Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[elvisman]

the Early Church Fathers on the Trinity continued . . .

---

Gregory Nazianzen
But [the faithful] worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one Godhead; God the Father, God the Son and (do not be angry) God the Holy Spirit, one nature in three personalities, intellectual, perfect, self-existent, numerically separate, but not separate in godhead (Orations 33 A.D 374]).

---

Epiphanius
[The Antiochenes] confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial, three hypostases, one essence, one divinity. That is the true faith which has been handed down by the fathers… (Against the Heresies of the Panarians 73 A.D. 374-377]).

---

Ambrose of Milan
The substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that which is distinct, an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance. We hold the distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality; and thus we believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits (To Gratian, On the Christian Faith 4:8 A.D. 381]).

Augustine
As regards this question, then, let us believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole creature; and that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, but a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity of an equal essence (On the Trinity 9:1 A.D. 428]).

 

[avflf]

It’s convenient how you leave things out that will illustrate the Trinity.
You quoted John 20:22, but left out the preceding and following verses.
Here it is in its CONTEXT:
****(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. ****As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” ***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. ***Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
You see - it CLEARLY states that Jesus WAS sent by the Father.
As for further proof of the Trinity from Scripture - read the following and weep. Oh - and I won’t take anything out of context as you did - and because I have much to teach you, it will take a couple of posts:

“Elohim”,the Hebrew word for “God” is plural.
“Echad”, which is the Biblical Hebrew word for “one” is a corporate oneness, not just a numeric or chronological count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. All through the Scriptures, “echad” is continually used in reference to the one true God.

אלהים 'ĕlohıym, “God.” The noun אלוה 'elôah or אלה 'eloah is found in the Hebrew scriptures fifty-seven times in the **singular **(of which two are in Deuteronomy, and forty-one in the book of Job), and about three thousand times in the plural, of which seventeen are in Job. The Chaldee form אלה 'elâh occurs about seventy-four times in the singular, and ten in the plural. In any case even if it was meant “Gods” it doesn’t say how many. And “echad” is translated either “one” or “first”

A glaring example of the meaning of "echad" can be also found in the celebration of the Jewish Passover. The three-pocketed matzo holder used during Passover is referred to as an “echad”. Consequently, it is the middle of the three matzos that is broken during the ceremony. The Holy Trinity of God and the brokenness of the Second Person of the Trinity are clearly revealed in this ancient tradition. The “echad”, the one true God, is the Holy Trinity.

Go and argue this one with the Rabbi

The true Biblical doctrine of the oneness of God expresses His corporate unity. Jesus is one God with His Father. This is what Jesus meant when He said, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30).

Exactly, ONE not TWO. Like he said when Philip asked Jesus “Shows us the Father” he replied (Joh 14:9) Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? He was the express image of God in human form ie that’s what God would be in human form as no one can see God in his spirit form.

Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image…"

Do you really take this literally? Does God have to keep a running commentary of what he does? "And God said “Let there be light” “And God said let there be an expanse” It’s the writer’s way of presenting Creation a poetic trend. Yet it still doesn’t tell me there were three.

Will comment again tomorrow. Peace.

 

[elvisman]

אלהים 'ĕlohıym, “God.” The noun אלוה 'elôah or אלה 'eloah is found in the Hebrew scriptures fifty-seven times in the **singular **(of which two are in Deuteronomy, and forty-one in the book of Job), and about three thousand times in the plural, of which seventeen are in Job. The Chaldee form אלה 'elâh occurs about seventy-four times in the singular, and ten in the plural. In any case even if it was meant “Gods” it doesn’t say how many. And “echad” is translated either “one” or “first”

So . . . what’s your point?
The plural is used FAR more than the singular, indicating that this is the full understanding of the nature of God.

Go and argue this one with the Rabbi

No - I’m debating with you. Don’t cop out now . . .

Exactly, ONE not TWO. Like he said when Philip asked Jesus “Shows us the Father” he replied (Joh 14:9) Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? He was the express image of God in human form ie that’s what God would be in human form as no one can see God in his spirit form.

So, now you’re saying that you agree with the corporate unity of 3/1??
Make up your mind.

Do you really take this literally? Does God have to keep a running commentary of what he does? "And God said “Let there be light” “And God said let there be an expanse” It’s the writer’s way of presenting Creation a poetic trend. Yet it still doesn’t tell me there were three.

I’m saying that it is in complete harmony with the CONTEXT of Scripture.
That’s one thing that all non-Catholics have to do - take everything out of context. Otherwises, you’d have to admit that the Catholic Church is the one and ONLY Church established by Christ.

Hmmmmm . . all that Scriptural proof I gave you and this is the only verse you have a problem with?

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: yes, the issue with JP II is done I guess the article I read about him being rebuked for his embracing of other religions, and the accusations of heresy were falseI still believe, and have for a long time, that Christ extends the gift of salvation to all people;this is why He came, not as an answer to political oppression, as the Jews believed! He was and is the Messiah for the whole world! I mean the Jews and Gentiles were offered salavation, even though the Jews tried to hold on to their ages-old customs, laws and traditions! They probably didn’t realize that Christ’s church, was started by a Jew! I have seen Muslims,and Buddhists, come to Christ, and even Jews! So, it seems that ALL men can be saved, if they just accept the gift:thumbsup: We will never fully agree with each other, but I enjoy swapping words with youse!

 

[altabz]

altablz: I never said that we don’t need to be baptized, or that baptism was not an important part of our salvation! What did Peter tell the soon to be believers, in Acts 2:38-40? He said, "Repent of your sins, turn back to God for forgiveness, Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ(should also include the Father and the Holy Spirit:Matthew 28:19-20). So your sins are “washed away” by the “blood” of Christ, when you believe by faith, repent, and accept the grace!

---

altablz: W-O-W! You said a lot, without saying anything! Ever heard a good old hymn, called, “Nothing but the Blood.?” I t says, that nothing but the blood of Jesus, can WASH away our sins; not baptism And it’s obvious that you have been properly catechised, as you are able to spout off what you have been taught. And believe it or not, Jesus will meet you wherever you are, whether or not you are in church(remember Paul on the road to Damascus?) We are saved by faith, through grace, to do those good works that God has set aside for us. ALL mankind were afforded the opportunity to receive the gift of salvation, but some receive it in the mission field, or at the grocery store, at a football game, etc. I admire and respect your dedication to your religion, and can feel your passion for the catholic church There are too many things I cannot agree with, which prevents me from converting to catholicism; but I applaud anyone who stands up for what they believe in! First and foremost, I defend the Cross of Christ, by which I am saved! The Passover(in Exodus, was a picture of salvation) showed how all who were covered by the blood of the lamb(Lamb) were spared!​

Isn’t that obvious pal… that’s why i defended because you dismiss baptism…

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: yes, the issue with JP II is done I guess the article I read about him being rebuked for his embracing of other religions, and the accusations of heresy were falseI still believe, and have for a long time, that Christ extends the gift of salvation to all people;this is why He came, not as an answer to political oppression, as the Jews believed! He was and is the Messiah for the whole world! I mean the Jews and Gentiles were offered salavation, even though the Jews tried to hold on to their ages-old customs, laws and traditions! They probably didn’t realize that Christ’s church, was started by a Jew! I have seen Muslims,and Buddhists, come to Christ, and even Jews! So, it seems that ALL men can be saved, if they just accept the gift:thumbsup: We will never fully agree with each other, but I enjoy swapping words with youse!

**One final clarification on the critics of JPII. The people accusing him of heresy (like my mother in law) were those who belong to ultra-traditionalist, renegade splinter groups such as SSPX, SSPV and others. These groups are not even in communion with the Catholic Church and have been attacking the Church since Vatican II and beyond. **

I think that’s who you were reading about because I remember reading about it at the time. You’re right when you say, "ALL men can be saved, if they just accept the gift." I would add to that, “And endure in faith to the end.”

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: AMEN, my brother in Christ!! And when ANYONE, who has been walking in darkness, finally comes into the Light, we should welcome them as Jesus does, and see them as God does! We have a lady at our church, who was a former Muslim, who through the power of the Good News, has accepted Christ, and is revelling in her new found freedom!

 

[1beleevr]

altabz: Dismissing baptism, would be to say that we don’t need it at all; which is not what I said! You said that baptism “washes” away your sins, and I said, I don’t believe that “just” baptism does that!If that were true, then Peter spoke a lie, when he said, "Repent of your sins, turn back to God for forgivesness, and be BAPTIZED in the Name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit!"If baptism washed away your sins, instead of the Blood of Christ, wouldn’t you tell people,“Just get baptized, and you’re good to go!?” Fortunately, I DO believe that baptism is an important part of your salvation! When you accept Christ’s gift of salvation, you die to your former self. When you go under the water, you are “buried” with Christ, and when you come up out of the water, you are "resurrected with Christ. So you see, you misread my post, and falsely accused me of dismissing baptism, when the opposite is true; I just believe that the Blood of Christ, “washes” away sin, not baptism!:thumbsup:BTW, when you(catholics) are sprinkled with water, do you have to get baptized as an adult, or are you covered?

 

[avflf]

So . . . what’s your point?
The plural is used FAR more than the singular, indicating that this is the full understanding of the nature of God.

Not in the Aramaic but the point is that if you really want it to mean Gods then you cannot consider Catholicism to be a monotheistic religion

No - I’m debating with you. Don’t cop out now . . .

I don’t think either of us are qualified to discuss Jewish rituals, but I can assure you that if you went to a rabbi with that claptrap plus the one on “holy x 3” or in fact all the “proof” you bring from the Old Testament he would probably tell you to go suck eggs.

So, now you’re saying that you agree with the corporate unity of 3/1??
Make up your mind.

How did you come to this conclusion from what I wrote. You’re the one that says one god (the second) left heaven to come to earth leaving only two gods (first & third) upstairs. Then the god that came down (the second) went up again and sent the other god (the third) to be a comforter on earth leaving heaven once again with only two gods. In the O/T it was the first god that came to earth to speak to Moses as a burning bush, or a cloud, or a pillar of fire,.leaving the second and third god to run the heavens. I must admit, all very democratic; they each had a turn to visit the earth.

I’m saying that it is in complete harmony with the CONTEXT of Scripture.
That’s one thing that all non-Catholics have to do - take everything out of context. Otherwises, you’d have to admit that the Catholic Church is the one and ONLY Church established by Christ.

You’re the one that harps on anthropomorphism …

Hmmmmm . . all that Scriptural proof I gave you and this is the only verse you have a problem with?

 

[elvisman]

Not in the Aramaic but the point is that if you really want it to mean Gods then you cannot consider Catholicism to be a monotheistic religion

Oh, but we ARE monotheistic. I think you’re confused, so let me school you:
Monotheism - Belief in ONE God.
Polytheism – Belief in MULTIPLE gods.
**We believe as the Scriptures teach - ONE God in THREE persons - not three gods.

I don’t think either of us are qualified to discuss Jewish rituals, but I can assure you that if you went to a rabbi with that claptrap plus the one on “holy x 3” or in fact all the “proof” you bring from the Old Testament he would probably tell you to go suck eggs.

I’m qualified because I EDUCATE myself on these matters, whereas YOU don’t.
And you still have yet to PROVE I’m wrong.
I’m challenging YOU to do your homework and prove me wrong.
I did mine and you can’t handle it.

How did you come to this conclusion from what I wrote. You’re the one that says one god (the second) left heaven to come to earth leaving only two gods (first & third) upstairs. Then the god that came down (the second) went up again and sent the other god (the third) to be a comforter on earth leaving heaven once again with only two gods. In the O/T it was the first god that came to earth to speak to Moses as a burning bush, or a cloud, or a pillar of fire,.leaving the second and third god to run the heavens. I must admit, all very democratic; they each had a turn to visit the earth.

Nope – ONE God, PERIOD. 3 persons in the Dodhead did all that – and more.
**Admit it – you reject the Triune Godhead because you ****can’t **grasp it. You lack faith.

You’re the one that harps on anthropomorphism …

Not harping – educating . . . **

 

[avflf]

**Oh, but we **ARE monotheistic. I think you’re confused, so let me school you:
**Monotheism - Belief in **ONE God.
**Polytheism – Belief in **MULTIPLE gods.
We believe as the Scriptures teach - ONE God in THREE persons - not *three *gods.

Elohim is the plural of El and properly translated means “gods” not “persons” thus if you accept that “gods created the heavens and the earth” you ARE polytheistic.You do a leap of faith and believe that there were only 3 but you cannot prove it. Oh, you assume it’s 3 because you see 3 in everything you read in the scriptures.

I’m qualified because I EDUCATE myself on these matters, whereas YOU don’t.
And you still have yet to PROVE** I’m wrong.**
I’m challenging YOU to do your homework and prove me wrong.
**I did **mine and you can’t handle it.

Amazing that the Jews haven’t made that connection and still swear their god is a single god. Maybe you should educate them too and convert them to catholicism

Nope – ONE God, PERIOD. 3 persons in the Dodhead did all that – and more.
Admit it – you reject the Triune Godhead because you **can’t **grasp it. You lack faith.

The oneness people do not call their belief in one gad a “Mystery” like your church does. And you are right, I do not have sufficient faith to believe that 3 is 1 or that 1 is 3 . I’m not that gullible.

Not harping – educating . . . **

 

[onenow1]

1 John 5: 5-11​

5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.

7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.

10 He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son.

11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

---

In the one divine nature, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

No one of the persons is either of the others, each is wholly Himself.

The Father is GOD, the Son is GOD, the Holy Spirit is GOD.

They are not three GODS but one GOD. They are distinct but are NOT separate. Where one is, all are.

---

The Holy Trinity, one GOD, and three divine persons, functions in an individual yet collective way:

Please read this:1Cor 12:4-6. 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;

5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;

6 and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.

Quote=onenow1 Genesis 18, I believe also supports a trinity of Persons in total agreement !

Peace and God Bless
onenow1opcorn:

 

[elvisman]

Elohim is the plural of El and properly translated means “gods” not “persons” thus if you accept that “gods created the heavens and the earth” you ARE polytheistic.You do a leap of faith and believe that there were only 3 but you cannot prove it. Oh, you assume it’s 3 because you see 3 in everything you read in the scriptures.

Amazing that the Jews haven’t made that connection and still swear their god is a single god. Maybe you should educate them too and convert them to catholicism

The oneness people do not call their belief in one gad a “Mystery” like your church does. And you are right, I do not have sufficient faith to believe that 3 is 1 or that 1 is 3 . I’m not that gullible.

No - you’re not that faithful.
You still haven’t told me how the Father could have sent the son if they are one and the same.
John 20:22 CLEARLY illustrates this - as I ALREADY showed you:
****(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” ***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. ***Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." **
You see - it emphatically states that Jesus was sent by the Father.

As for Elohim - it is plural and even biblical scholars aren’t as to whether this connotes a multiplicity of beings/persons or many Gods.
**One only needs to read the Scriptures to know that the latter is implausible - given the context of Scripture - which you seem to have a huge problem with.

You still haven’t answered the idea of “Echad”, which is the Biblical Hebrew word for “one” is a corporate oneness, not just a numeric or chronological count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. All through the Scriptures, “echad” is continually used in reference to the one true God.

You’ve gotta do some pretty fancy Scriptural acrobatics to come up with the oneness doctrine . . .

 

[avflf]

No - you’re not that faithful.
You still haven’t told me how the Father could have sent the son if they are one and the same.
**John 20:22 **CLEARLY illustrates this - as I ALREADY showed you:
****(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. ****As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” ***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. ***Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
You see - it emphatically states that Jesus was sent by the Father.

As a created being Jesus’ father was God because it surely wasn’t Joseph. “Sent” just means that he had a task to do in the world. I have no problem with Jesus being the son of God, that’s scriptural. What is NOT scriptural is saying that he is God the son so you must have got that one only by tradition.

As for Elohim - it is plural and even biblical scholars aren’t as to whether this connotes a multiplicity of beings/persons or many Gods.
One only needs to read the Scriptures to know that the latter is implausible - given the *context *of Scripture - which you seem to have a huge problem with.

outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html gives you an overview of one of your quote supporting the “Trinity”

You still haven’t answered the idea of “Echad”, which is the Biblical Hebrew word for “one” is a corporate oneness, not just a numeric or chronological count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. All through the Scriptures, “echad” is continually used in reference to the one true God.

You’ve gotta do some pretty fancy Scriptural acrobatics to come up with the oneness doctrine . . .

On the 'ECHAD" problem go to outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html and let the chosen ones teach you their language

 

[altabz]

After Paul meet Christ in the road he was baptised and joined the church. My first article about baptism simply lacks of explanation. Paul convert to Christianity and joined the church. That’s the most important point it was not enough that he believe in Christ he joined Christ’s mystical body as a believer.

 

[elvisman]

As a created being Jesus’ father was God because it surely wasn’t Joseph. “Sent” just means that he had a task to do in the world. I have no problem with Jesus being the son of God, that’s scriptural. What is NOT scriptural is saying that he is God the son so you must have got that one only by tradition.

**Ummm . . gee, what about **John 1:1:
In the beginning was the word and the word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.
**This **clearly illustrates a second Person besides the Father.

outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

gives you an overview of one of your quote supporting the “Trinity”
On the 'ECHAD" problem go to outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html and let the chosen ones teach you their language
Go to a 21st-century liberal reformed Rabbi to discover truths of Christian doctrine??
That makes about as much sense as the fact that Protestants accept a 1st-century Post-Christ, Post-Temple version of OT canon - as approved by a non-official Rabbinical group, instead of the original OT that Jesus himself studied from.

---

Well - for your information:
Yachid**, was the word used in Genesis 22:2 to show the absolute oneness of Abraham’s son, Isaac - not echad.
**Moses *could have used the word "yachid" in the Sh’ma *to illustrate an absolute oneness, but he didn’y - he used echad.
In the Tanach, YHVH is used to illustrate the plurality of Persons.
The Scriptures shows 3 Persons as being divine.
**The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all ONE Name.

We have strayed** WAY off course with this discussion, but I’ll leave you with one thought:
You believe that the only way to understand God is by using simple human reasoning. The Gnostics in the 1st century had the very same problem as did every heretic in the early Church.
Your lack**** the faith can be encapsulated by one statement by St. Augustine:**
"Seek not to understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand."

 

[avflf]

**Ummm . . gee, what about **John 1:1:
In the beginning was the word and the word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.
**This **clearly illustrates a second Person besides the Father.

Go to a 21st-century liberal reformed Rabbi to discover truths of Christian doctrine??
That makes about as much sense as the fact that Protestants accept a 1st-century Post-Christ, Post-Temple version of OT canon - as approved by a non-official Rabbinical group, instead of the original OT that Jesus himself studied from.

Not to discover 'truths" of Christian Doctrine, just what the word means to them. And if, as you maintain the O/T is so infused with Trinitarian “truth” I wonder why the chosen have not yet found these truths. And what Bible did Jesus study from? I expect the Septuagint as the Apostles did.

---

Well - for your information:
Yachid**, was the word used in Genesis 22:2 to show the absolute oneness of Abraham’s son, Isaac - not echad.
**Moses could have used the word "yachid" in the Sh’ma to illustrate an absolute oneness, but he didn’y - he used echad.

I do not know Hebrew, so it’s the choice of believing you a Trinitarian, who might have studied Hebrew or a Jew whose mother tongue is Hebrew. I opt for the Jew.

**
In the Tanach, **

YHVH** is used to illustrate the plurality of Persons.****
The Scriptures shows 3 Persons as being divine.
**The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all ONE Name.

We have strayed** WAY off course with this discussion, but I’ll leave you with one thought:
You believe that the only way to understand God is by using simple human reasoning. The Gnostics in the 1st century had the very same problem as did every heretic in the early Church.**
Your** lack**** the faith can be encapsulated by one statement by St. Augustine:**
"Seek not to understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand."

That has been the Christian teaching for centuries. First believe what the priest/pastor tells you and then try to understand … as long as it’s confined to the parameters dictated by the priest/pastor.

 

[elvisman]

Not to discover 'truths" of Christian Doctrine, just what the word means to them. And if, as you maintain the O/T is so infused with Trinitarian “truth” I wonder why the chosen have not yet found these truths. And what Bible did Jesus study from? I expect the Septuagint as the Apostles did.

I do not know Hebrew, so it’s the choice of believing you a Trinitarian, who might have studied Hebrew or a Jew whose mother tongue is Hebrew. I opt for the Jew.

**I already ****HAVE **provided you with OT passages a few posts back.
Your problem is that you continue to blind yourself to the Trinitarian truths found in them.
As for the Septuagint – that IS what Jesus studied from and that can be proven by the dozens and dozens of NT references to it.
My objection to Protestant Christians – AND Oneness believers – is that you all choose to accept the decision of a 1st-century Post-Christ, Post-Temple non-official instead of the OT that Jesus learned from. These were the very people (next generation) who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. **
***Just *doesn’t add up . . .

That has been the Christian teaching for centuries. First believe what the priest/pastor tells you and then try to understand … as long as it’s confined to the parameters dictated by the priest/pastor.

**Nope – it means that you should try seeing things God’s way and not your way. You are a flawed human being – he is not. **It means to believe from the beginning what the APOSTLES taught, then understanding.

What cracks me up about people like you is that you honestly believe that the Church had it wrong for almost 2000 years until you guys came along and got it right. If that is so, then Jesus is a liar (Matt. 16:15-19).
Ummm . . . I’m not ready to make that assertion - even though you are . . .

 

[heiscominginthe]

WHAT??
How does any of this nullify the doctrine of the Trinity? Most of it supports the Trinity and some of it is out of context.
You’ll have to do much better than this.

As for 1 Cor. 15:24-28 - the Son doesn’t relinquish so much as he acknowledges the one who sent him and presents everything to him. And it is clear that he cannot put the Father under his dominion as he has all the rest. The Holy Spirit proceeds from them both.

I await avflf’s - or any other “oneness believer” - answer to my challenge . . .

Much of the article I posted does debunk the trinity doctrine. For the believers of the trinity doctrine believe that Jesus Christ, is himself God the Father and has always been God the Father. Yet, scripture disagrees with you.

Scripture teaches us that Jesus is of the Father, being made a life unto himself, being both of the Father and yet his own person. John 5:26 Scripture teaches us that Jesus is the image of the Father, being begotten of the Father, being the first of all creatures, the first of all creation. In the beginning was the Word. Jesus was begotten of the Father, in the beginning, even before the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Yet, we must examine why it is not robbery to call the Son God. Firstly, the Son is filled with the Holy Spirit of the Father, without measure. So his will is that only of his Father. So all he says and does is by way of the Father through the unction of his Holy Spirit. So because the Father has given his Son his Holy Spirit without measure, it is not robbery to call the Son God, or Father. Yet, when the Son offers up the kingdom unto the Father, he will relinquish over his authority of the Godhead, for there can be only one God.

You refuse to believe this because you do not think Jesus is a life unto himself, apart from his Father, but it is written in scripture.

Secondly, in Hebrews 1, the Father himself refers to the Son as God, so who are we to not do likewise?

As for 1 Cor. 15:24-28, it says what it says. Your argument is not with me, but with what is written. You want to argue that what it says is not what it means. So you argue against the Word of God, you argue against God himself.

 

[heiscominginthe]

altabz: Dismissing baptism, would be to say that we don’t need it at all; which is not what I said! You said that baptism “washes” away your sins, and I said, I don’t believe that “just” baptism does that!If that were true, then Peter spoke a lie, when he said, "Repent of your sins, turn back to God for forgivesness, and be BAPTIZED in the Name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit!"If baptism washed away your sins, instead of the Blood of Christ, wouldn’t you tell people,“Just get baptized, and you’re good to go!?” Fortunately, I DO believe that baptism is an important part of your salvation! When you accept Christ’s gift of salvation, you die to your former self. When you go under the water, you are “buried” with Christ, and when you come up out of the water, you are "resurrected with Christ. So you see, you misread my post, and falsely accused me of dismissing baptism, when the opposite is true; I just believe that the Blood of Christ, “washes” away sin, not baptism!:thumbsup:BTW, when you(catholics) are sprinkled with water, do you have to get baptized as an adult, or are you covered?

Yet, the washing away of sins is a baptism. Romans 6 talks of this baptism, telling us that our sins are destroyed. It is not water that destroys our sins, it is the blood of the lamb.

It is a sad thing to see when those who call themselves believers refuse to blood of Christ, opting water instead.