The Real Jesus Christ (Biblical Debate)

Originally Posted by Les
When God became man ,he took upon Himself humanity,without ever surrendering His diety. The sacrifice of Himself is replete of the sacrifices offered up to God by the High Priest .Keeping in mind that the sacrifice itself had to be acceptable to God.

So God,being in the person of Christ made the perfect sacrifice by offering up Himself
to God that satisfied the justice of God. And did this without ever not being God.

As for the virgin birth of Christ,all three in the Godhead were involved in it. The humanity of man and the diety of God were joined in the womb of the virgin.
Both impossibilities ,but without exception,true.

You are taking a negative view of the trinity because you have determined to not believe it. I’m sure that the bible you use must have side notes that support the trinity,but you ignore them and insist on believing the unsupported negatives of it.

Now JESUS CHRIST IS MELCHIZEDEK in the OT….A person stated…And another person asked:

Where was Jesus a priest in the O.T. ?????? Please show us the scriptures ?????? Nothing but eisogesis on your part and quantum leaps of faith without evidence.

Funny Question:

You made the statement that Jesus has been the one and only Lord since his conception. What was he doing before then?🀣🀣🀣

Funny Statement:

Are you saying Jesus was inactive in the OT?🀣🀣🀣

The Son of God has been active with the Father and the Holy Spirit from eternity. Not quite sure of the meaning of your question friend.

I do not think this guy reads his Bible:

Last time I checked, old testament was part of the bible too?

But Jesus does say himself that he is the Father,the beginning and Ending .🀣🀣🀣🀣

And see the response? Asking for scripture of what just came out of a person’s mouth will either shut them up or make them crazy….πŸ€ͺπŸ€ͺ

Please quote the book and passage in which Jesus Christ Himself says He is the Father,the Beginning and Ending.I know of NO such verse friend.πŸ€”πŸ€”

where is Jesus called the Father ??????????????????????????????????πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

You truly amaze me. The Father of eternity has a Father. Just take a minute and think about that. It is nonsense, absurd. The Creator of all things has a Father. That is blasphemous and outrageous. 🀨

Now it looks like we have to know GREEK in order to read scripture: πŸ™„

You need greek philosophy to interpret scripture? πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

Response is so funny:

That’s right. Without Greek philosophy, we wouldn’t even have structured logic. I’m always mildly amused when people attempt to use logical arguments to decry the use of Greek philosophy; I wonder whether they ever see the irony in their actions. πŸ€ͺπŸ€ͺπŸ€ͺπŸ€ͺπŸ€ͺ

Twisting words that are not in the Bible, did anyone else know this?

God, the Son = the Son of God. πŸ™„πŸ™„

No it doesn’t. 🀣🀣🀣

Please give me a scripture that even uses “God the Son”. 🀫🀫🀫

Then it happens as always when a person is defeated:

Let me reply to this later, I’m busy right now. 🀣🀣🀣🀣🀣🀣🀣

I’m sorry but I don’t think you know what your even talking about.

eternal Son of God

Luke 1:35 doesn’t say “called the eternal Son of God.

It gets worse, they bring MARY into the argument….And she gave birth to GOD!!!!! 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

Originally Posted by TKN
What luke 1:35 is trying to tell us is that the child of Mary will be called the Son of God (which He most certainly was on many ocassions). In other words, Luke wants to make it clear that Mary is the God-bearer. That her child will be both God (Son of God) and man. That that man (Jesus) is the eternal Son of God or God manifest in the flesh but yet born under the Law. Now what natural man is not born under the Law? Why does Paul go out of his way to tell us that Mary’s Son and God’s Son will be born under the law? There is no novelty in that if Mary’s Son is mere man. Because it was to be God’s Son who assumed the human nature (flesh) who was to fulfill the Law of God (the moral Law) perfectly in our stead since it was impossible for us to do so.


Originally Posted by Bob

And Son of God does NOT equal God manifest in the flesh.

Wow??? You just ignored scripture. ΰ² _ΰ² 

The Son of God is eternal and has always been the Son of God prior to His becomming man. πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

No support for this at all.

It is Jesus Christ who is God manifest in the flesh.

So your saying Jesus Christ , Son of God, God the Son are different persons? πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

See the Jews know the answer LOL!😏

The Son of God=God the Son friend as all Jewish citizens of His age well knew,even if you don’t.And Son of God does NOT equal God manifest in the flesh.The Son of God is eternal and has always been the Son of God prior to His becomming man.It is Jesus Christ who is God manifest in the flesh. πŸ€”πŸ€”

The answer gets worse!!!!! 🀭🀭🀭🀭

Originally Posted by Bob
Father actually sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

When did he send the Son? πŸ€”πŸ€”

(Luk 1:35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Are you saying that God the Father sent God the Son to become the Son of God?πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

Unfortunately your testimony that the Father morphed into the Son just doesn’t match John’s testimony that the Father actually sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 🀨

Now since your testimony for Christ doesn’t align with God’s word, you might want to figure out just whose words your testimony actually does align with.πŸ˜„

This man needs a good Bible study:

I don’t understand, How can the Son have been eternal if he was begotten? πŸ™ƒ

Bob, you reveal yourself to be unable to rightly divide Scripture. You engage in exegetical fallacies often and commit eisegesis as well. You prooftext rather than look into what the whole of Scripture reveals about an issues. So your hermeneutics is very, very poor and you appear to have no interest whatsoever in correcting this. Your poor hermeneutics is one major reason why you arrive at unBiblical conclusions. Also the fallacious responses you make like the red herrings here (you also engage in ad hominem, non sequitur, begging the question as well as many other fallacies) reveal that your position is weak and shallow. You dismiss legitimate Christian teachers with ad hominem and then expect others to accept your teachings over theirs even though you have little to no expertise and/or qualifications. Then you turn around and use similar materials thus revealing a major double-standard on your part as well. You are unable to rightly divide Scripture and are unwilling to do what is necessary to correct that. These are just SOME of the reasons why your unBiblical teachings and uninformed opinions are to be rejected in accordance to God’s instructions. πŸ˜‡

Published by Tweety134

I love Jesus. And I only read the King James Scriptures.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: