@divegeester
Did you read my entire reply?
Or did you just read the first line?
Read the rest of my reply which took up two posts and see if
you don't get your answer in the remaining comments.
Ie.
1.) What are the reasons for my comments to Rajk999 after not receiving a confession.
2.) What are the accepted limitations of my expectations.
3.) What my hope is for him.
4.) What principles do I respect as to options for him to respond to my inquires.
Read the rest of my comments beyond just the first line and see if you see additional comments by me that address your concern.
@sonship saidYou are the biggest jacka$$ on this site. I dont confess anything before jacka$$es, neither do I care to answer your foolish questions. Im here to identify errors in your teachings, and show everyone that your teachings run contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
My purpose is neither to embarrass him or humiliate him or even to "win" an argument for winning an argument's sake. My purpose is to get him to consider before God that he really should openly confess in the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Lord.
As to your question "Is it ok Rajk999 [not] answer your direct yes or no question . . . " .
No one can FORCE hi ...[text shortened]... nfess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:10,11 RcV my bolding) [/b]
For human beings to go from not knowing Jesus is Lord to knowing and confessing Jesus is Lord is of course a conversion.
To take the message of this conversion to everyone is the privilege and responsibility not of some elite group of Christians but to every Christian.
The mocking tone of "he thinks he is especially anointed to convert" reveals some blindness of the critic.
All Christians should be "holding forth the word of life" (Phil. 2:16).
Christ, said "the Father is greater than I". Actually in His utter humility even those whom He came to DIE for He must have regarded in some sense greater than Himself.
No man ever humbled himself to so great a degree. He came He said to serve and give His life a ransom from many. How could Jesus NOT regard Him who sent Him to do so greater than He? How could he not even regard in some sense ALL sinners as more important than His own life, since He laid His life down for sinners?
Christ declaring in more than one way and more than one instance the Father is greater than I should not be interpreted as :
The old testament Yahweh is more important than the incarnation of God as a man in the new testament.
Christ declaring "the Father is greater than I" does not mean :
The old testament Exodus and Deuteronomy make the Gospel of John a lessor and inferior disclosure about God's plan to become a man.
Beware of people who grasp the Lord's words "the Father is greater than I" to use it to teach AGAINST - "the Word was God . . . the Word became flesh" (John 1:1b,14)
And beware of people who lay hold of "the Father is greater than I" to teach Christ was the archangel Michael and not the "I AM" as a man.
First Timothy 3:16 King James Version
" 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. "
@sonship saidJesus was clear in his meaning. God was greater than himself.
Christ, said "the Father is greater than I". Actually in His utter humility even those whom He came to DIE for He must have regarded in some sense greater than Himself.
Your interpretation has Jesus cry out to himself on the cross. Completely ludicrous.
Jesus was clear in his meaning. God was greater than himself.
You're a funnty kind of desperate hypocrit.
And when Jesus was clear in His meaning you STILL disbelieve in God.
This Ghost of a Duke is a desperate atheist clinging to use the Bible to get away from the God of the Bible. This is ironinic, sad, and reveals one deeply deceived.
While Jesus standing on the ground of a man said the Father was greater than all, also petitioned the Father that He would glorify Him, the Son, with the pre-creation glory and splendour He enjoyed with Him before the world was.
This implies that what the Son had He temporarily set aside to become like us. And now accomplishing God's work, ascends again to the glory He had with the Father before the creation of the universe.
"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
This proves the Triune God. For God in the Old Testament declares He would not give His glory to anyone. Isaiah 42:8
English Standard Version
I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.
Berean Study Bible
I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols.
King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
@sonship saidWhy did you edit the following out of my post:
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Jesus was clear in his meaning. God was greater than himself.
You're a funnty kind of desperate hypocrit.
And when Jesus was clear in His meaning you STILL disbelieve in God.
This Ghost of a Duke is a desperate atheist clinging to use the Bible to get away from the God of the Bible. This is ironinic, sad, and reveals one d ...[text shortened]... that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
[/b]
'Your interpretation has Jesus cry out to himself on the cross. Completely ludicrous.'
@sonship saidHi Son
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Jesus was clear in his meaning. God was greater than himself.
You're a funnty kind of desperate hypocrit.
And when Jesus was clear in His meaning you STILL disbelieve in God.
This Ghost of a Duke is a desperate atheist clinging to use the Bible to get away from the God of the Bible. This is ironinic, sad, and reveals one d ...[text shortened]... that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
[/b]
"The Lord" is not a name, but a title. In the times of Isaiah it would have referred to Bale Worship.
Isaiah 42:8 (ASV) I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.
On the point of
"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)" proving a triune god, that isn't the case. This passage references a pre-existence with God, and would tie in with Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15).
This idea of Christ being part of a Trinity and being Co-equal to The Father (Athanasian Creed) doesn't stand up.
If The Father is almighty, and according to John 14:28 ".... I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." Jesus clearly isn't almighty.
If you picked up the bible and read it cover to cover you would never conclude a holy trinity.
Hi Son
"The Lord" is not a name, but a title. In the times of Isaiah it would have referred to Bale Worship.
You cannot miss that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Certainly "the Lord Jesus Christ" is unambiguous throughout the New Testament.
And my RcV as well as ASV 1901 and a few other English translations are have Jehovah for the "Lord" all throughout the OT.
And you probably meant "Baal."
Isaiah 42:8 (ASV) I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.
That will do fine. YHWH or Jehovah said He would not give His glory to another. Yet the Son asks the Father to glorify Him with the glory He had with the Father before the world was. John 17:24)
On the point of
"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)" proving a triune god, that isn't the case. This passage references a pre-existence with God, and would tie in with Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15).
I would say that you misunderstand Col. 1:15 as Arius did and the Watchtower Society also does.
It doesn't mean Christ was the first thing God created.
It means that since Christ became incarnated - "the Word became flesh" taking upon Himself the creation, of all creation He is the Firstborn and most preeminent.
The Word was not created by God but was with God, ... and WAS God (John 1:1)[/b] The eternal preexisting Word became flesh. In becomming a man He is the most preeminent item of all creation - the Firstborn of all creation.
Surely man is a created item of God. God created man (Gen. 1:26,27). So when God was incarnate to become a man this was the most preeminent matter in all creation.
The Word became flesh (John 1:14). But the Word is God Himself. This uplifted by incarnation that part of creation as first place among all else in creation.
The book you quoted - Colossians also says twice that the fullness of God dwelt or was pleased to dwell in Christ. It does not say 1/3 of the fullness. It does not say 33.3333 % of the fullness. But it says all the fullness.
"For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19)
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9)
So Christ is the mingling of God and man.
Christ is the perfect man and the eternal God incarnate.
This idea of Christ being part of a Trinity and being Co-equal to The Father (Athanasian Creed) doesn't stand up.
You disbelieve what the Bible says - "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1;1).
You just don't believe it. Will you now contrive a twisting that Christ is the archangel Michael ? No, we should believe that Christ is the mystery of God (Col. 2;2) - and the singular NAME (Matt. 28:19) - not plural names but "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is the Person into which believers must be plunged, immersed, baptized into - a living Triune God.
If The Father is almighty, and according to John 14:28 ".... I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." Jesus clearly isn't almighty.
If you picked up the bible and read it cover to cover you would never conclude a holy trinity.