would  (Matt 5:17)

41 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Proskuneo can man many things but Jesus was never religious worshiped. If we are to say he was worshiped, what of Lot tot he Angels? Abraham to the Hittites, surely the latter isn't God yet worship and homage was done - it does not equate to religious worship. That being said an act of worship and or homage does not make that God, and those who religious worship and give self sacrifice to God know of whom they truly render worship and servitude to.

I gave you examples of angles/the living creatures of Revelation worshiping Jesus just as God the Father. You're trying to divert what I said to mean honor given to Abraham etc. Not the same and you know it. 

 

44 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Granted that when the disciples saw Jesus he was like a Spirit, having a Spirit Body if you will. And no the bible even tells you of his Spirit Body and the fact Paul spoken of him as if he was an angel -malak.

So Paul is the lair or perhaps Luke?

Furthermore, As a Spirit, Jesus was able to appear/disappear suddenly instantly as seen in Luke 24:31 and John 20:19, 26 and he was not recognized y those who followed him until he spoke with them and made it known as seen in Luke 24:30, 31, 35 and John 20:14-16, 21:6, 7 - and I am sure we were, as seen here, agree with the gospel of John.

Jesus said Himself :

Luke 24:" 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus spoke this AFTER He was resurrected. So is Jesus a liar? 

57 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

So if I were to say do you agree with Peter, John, Paul's testimony of who the True God is, after all you posted Matthew 22:36-40 thus we see Jesus affirming Shema, which in this sense if you understand the Law of the Jews is affirming that the one who profess Shema has a God.

Clearly in the Scriptures it is silly to say and or even fathom that God has a God.

You also will fall into a mistake if you go just the next verse or two over regarding the Light of this World, moreover, other John's (John the Baptist) Testimony of the Christ.

God isn't a mystery, nor is the Christ granted what Paul conveyed in Ephesians of what has been revealed.

So what you are saying is that when Jesus was here on the Earth, He was only a man? That's fair if that is your belief, however it is not mine. I believe He had a dual nature at that point both God and man. The man had a God and this was to be an example for us. 

1 Tim 3:16 says that godliness is a mystery. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

therefore if you are making the claim it is a man doctrine you have to back it up.

actually no, those who claim such must provide proof. Until then it is an opinion based on no scriptural support and thus man made. 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

All things were made through Jesus.

God the Father takes delight in the Son; The Son rejoices over the works and marvels of the Father's hands.

It may fit perfectly to you, but the cross-references and what that Light is pretty much counters that.

I can see here we are goign to keep going back and forth saying the same things about this verse (John2:19) regardless if it is cross referenced to Acts or not does not diminish the fact  that Jesus said it, you agreed He said it, you just don't believe He meant it the way He said it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lets move on about John 1:3, in particular not the verse John 1:3 but my supporting scriptures that back up that Jesus in fact did create everything and was not created and is God.

Who is speaking in Isaiah throughout and being recorded?  The Hebrew scriptures state it is YHWH, do you agree? 

[Space Merchant]

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

why even mention this again? We are in agreement. Jesus spoke of His body, His physical body. 

I bring it up pertaining to your previous response and the fact I take the passage as a whole into account from what Jesus says to his resurrection, granted that I made it clear I am taking into consideration the passage as a whole whereas you are maintain to a sole verse from the passage - Resurrection of Jesus [The Christ].

Context means everything to those who take Biblical Hermeneutics with seriousness, as is always with any response I make regarding Scripture.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

So either Jesus did it or He did not, you are claiming He did not.

The thing here is regarding Jesus, we know what Jesus said in John 10:17-18, so we should be very aware that Jesus was clearly under Shaliach Principle here doing, saying things that is of not by means of his Will, but the Will of the one who sent him, granted, it says in Scripture that Jesus cannot do a single thing on his own, therefore, it can be pointed out that in John 2:19 Jesus predicted that he will rise again within 3 days and the fact he made it clear of whom he is going back to, of whom he will ascend to, moreover, the Temple of God is his Son of whom he dwells in and anyone who destroys his Temple, the Scripture says such one would be destroyed.

For as you mentioned Romans 8:11, which is a cross-references to John 2:19 (as seen by evidence already) tells you this and the fact that us corruptible men will be made alive through this way also in the same way also.

For if Jesus literally raised himself, as in, the dead raising the dead, it would conflict with the consistency of the passage as a whole when we are focused on a small portion in the passage regarding the Resurrection of the Christ. This is the same case with those who make claim that Moses is God also when if you take the passage as whole rather than 2 verses, you can see that Moses isn't anywhere near equal footing with and or like El Shaddai.

To make the claim that Jesus raised Himself from the dead as you take it literally as you said you will have to explain also how would a dead man can resurrect himself if not God or his Spirit there, or the Triune God.

And honestly, if I didn't take the Scriptures and what Jesus said, predicted, mind you, why on earth would I take into account the passage as a whole, let alone taking in the Hermeneutics of both the verse and passage? Previously you said before you cannot argue with the fact that God was the one to raise Jesus, you went on to say it is of your own personal belief that Jesus is YHWH - ok, but you later stated Jesus raised himself, thus having no argument in the fact God raised Jesus. Ironically enough when taking the passage in as a whole, it says otherwise and we can see that clearly.

To say Jesus is YHWH you have to agree with the doctrine that you follow that the Triune God raised Jesus, in addition you say Jesus is YHWH most likely attest to the fact that YHWH himself has died whereas the Bible says otherwise, and has conveyed God's incorruptibility.

No need, I can take harsh, but the thing is can you take Hermeneutics when it comes to the focus of Scripture as a whole rather than a snippet of passage. If that was the case, those who make claim to Moses also being God can be justified if that route was taken - he reality is if one takes into consideration the whole passage they can see that isn't the case, which in this sense is the same in regards to Jesus' resurrection and God's hand in the resurrection, after all, the Son cannot do a single thing on his own, the same one who affirmed Shema.

That being said, Jesus or anyone else isn't a lair in this sense when we know what Firstborn from the Dead as well as Jesus being the cornerstone entails, even on Isaiah’s part.

Lastly, I think you might want to re-read my quote again, I will highlight that snippet of which you pulled granted you made no comment in other details of that passage, regarding John 2:19:

I understand that but are trying to profess that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead when it was by God's hand that Jesus was raised, resurrected, the firstborn from the dead. But the thing is, the dead cannot raise themselves and Jesus was not capable of taking himself out of the pangs of Death (Hebrews 5:7) John 2:19 only states that Jesus said to the people Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Plus to speak of someone dead who can somehow raise himself. the verse is in regards to Jesus verbally saying speaking about the Temple of his Body, if he is quoting something it would point a foretelling of him [The Messiah] being a cornerstone (Psalms 118:22, Isaiah 28:16, 17 and once again we see Acts 4:10, 11)

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

If you have this grasp, then why did you make such comments about the Father not being the "triune God" etc. That is interjecting a fourth being from the context of your argument you posted earlier.

Because it is true that Trinitarians believe all 3, in this case, all 3 Gods make up 1 God, thus making them Triune, at the same time they do not believe such because of the whole aspect of distinct persons, therefore when it comes to the verse in question Jesus was not of the Triune God, especially if someone were to accept the claim that Jesus raised himself. To insist that Jesus raised himself from the dead is also to say it was not the Triune God who raised Jesus since Jesus is not the Triune being and the Triune being is not Jesus granted he is distinct in this sense since the focus is on 1 verse, Jesus was clearly unable to do such on his own, in this sense. You stated yourself, Jesus raised himself - ok, however on my part, according to what I am reading of the entire passage regarding the resurrection of the Christ, only stated what is of the Scriptures in full - that God was the one responsible for raising Jesus and I believe that Jesus is Lord and I believe in the one who resurrected him, as is said in Romans.

And regarding the 4 identities this is in fact true regarding Trinitarians speaking of verses like this one and we see the contradiction there.

You would think of it as interjecting but this is indeed the case with Trinitarians in regards to their belief, and we have not gotten into the other things yet, some of which I had already spoken of on occasion here.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

You are attributing Jonah and Jesus now? Really?

This is where you fail to see the very reason as to why the very small and yet brief mention of Jonah the Prophet. I had alluded to Jonah for a simple reason really and it is clear to me with that minor mention you didn’t get what I was pointing to – let’s hear it from the Christ himself in Scripture so you will understand and know (since this is included with the passage of Jesus Resurrection), granted I am taking the passage as a whole into consideration and what he had said regarding himself and of Jonah, granted that John 2:19, the verse of focus, references to passage in Matthew chapters 12, 27 and 28.

Here, we are aware that regardless of all these wonderful works hat our Christ and our Lord, Jesus, is doing, the scribes as with the Pharisees demanded more as if they were still not convinced, regardless if they saw him in action or not some heard from others who were witnesses of these works, they called to Jesus and profess they wanted to see a sign from him. In response, Jesus tells the scribes and the Pharisees that a wicked and adulterous people of this generation who keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the Prophet. As it states below in Scripture:

• Matthew 12:38, 39 - The Sign [Mark] of Jonah - [38] Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” [39] But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

It continues into verse 40 and reads:

• [40] For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In the Gospel of John, we know of Jesus' miracles and the fact the miracles done by him are spoken of as signs and we already know the Father does the Works through the Son – according to Jesus. We also already know the distinction, we know of Jonah's story and how it is identical in this sense to the Son of Man - Jesus Christ.

Which brings us to the next thing of which Jesus had said and they did not comprehend - that is, what he had stated in verse 40 (Matthew 12:40)

Now, in the history of Prophet Jonah he was tasked by God to go to Nineveh to give the message, as prophets and prophetesses are suppose to do, long story short, he ended up being swallowed alive, whole, by a huge fish right after being thrown overboard; down into the depths of Sheol he was taken, if you will, or as written.

• Jonah 1:7 - Jonah Is Thrown into the Sea - And they said to one another, “Come, let us cast lots, that we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us.” So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah.

Like Jesus had said, 3 days, 3 nights which was the case with Jonah, but then he emerged from the great fish after that time which to some it is like a resurrection. For, Christ Jesus foretells of such about he himself, who will die and on the 3rd day raised. Those same leaders were persistent with Jesus had rejected the sign of Jonah the Prophet, and remain in their own calamity, refusing to change from their bad ways, let alone show and or make the effort for repentance.

In Jonah's actions and heeding God’s message enabled the people of Nineveh to change and they did repent after Jonah gave Word of God's message to them, condemning this generation of wicked men and adulterers and evil.

This brings to the next point regarding the passage,

• Matthew 27:63-66 - [63] and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ [64] Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” [65] Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” [66] So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.
• Matthew 28:12-15 - [12] And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers [13] and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ [14] And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” [15] So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

That being said, the sign of Jonah would turn out to be the biggest and most miraculous miracle of them all. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, thus proving to that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah who has come.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Do you not believe that Jesus can/could do things mere mortal could not?

Jesus was born a man out of a woman. Pretty sure I mention this as with Jesus being corruptible, as is with all men of mankind i.e. susceptible to death, a need to eat/drink, etc.

As far as I am concern no corruptible man who has perish can still do this as with other corruptible men. As Jesus, likewise, God will do the same for us, as it even points that out in Romans 8:11. Therefore the belief in the Resurrection is important.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Sure He placed limitation upon Himself when taking for form of man (Phil 2:7), but that didn't mean He couldn't use His power for whatever He wanted (John 2:7-11). 

So what is your point in this regard?

Jesus never took plunder of being equal with God and the other passage was regarding a wedding of which Jesus was invited to with those of his circle. Mary told him the wine had ran short and to prevent the marriage couple of being put to shame, Jesus took action as well as gave order regarding water, which was also needed due to the customs of the Jewish regarding washing before meals, for water was needed for those in attendance. The early signs performed by Jesus are also addressed in that passage you linked, granted the full passage in of itself is John 2:1-12.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

irregardless, this is just one instance we are discussing, this John 2:19. It does clearly state Jesus said He would raise Himself. You really can't ignore that without some sort of bias.

I haven't ignored anything granted I took the passage as a whole into consideration regarding John 2:19, as is with the Resurrection of Jesus, and to make claim that Jesus raised himself, kind of defeats the purpose of him being the Firstborn of the Dead when that contexts in regards to the risen Christ. Moreover, I was quick to see that Acts 13:2 was not even in connection, even harmoniously with John 2:19 and Romans 8:11, so nothing is bring ignored here, expect the fact one is taking into account the passage as a whole while the other solidifies and focuses on a single verse, there's a difference here.

that being said, you are basing your personal view on a single verse and stated Jesus raised himself, therefore, if you do not take into account the passage, the Triune God was not here, but only Jesus, who is distinct, himself who raised out of death by his hand, as is with what was seen by your personal view vs. that of the Bible and or the Apostles.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

We can gladly choose other verses to discuss and why I believe that Jesus IS God, but we just happen to be on this one. So with that being said, sure lets take all of scripture and continue. 

We are still on this one, we are not going anywhere, for and if we have, we can go for Acts 13:2 because it’s connection to John 2:19 or Romans 8:11 remains to be unseen – even the evidence regarding references points to that.

So explain how Jesus raised himself when the context and the passage itself says otherwise? Clearly if you adhere to the Trinity doctrine you'd be aware that this isn't the case, thus making it a self-refuting claim, hence of whom you can choose and not choose who is God and not God when it comes to a specific passage that carters to you, you affirmed Jesus is God and according to the belief, Jesus is not the Father nor is he the Holy Spirit, granted he who is distinct and not of the other two, raised himself.

For the Trinity is the belief that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but at the same time hence the Father is not God, the Son is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God, granted your doctrine speaks of distinct persons, yet somehow all amount to one God, but they all somehow make up the Triune Being when the time allows for it when it comes to discussion and or an explanation or common exegesis.

That being said, if you want to talk all Scripture, what of the passage in question of which such Scriptures are part of? We should be taking into account every verse affiliated with that passage, not just one or two, but rather - all of it.

That being said, what matters is what the Bible says and granted what we are to accept the very book that our God has had a hand in to enable us today to actually read and or have it in our own hands in our homes, etc.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Again, Jesus allowed restrictions upon Himself while a man.

So how does that equate to a corruptible man being able to raise himself out of the pangs of death when he was held powerless by the earth? Surely if he was able to raise himself, there would not be a need for the Father or Holy Spirit, according to this response, let alone no Triune God at all if only Jesus himself raised himself.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Of course God cannot die

But we already seen by response made by all of us that someone did die - Jesus. Granted you said Jesus is God, and that Jesus is YHWH, how was it he able to taste death when incorruptibility has never changed and God always had such? For it is common belief by Trinitarians that Jesus is God and man and they also will say he can choose to be at will, which isn't the case and Jesus does not act on his own Will, let alone speak according to the Bible, or in this case, according to John.

The Bible already tells you YHWH cannot die, is incorruptible, cannot succumb or even taste death in both the Old and New Testament, but then you have Jesus, who is according to you, is God, who was able to taste death, surely if he was God and man, death would not be something he would succumb to at all. And when someone is dead, they cannot do anything at all granted as to what the Bible says about the condition of the dead, and humans are not spirits so they do not go anywhere after death, in Jesus case, when he was resurrected was like that of a spirit, like that of an angel, according to Paul.

That being said, hopefully you are well aware that the Bible tells you God isn’t a man or a Son of Man, even going as far and to speak of his incorruptibly, as mentioned.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

thus the very reason why Jesus was subjected to become a man, to show us how we are suppose to act/be obedient to God and live according to Gods purpose AND so we can know that death is not the end. Our bodies die/decay, but our spirit belongs to God and will live after our bodies are dust again. God does not cease if Jesus, as a man dies, because our spirit as well as God's Spirit.

But God has sent Jesus in regards to Shaliach Principle, for any man who is under such is basically the one who speaks on behalf of God the Father and or his spokesman or mouthpiece if you will.

Regarding us as mortals, kind of defeats the purpose of you bringing up Romans 8:11 if this was the case, moreover, God will be restoring us to life, taking us also out of the pangs of death, so that we, like Jesus, can live again, and as those of the Spiritual House, we gain Eternal Life.

I’d also like to point out that Spirit Beings are different creations compared to humans. For humans are not spirit beings, and spirit beings are not human. We humans, granted we suffer due to Ancestral Sin from our first human mother and father, we succumb to death and sickness and when we die, we perish and everything with us, and we return to grave, buried in Sheol.

Not only God cannot die, God is not like us men (I agree with the Bible on this), he isn't a man nor a son of man, for Jesus himself said to the Samaritan Woman God is a Spirit and because of this we are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The other factor to your response is that God's Purpose and Will is not of Jesus at all for what he says and does is not of his own (which I made mention of earlier), hence the very reason he speaks God's Word, he is the flesh that speaks God's Word, for Jesus didn't come to do the Purpose and Will of his own, but of the one who sent, His God and Father in heaven, we cannot be ignoring Shaliach Principle here when it is clear that this is regarding Jesus and or anyone who speaks on behalf, even represent God.

If you say he allowed these restrictions then of whom was killed to begin with, you said Jesus is both God and man regarding dual nature, so which of it died and that day?

That being said, God cannot cease or taste death or succumb to what us men are hindered by. YHWH means to exist for a reason, and all of YHWH came into existence, granted even the Paul made this known.

Or as some would say, God had sent Jesus as a representative to show us how to be righteous.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Jesus is very much YHWH.

So you agree, according to your personal belief, that YHWH died? How do you counteract with the fact that YHWH has always been incorruptible?

If that was the case, if one were to question and say, if Jesus is YHWH why would he profess Shema of affirming he has a God?

After all, God does not have anyone equal to and or above him according to this passage (Isaiah 40:12-31), moreover when Jesus was a child surely when he observed the Law, he would be aware that he was reading of himself, and yet this was not the case for in the Law not only young male Jews were circumcised on the 8th day in God's Temple, they had to observe the Law as well, as well as the Shema itself - even recite it, which is in practice by all who know of it stands for, to an extent, even Muslims know and profess the Shema too.

The other would be if Jesus is very much YHWH, as you said it yourself, who was his chosen one between both parties in regards to Spiritual Israel? For surely if Jesus was the Triune God, it would be understandable of those of the Spiritual House that make up Spiritual Israel, for I remember I spoken extensively on this before.

Lastly, how can you make the claim that Jesus is YHWH when Jesus is spoken of to be both the Firstborn from the Dead as well as being the First of the Firstfruits?

That being said, to call Jesus YHWH, you have to also remember that the Trinity Doctrine profess that the Son [Jesus] is not the Father, so take that into account also.

Other than that, It is best you begin to take consideration in all passages and not focus solely on a single verse, as an example was posed when I mention Moses.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Who said that Jesus and ONLY He raised Himself? No one, and certainly not me. I would be making God a liar by making such a statement based on the very scriptures you brought up. 

The focus of Scripture in regards to that response was only John 2:19. You said several times that Jesus said himself, granted in the doctrine of the Trinity Jesus isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit due to the fact the very doctrine teaches that they are distinct from each other. Moreover, the core Trinitarian belief regarding this verse is that the claim that Jesus must be God because he said he will raise himself from the dead when the Bible tells us it was God who raised him, even tells you how he raised him and the very reason why Jesus is the Firstborn out of Death due to that fact.

Other than that,  did you or did you not just say several times that Jesus raised himself?

• Right, Jesus said He would raise Himself up. Which He did. So here Jesus raised Himself.
• Jesus said He would raise Himself and that is what happened.
• well John 2:19 does. It clearly states who will raise the "temple of His body", Himself.

It isn't about God being made a lair or not, it is about an exegesis that becomes a contradiction.

Because if it was the other way around, you be aware of that list of verses I posted before, which is consistent and the cross-references do connect with each other in the Bible.

Granted, the belief in the Trinity is that the Son isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit thus not the Triune God.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

yes

Then your actual answer in previous response would have been that the Triune God resurrected a person of their own but due to the fact that this person is distinct to some who make the claim it is something entirely different, to some degree, granted your belief professes that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is God but not God when it comes to the distinction. Moreover, it and to more contradiction when Jesus does not take plunder of the Father who is God, hence what I have stated above.

So Jesus was not truly alone, it would defeat the very purpose of you saying Jesus raised himself, when you actually see what went on on the 3rd day that Jesus had been resurrected, which makes sense to the what Jesus said also in John 10:17-18.

So here you agree that all 3 took part in the resurrection but before was quite different, yet puts forth contradiction - himself would have been spoken of as the other Gods who had a role in the resurrection, but at the same time since they are distinct, they are not Triune, in this case, according to the doctrine, Jesus' isn't the Triune being.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

No it does not destroy the law, you are correct, but it does destroy the laws that the Jews enacted that were above the law (John 15:25).  That was all I was saying. The law stands and will stand just as Jesus said it would  (Matt 5:17)

And yet, to perhaps it may come as a surprise to you, the Shema Law is still intact in regards to Jesus' very own words in the verses in Matthew you posted, which is kind of ironic because the Trinity Doctrine do not see Jesus, who they claim to be God YHWH to have a God. You are aware of this Law of which Jesus observed since he was a child - correct? You also call on to Jesus as YHWH ,thus another contradiction when the Shema Law affirms who the God of Israel is - YHWH. If Jesus affirmed Shema in regards to YHWH who is the God of Israel as read in the Old Testament, how can you say he is YHWH when he himself affirmed to be heard, and acknowledges YHWH himself?

In this sense you have 2 YHWHs. A bit silly that you have one Yahweh or Jehovah calling on to another Yahweh or Jehovah.... It sounds a bit absurd.

Also John 15:25 is a quotation, for it is quoted from Psalms 35:19 and 69:4.

• Psalm 35:19 - Let not those rejoice over me who are wrongfully my foes, and let not those wink the eye who hate me without cause.
• Psalm 69:4 - More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause; mighty are those who would destroy me, those who attack me with lies. What I did not steal must I now restore?

The Law is used in John 10:34 and 12:34. as with several other Scriptures, even mention by Paul.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

I gave you examples of angles/the living creatures of Revelation worshiping Jesus just as God the Father. You're trying to divert what I said to mean honor given to Abraham etc. Not the same and you know it. 

I can see that, in fact, you were briefly in that debate I was in some months ago to another Trinitarian (clearly one who has hatred for others even in a debate). You are correct because Jesus is a King and all is in subjection to him, but we clearly do not see any form of religious worship being robbed from the Father to the Son, reasons why such type of worship is for the True God (which was the case with both David and God in passage in the Old Testament and how the people reacted to both the King and God), as the Law of which Jesus professed even says.

Actually it is the same, even in regards to what is says and how it is used in Greek, I believe I said this to you before and the other guy. There is no difference for I spoke of this Greek word before, Proskuneo is to worship, to show honor, pay homage, bow to [down to], to show reverence, etc. I can go way more in-depth as I have several times already if you want.

To be honest, I never even seen your response, anywhere, regarding Abraham and the Hittites, so how is it I am diverting if you never made mention to it all? As far as I know, I brought him up in this regard, just as I have with Jonah. Moreover, why would I speak of honor being given to Abraham or attempt to divert when I am speaking about the Hittites whereas Abraham was the one who bowed down to them, or in this case, worshiped them? For this was in regards to Abraham trying to speak with the Hittites so he can be allowed to bury his dead, and he bowed down not, once, but twice. Eventually Abraham was able to agree on the terms given to him in order to bury his beloved.

That being said when Abraham rose and bowed down to the Hittites who are of the land he was in, surely he did not see them as God nor did he show religious servitude and utter self-sacrificing devotion. What of his beget son, Isaac? Isaac blessed Jacob to have all the nations on earth bow to worship him, it does not make Jacob God nor does Isaac see Jacob as God. Or perhaps the son of Jesse, King David bowing to a Temple, the list goes on.

There is no argument when it comes to worship (proskuneos) anyone or anything can be worshiped from a man to his belly, to the sky, to the sea, etc. but there is a clear distinction who is to be and who is not to be religious worshiped with high devotion, most importantly in regards to religious worship it is actually something if one goes off to religious serve and worship false gods and the like. The only one spoken of to receive such devoted worship is God the Father himself, no one else, after all, this Law does hang on the foremost commandments and Jesus himself made it clear, as both Matthew and Luke made it known in their gospel.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Jesus said Himself :

Luke 24:" 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Glad you agreed with me - indeed, Jesus was like that of a Spirit and he had a Spiritualized Body granted to the amazement of the disciples who were on the road to Emmaus they were freighted and or startled, they did not recognize him but moments later overjoyed, happy even to see their Lord before them, the one who has risen.

[36] As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Jesus spoke this AFTER He was resurrected. So is Jesus a liar? 

How am I calling him a liar when I agreed with him? Indeed he had risen and indeed he was like that of a Spirit. After all, just like the dead cannot raise themselves, in regards to Jesus being resurrected by God, it can be said that because he was in this spirit state, he does not have flesh and he does not have bones.

I also agree with Paul on the fact that he spoke of Jesus, who had risen, as that of an angel; the question is, do you?

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

So what you are saying is that when Jesus was here on the Earth, He was only a man? That's fair if that is your belief, however it is not mine.

Quite frankly - Yes. He was flesh, just as I am flesh, just as Billy is flesh, just as you are flesh. the Bible makes it clear. After all, we all agreed here that Jesus was corruptible, therefore he was just a man while on earth doing the Purpose and Will of the one who sent him, hence the signs and miracles and what he has said which is not of his own word, but of the one who sent him.

That being said, if that was the case, didn't you said he restricted/limited himself? So how is this any different if you do not mind me asking?

Other than that, I believe in the apostolic teachings, and the early Church shares that same view as well as him being a servant-son of the Most High.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

I believe He had a dual nature at that point both God and man. The man had a God and this was to be an example for us. 

But you just said he restricted himself. If now this is the case, how is one who is both God and man be susceptible to death, having the need to eat, at times being ignorant to that of even a fig tree or a woman touching his robe? Moreover, why would he profess a Law  that he holds true to since he was a child if he is God and man?

It would contradict the very fact that not only you say Jesus raised himself, but Jesus dying at all if he is both God and man with you thinking he has a dual nature? That is borderline the duality belief regarding Hypostatic Union or do you truly believe this coupled with the Trinity? I can tell you right now it isn’t too far from the dualism view regarding good and evil and regarding God.

Other than that, the Trinitarians do not believe Jesus have a God while at the same time they believe he has a God and is not God or Triune because he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, as mentioned before, and remain with the idea that Jesus is God when they also agree God has no equal or anyone above him. Therefore it would defeat the very purpose of your belief. For, if God has a God, God gets baptized in front of God and a list of other things.

If I or someone random off the street had confronted you to ask, does God anoint God also with God? Such a thing would not make any sense and you can see how silly that sounds.

Well if he had a dual nature how he corruptible and incorruptible and yet still capable of succumbing to death?

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

1 Tim 3:16 says that godliness is a mystery. 

God isn’t a mystery because in Ephesians that mystery was revealed. 1 Timothy 3:16 does speak about Jesus, but it does not refer to him as God whatsoever, for if anyone is aware, God does not need to be recognized by his own creations – angels.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

actually no, those who claim such must provide proof. Until then it is an opinion based on no scriptural support and thus man made. 

Before I even start, can you provide or shed any evidence that it is a man made doctrine?

And to add on to that, who is it, according to you who had fought Satan and his Demons?

Because saying something is one thing, backing up what is said is another, I already gave you a clue, it predates the Trinity Doctrine.

Just as we have the earliest copies of the manuscripts and understand the teachings of the early church, there is information on this belief to have originated centuries ago. So we should not be quick to say it is man-made if the very belief predates your own to some degree – think about that.

Also it may come as a shock to you, but even some Trinitarians, even scholars, believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

I can see here we are goign to keep going back and forth saying the same things about this verse (John2:19) regardless if it is cross referenced to Acts or not does not diminish the fact  that Jesus said it, you agreed He said it, you just don't believe He meant it the way He said it. 

Well that can obvious be seen granted the focus is on the passage regarding the Resurrection of Jesus, in which John 2:19 is one of those verses. And no, not mention is the same thing back and forth because the context of the passage of the whole is being talked about, haven't even got to Isaiah yet.

Regardless? You have to take into account the passage, for if God's Word is to be profess, we should not be ignoring and or cherry picking Scripture to benefit a personal view that is in direct opposition of the Scripture.

That being said, so far Acts 13:2 has no connection to John 2:19 or Romans 8:11 whatsoever, thus making claim to the connection as unfounded.

Therefore we should be more focused on the passage as a whole, not a single verse in the passage; in turn we will not end up like the ones that truly believe Moses was a God as well. Most importantly the fact that Romans 8:11 was mention to thus solidifies the passage in question in whole rather than base an exegesis on a single snippet of the passage, or rather, a few words in a lone verse to justify and base a grand personal belief on Jesus alone and he himself when further on with included context, we see that God was indeed the one who has raised Jesus, resurrecting  him, and it was God who will give that same authority to Jesus to raise a great multitude of people in the process.

That being said, cross-references should be taken seriously - it is in your bible for a reason as well as footnotes.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Lets move on about John 1:3, in particular not the verse John 1:3 but my supporting scriptures that back up that Jesus in fact did create everything and was not created and is God.

Well then, let us see your supporting Scriptures, surely it must include who is the Light as well or perhaps the Genesis Act of Creation also, that of which is mentioned in John's Introductory.

I am also willing, and able to discuss John’s Introductory, as is with verse 3 which is included in that same introductory.

I let you go first because it isn’t a matter of Jesus being created or not, in this sense, but what the introductory entails in of itself.

On 11/7/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shiwiii said:

Who is speaking in Isaiah throughout and being recorded?  The Hebrew scriptures state it is YHWH, do you agree? 

You will have to be more specific on what in Isaiah you want to discuss about. Isaiah speaks of YHWH all the time, he also spoke to what is to become of God's enemies, what is to become of him when he is no longer held powerless by the earth, furthermore, he spoke extensively of the Promised Seed of God who is spoken of as the Horn of Salvation later on in the text, ironically enough, one of such things Isaiah said points to John 2:19 thus disqualifies the claim that Jesus raised himself.

That being said, I will be happy to discus about Isaiah, apparently I am mimicking him as he did to the leaders of Judah right now.

Moreover, I find YHWH testimony a strong one about himself in the Old Testament, an obvious and infamous one, perhaps you might agree with it if you know what I am referring to.