Originally posted by Rajk999You mean if the Bible doesn't line up with your doctrine you reject it. I see, because it
I dont know. The Bible says it both ways as I already said. neither do I need to know whether Jesus raised himself. If the Bible is not clear on something then I accept that as being inconclusive. If you choose to say it one way or the other thats your choice.
cannot mean what it says, and says what it means!
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you answer the question. Who raised Jesus from the dead?
You mean if the Bible doesn't line up with your doctrine you reject it. I see, because it
cannot mean what it says, and says what it means!
My answer is that the Bible says it both ways. End of Story.
[How am I rejecting what the Bible says?]
Whats your answer?
Originally posted by Rajk999As much as you want Him to, He's not going to 'dumb it down' for the slow ones.
The Bible says it both ways. Jesus raised himself from the dead is one reference and another says God raised him from the dead.
You seem to want to interpret that to mean that Jesus = God.
However you will find nowhere where Jesus plainly says that he is God or that he is equal to God.
Furthermore there is nothing like fully man / fully God in the Bible.
The rest of us can tell you what it means, but if you are stubborn enough to reject that, well....
You know, there's another solution.
But since you also refuse to acknowledge any of the Bible outside of the "red letters", you probably won't even be helped if I point you directly to James 1:5.
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, you and I have our differences politically, but we agree on this point.
I believe Jesus was the Word of God (God) made flesh (man) when He was here.
The word fully when used is to make sure everyone does not do what you do, which is
twist the scripture to make Jesus out to be something more than a man, and less than God.
It's pretty fundamental, really.
Originally posted by SuzianneBut since you also refuse to acknowledge any of the Bible outside of the "red letters", you probably won't even be helped if I point you directly to James 1:5.
As much as you want Him to, He's not going to 'dumb it down' for the slow ones.
The rest of us can tell you what it means, but if you are stubborn enough to reject that, well....
You know, there's another solution.
But since you also refuse to acknowledge any of the Bible outside of the "red letters", you probably won't even be helped if I point you directly to James 1:5.
Not sure why you and others keep making comments like this to rajk999. He's one of the few, if not only, people on this forum that seems to have made a sincere effort to formulate his beliefs based on the Bible as a whole.
As opposed to him, most only recognize the parts of the Bible that are not in opposition to their pre-conceived beliefs.
Originally posted by chaney3No, no, no, no, no.
Dive, you claim to NOT believe in the Trinity, yet you think that Jesus is God, in some way.
Suzianne has challenged you on this, and I agree.
Your view is no different from the Trinity.
You believe that Jesus is God, in some fashion.
He believes that God is Jesus. Dang, get it right!
That's totally different than saying Jesus is God. Totally.
(Hopefully, you get that I'm being sarcastic here. Since I'm never sure what you do 'get' anymore, I felt I had to be clear.)
Originally posted by Rajk999I have no problem acknowledging Jesus raised Himself from the dead, nor do I have issue
OK . Is that why you started a thread on it ?
one saying God did it. You are the one that has to turn scripture into suggesting it says
something other than what it does to make it fit your doctrine verses what it says.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAgain, "not sure if serious".
[b]But since you also refuse to acknowledge any of the Bible outside of the "red letters", you probably won't even be helped if I point you directly to James 1:5.
Not sure why you and others keep making comments like this to rajk999. He's one of the few, if not only, people on this forum that seems to have made a sincere effort to formulate his bel ...[text shortened]... only recognize the parts of the Bible that are not in opposition to their pre-conceived beliefs.[/b]
He touts verses like James 2:20, that "faith without works is dead" as proof that works is the only path to salvation, while ignoring verses like John 3:16, which clearly says that "faith is salvation".
We've tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to tell him that works comes naturally from faith, but all he can do is sit there in his comfortable chair and claim that we are all going to hell because we "deny" that Faith + Works is clearly the "strait and narrow" way. No one denies that Works is important, and yet, he's the only one in this forum who constantly and stridently insists that all the rest of us do is "mouth worship". He's a hypocrite. He judges us all the time, and then sits back and claims he does not judge. He claims all these things about us when he does not know us. He bears false witness against us. He's a hypocrite.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat woman is best ignored. Some Christians think they can ignore Christ's teachings and still get eternal life.
[b]But since you also refuse to acknowledge any of the Bible outside of the "red letters", you probably won't even be helped if I point you directly to James 1:5.
Not sure why you and others keep making comments like this to rajk999. He's one of the few, if not only, people on this forum that seems to have made a sincere effort to formulate his bel ...[text shortened]... only recognize the parts of the Bible that are not in opposition to their pre-conceived beliefs.[/b]