Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Did GOD come in Human Form?

[Rocky]

I was not going to do this but you used these versions in your 1 Tim 3:16 thread, which I posted there first before I did here. Languages of the bible? which version? Truth your NASB NIV uses this word. NASB- 1 cor 2:9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Now NIV 1 cor 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
Now for a few other translations of that same verse
ESV- For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
RSV- For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
I prefer Godhead and I am not a big fan of newer translations.
KJV- For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
I see your buffet tactics of using scripter transcends bible translation as well..
Do you see how silly you are being

I probably should have explained what i mean by the "language of the Bible". It doesn't mean NASB, KJV, or any other translations. When i say use the language of the Bible that mean to the words according to how the Holy Spirit use them. I asked you what "Deity" meant and you never answered. "Deity" is a English western translation. But the Greek used in ALL case was theoteœs which means "divine". Now the Scripture doesn't say Jesus is[/i] GODHEAD(theoteœs)? Now does it. The Scripture doesn't say that Jesus is "divine nature"? Now does it? The Scripture says that the FULLNESS of the DIVINE NATURE pertaining to the FATHER is IN HIM. You continually throw a red-herring about me denying THE SON's Deity. When I explicitly stated THE SON is THE exact SAME IMAGE of FATHER which means HE has all the SAME attributes of the FATHER.

As usual you ignore all questions i ask, i understand why.
Find me the Scripture where it say JESUS is DEITY? Let me say that you can never find it. The Divine Nature of THE FATHER dwelt in HIM just as i have said in several posts. You use the "Orthodox Christianity" to assert that JESUS is Deity, vice the fact that it is the fullness of THE DIVINE NATURE that indwells HIM.


************************************************** I will restate my question*********************************************************
When the Apostle Peter preached JESUS? What did HE say in Acts 3? Did HE preach HIM as "DEITY"? Did he preach him as "GOD"? The answer is NO.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
He preached THE SON, THE CHRIST as a MAN approved by the ONE GOD, THE FATHER, who was appointed as LORD and SAVIOR. Tell did Apostle Peter say Acts 2:22 that JESUS was GOD approved by GOD? NO. He said A MAN approved by THE GOD. Peter declared that THE MESSIAH was LORD and SAVIOR. Go check my other post where i point what he said in his letters. The problem is that you do understand what THE SON OF LIVING GOD means and the significance of THE MESSIAH. That is why you have to make HIM "GOD"

Not ONE verse preached THE SON as GOD. NOT one Scripture preached HIM as GOD the Son. Every apostle and the Scripture confirmed that HE was preached as THE MAN sent from THE ONE GOD is who LORD and CHRIST/Savior.

Face palm, truthy. Jesus is called God in scripture him being God made flesh is just a basic fundamental belief. You make no sense to me I cant make head or tails of you double talk.How many times do others and my self have put Scriptures up that refutes you I feel like . Haz, macca, Leon, anybody else got something to add. I will get back to you a little later, I need to go kill a squirrel or something..

[the_truth]

************************************************** I will restate my question*********************************************************
When the Apostle Peter preached JESUS? What did HE say in Acts 3? Did HE preach HIM as "DEITY"? Did he preach him as "GOD"? The answer is NO.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
He preached THE SON, THE CHRIST as a MAN approved by the ONE GOD, THE FATHER, who was appointed as LORD and SAVIOR. Tell did Apostle Peter say Acts 2:22 that JESUS was GOD approved by GOD? NO. He said A MAN approved by THE GOD. Peter declared that THE MESSIAH was LORD and SAVIOR. Go check my other post where i point what he said in his letters. The problem is that you do understand what THE SON OF LIVING GOD means and the significance of THE MESSIAH. That is why you have to make HIM "GOD"

Not ONE verse preached THE SON as GOD. NOT one Scripture preached HIM as GOD the Son. Every apostle and the Scripture confirmed that HE was preached as THE MAN sent from THE ONE GOD is who LORD and CHRIST/Savior.

Face palm, truthy. Jesus is called God in scripture him being God made flesh is just a basic fundamental belief. You make no sense to me I cant make head or tails of you double talk.How many times do others and my self have put Scriptures up that refutes you I feel like . Haz, macca, Leon, anybody else got something to add. I will get back to you a little later, I need to go kill a squirrel or something..

Rocky,
Keep on side-stepping. If what you say is TRUE, then the Apostles should have said what you believe. We're going to stay in ACTS 2 and see if you can make Scripture break.

I will repeat. The Apostle Peter had a chance to preach another JESUS as many do, but HE stuck with THE TRUTH.

Again, i ask did the Apostle declare that Jesus WAS MADE " ho Theos" or that JESUS is "ho THEOS?
Who was "Ho THEOS" in Acts 2?
What Title did "Ho Theos" make/appoint THE MAN that died and was resurrected? Was it THEOS? Tell me what verse Rocky, don't tell me what Orthodox Christianity Doctrine teaches.

I will help you,Acts 2:38. HE called THE MAN, JESUS "kurios" and "christos". Where is THEOS in there? Now, Peter walked with THE MAN, saw what HE did and YET THE FATHER spoke THROUGH Peter and called THE MAN, HIS Son, "kurios" and "christos".

And Scripture confirm that 3000 people joined the Church on the Preaching of THE MAN Named Jesus who was introduced to them NOT as THEOS, but as "kurios" and "christos".

Stay in the Books of Acts, we're going to go step by step and go back to the TRUE Apostolic doctrine as spoken by THE FATHER through HIS Apostles. There is NO OTHER THEOS, but ONE THEOS, who is written in Acts 2 as HO THEOS.

[bibleman]

************************************************** I will restate my question*********************************************************
When the Apostle Peter preached JESUS? What did HE say in Acts 3? Did HE preach HIM as "DEITY"? Did he preach him as "GOD"? The answer is NO.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
He preached THE SON, THE CHRIST as a MAN approved by the ONE GOD, THE FATHER, who was appointed as LORD and SAVIOR. Tell did Apostle Peter say Acts 2:22 that JESUS was GOD approved by GOD? NO. He said A MAN approved by THE GOD. Peter declared that THE MESSIAH was LORD and SAVIOR. Go check my other post where i point what he said in his letters. The problem is that you do understand what THE SON OF LIVING GOD means and the significance of THE MESSIAH. That is why you have to make HIM "GOD"

Not ONE verse preached THE SON as GOD. NOT one Scripture preached HIM as GOD the Son. Every apostle and the Scripture confirmed that HE was preached as THE MAN sent from THE ONE GOD is who LORD and CHRIST/Savior.

Face palm, truthy. Jesus is called God in scripture him being God made flesh is just a basic fundamental belief. You make no sense to me I cant make head or tails of you double talk.How many times do others and my self have put Scriptures up that refutes you I feel like . Haz, macca, Leon, anybody else got something to add. I will get back to you a little later, I need to go kill a squirrel or something..

Rocky,
Keep on side-stepping. If what you say is TRUE, then the Apostles should have said what you believe. We're going to stay in ACTS 2 and see if you can make Scripture break.

I will repeat. The Apostle Peter had a chance to preach another JESUS as many do, but HE stuck with THE TRUTH.

Again, i ask did the Apostle declare that Jesus WAS MADE " ho Theos" or that JESUS is "ho THEOS?
Who was "Ho THEOS" in Acts 2?
What Title did "Ho Theos" make/appoint THE MAN that died and was resurrected? Was it THEOS? Tell me what verse Rocky, don't tell me what Orthodox Christianity Doctrine teaches.

I will help you,Acts 2:38. HE called THE MAN, JESUS "kurios" and "christos". Where is THEOS in there? Now, Peter walked with THE MAN, saw what HE did and YET THE FATHER spoke THROUGH Peter and called THE MAN, HIS Son, "kurios" and "christos".

And Scripture confirm that 3000 people joined the Church on the Preaching of THE MAN Named Jesus who was introduced to them NOT as THEOS, but as "kurios" and "christos".

Stay in the Books of Acts, we're going to go step by step and go back to the TRUE Apostolic doctrine as spoken by THE FATHER through HIS Apostles. There is NO OTHER THEOS, but ONE THEOS, who is written in Acts 2 as HO THEOS.

Hi truth

Try this one.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD.

[the_truth]

Hi truth

Try this one.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD.

Hi Bibleman,
The challenge was to stay in Acts 2. But i will go with you on this verse. The Scripture said that THE SON will be called Emmanuel which is interpreted "Ho Theos". "Ho Theos" was not THE SON, therefore not JESUS. Acts 2 proves that and so do other verses. It was "ho Theos" that raised JESUS. Why did the Scripture say that his Name shall be called "Emmanuel"? Wasn't "Ho THEOS" with JESUS wherever HE was because "HO THEOS" was IN the MAN.

Did "Ho Theos" raise "Ho Theos"? I think not.

The challenge still stands, the Scripture cannot be broken. No apostles, No prophet, nobody preached JESUS as the one who is "Ho Theos". They ALL preached HIM as "kurios"/"Christos", the ONE raised by "Ho Theos". Am I right?

[bibleman]

Hi truth

Try this one.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD.

Hi Bibleman,
The challenge was to stay in Acts 2. But i will go with you on this verse. The Scripture said that THE SON will be called Emmanuel which is interpreted "Ho Theos". "Ho Theos" was not THE SON, therefore not JESUS. Acts 2 proves that and so do other verses. It was "ho Theos" that raised JESUS. Why did the Scripture say that his Name shall be called "Emmanuel"? Wasn't "Ho THEOS" with JESUS wherever HE was because "HO THEOS" was IN the MAN.

Did "Ho Theos" raise "Ho Theos"? I think not.

The challenge still stands, the Scripture cannot be broken. No apostles, No prophet, nobody preached JESUS as the one who is "Ho Theos". They ALL preached HIM as "kurios"/"Christos", the ONE raised by "Ho Theos". Am I right?

Hi truth,

Above you said: "The Scripture said that THE SON will be called Emmanuel which is interpreted "Ho Theos". "Ho Theos" was not THE SON, therefore not JESUS."

The Scripture is clear and plain that "Ho Theos" was "the Son".

What you are doing is saying since you mistakenly think that God was NOT Jesus, then the Greek text has to be changed. You are attempting to make the Scriptures say what you want them to say - and they do NOT! You ar trying to say that God called Jesus "God (theos) with us and he was NOT with us." That my friend is nuts.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD.

The child, the Son, was "GOD WITH US"

That is easy and plain for all to see.

We will now see if you are HONEST with the Scriptures.

[Ironman]

Hi truth

Try this one.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD.

Hi Bibleman,
The challenge was to stay in Acts 2. But i will go with you on this verse. The Scripture said that THE SON will be called Emmanuel which is interpreted "Ho Theos". "Ho Theos" was not THE SON, therefore not JESUS. Acts 2 proves that and so do other verses. It was "ho Theos" that raised JESUS. Why did the Scripture say that his Name shall be called "Emmanuel"? Wasn't "Ho THEOS" with JESUS wherever HE was because "HO THEOS" was IN the MAN.

Did "Ho Theos" raise "Ho Theos"? I think not.

The challenge still stands, the Scripture cannot be broken. No apostles, No prophet, nobody preached JESUS as the one who is "Ho Theos". They ALL preached HIM as "kurios"/"Christos", the ONE raised by "Ho Theos". Am I right?

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt. 1:23)."

.

Hay, Bibleman! I suppose we could cry, I guess, but what would that do? Maybe let go? Or we might just have to let go and take one for the entire team. ...?

Would I be out of line in suggesting we take up a collection and engage someone with a scalpel to take a look under the hood.


OHHH NO!

[the_truth]

The Scripture is clear and plain that "Ho Theos" was "the Son".

Let's go to the Tanach, and then to what Jesus said to fully understand that verse because if you don't go to the source Hebrew text and Jesus' own words, then error might creep in. .

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Immanuel from Hebrew is made up of two words(H5973 and 410). "EEM" means EQUALY WITH, or accompanying. We already know what "el" means. HE was called IMMANUEL not, HO THEOS. Matthew said HE was called "IMMANUEL". Then the Apostle said what IMMANUEL means. YOU can't find 1 Scripture in the Gospel, neither after HIS birth where they called THE SON "Ho Theos". Can you?

The reason why "Ho THEOS" that raised JESUS was with the Apostles is because truly as Scripture says "HO THEOS was WITH JESUS, and was NOT JESUS.

PROOF TEXT that seals it: John 8:29 - And HE [The Father, "Ho THEOS"] that sent me [THE SON], is with ME, the Father hath not left me alone.

That challenge for ANY and ALL is for ANYONE to find text where any of the Apostles IN ACTS called JESUS the CHRIST, "HO Theos"? This is going to be interesting.

[Ironman]

The Scripture is clear and plain that "Ho Theos" was "the Son".

Let's go to the Tanach, and then to what Jesus said to fully understand that verse because if you don't go to the source Hebrew text and Jesus' own words, then error might creep in. .

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Immanuel from Hebrew is made up of two words(H5973 and 410). "EEM" means EQUALY WITH, or accompanying. We already know what "el" means. HE was called IMMANUEL not, HO THEOS. Matthew said HE was called "IMMANUEL". Then the Apostle said what IMMANUEL means. YOU can't find 1 Scripture in the Gospel, neither after HIS birth where they called THE SON "Ho Theos". Can you?

The reason why "Ho THEOS" that raised JESUS was with the Apostles is because truly as Scripture says "HO THEOS was WITH JESUS, and was NOT JESUS.

PROOF TEXT that seals it: John 8:29 - And HE [The Father, "Ho THEOS"] that sent me [THE SON], is with ME, the Father hath not left me alone.

That challenge for ANY and ALL is for ANYONE to find text where any of the Apostles IN ACTS called JESUS the CHRIST, "HO Theos"? This is going to be interesting.

Would I be out of line in suggesting we take up a collection and engage someone with a scalpel to take a look under the hood.







OHHH NO!

[the_truth]

Not an apostle, but how would you address this one, Darren???

• Luke 8:39 KJV
  • Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God [ho theos] hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

This man was told to show what God [ho theos] had done to him. He published what Jesus had done to him.

To this man, Jesus was God [ho theos].

All the Greek texts I have access to agree on this.

Hi Agabus,
Yes, all the Greek text say that. JESUS told the man to go tell what [ho theos] did. The Scripture cannot be broken. This verse by itself would indicate that JESUS considered HIMSELF to be "ho theos". But remember what JESUS said in John. Who did the work? John 14:14 ...but THE FATHER (Ho Theos) that dwelleth in me,DOETH the WORKS..

So when JESUS told the man to go tell great things about what "Ho Theos" had done, JESUS was literally telling the man to show how great things THE FATHER hath done unto him. JESUS attributed ALL HIS works to THE FATHER and gave all credit to HIS work to the Father. It was THE FATHER that doeth the works. The man published what JESUS had done BY the Father.

Still stands. JESUS, nor any Prophet, nor any Apostle taught that JESUS is "Ho Theos".

[the_truth]

Hi truth,

It seems we have a choice here.... to believe the WORD of GOD or to believe you.

Let's see the WORD says: Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Who was with us? - - - - - ὁ θεός that is - ho theos. THE GOD. The child, the Son, was "GOD WITH US" So let's see here the Bible says Jesus was GOD (ho theos) - you say that Matthew lied to us. Hum... think, think, think... Well sorry but you lose - I am going to believe the WORD of God over you!

On second thought I am not sorry at all! (smile)

Bibleman,
No bibeman, i don't lose. Matthew was a Hebrew Apostle. He said and Prophesied that JESUS was CALLED "IMMANUEL". Matthew did not say JESUS IS[ "Ho Theos", no matter how many ways you try to spin it.


And Jesus was prophesied to BE CALLED that because as I have said and Jesus and the Apostles confirmed: Ho Theos, THE FATHER was WITH HIM(Jesus), therefore THE FATHER was with the Apostles. JESUS talked so much about THE FATHER that the Apostles said shows us THE FATHER. What did JESUS say? Paraphrasing JESUS: I'm not THE FATHER, but HE is here. HE is here because we are ONE and because THE FATHER is WITH ME. John 8:29.

You have contradicted yourself because you told me i believe in another post that THE FATHER is not THE SON. The Scripture proves 100% that "Ho Theos" is ONLY THE FATHER. 1 Cor 8:6 But to us there there is but ONE [THEOS], THE FATHER. John 5:1,17,18 Out of JESUS own mouth ….also that "Ho Theos" was HIS(Jesus) Father. John 16:27 For THE FATHER himself loves you…and have believed that I (Jesus) came out from "Ho Theos". "Ho Theos"=THE FATHER="THE ONE GOD" in every instance and case of the Scripture. It cannot be disputed nor contradicted in any case.

Are you telling me that Jesus came out of himself? You said Jesus IS "Ho Theos". So are you now backtracking and saying that JESUS is THE FATHER. The same thing that ONENESS believe.

The challenge STILL stands: Not one Prophet, not one Apostle, not THE FATHER HIMSELF, neither JESUS HIMSELF ever said in any Scripture that was recorded that: JESUS(THE SON) is "Ho Theos". I believe the Adversary the devil tried to make himself "Ho THEOS" and "Ho Theos"(THE FATHER) found fault with him for that very thing; making himself "el".

Yes, I'm going to believe what is WRITTEN and what NO MAN can dispute through the Scripture: that JESUS is NOT "Ho Theos", but THE SON of "ho theos". John 10:36. Please understand the significance of being called THE SON. As Jesus told Peter, flesh and blood doesn't reveal this but THE FATHER, "Ho THEOS" in heaven.

The Scripture cannot be broken.