This is asolutely a waste of time!
there is no need to debate on such issue.

The dying horses are kicking!

Viaro still wont let go of why jesus is to be worshiped[or honored] even if i have explained why using john.3.35 that he is to be worshiped becos God GAVE him power over everything out of love.

looking critically you would wonder why God gave jesus what he already owned or why God gave to himself out of love.
2.You would wonder why Jesus and God were worshiped separately in rev. since they are still the same person and why the Holy spirit was not worshiped too since the other two of the proposed 'trinity' were worshiped.

Viaro has decided not to see reason so anyone trying to show him the way is wasting valuable time which is why i pleaded with him earlier to abandon this thread.

@karo93,

You opened a thread trying to 'prove' what is beyond you, and when the heat was turned on you took to your heels, no? Then you came back to complain like the thread was opened upon 'viaro'. Please.

karo93:

Viaro still wont let go of why jesus is to be worshiped[or honored] even if i have explained why using john.3.35 that he is to be worshiped becos God GAVE him power over everything out of love.

looking critically you would wonder why God gave jesus what he already owned or why God gave to himself out of love.

John 3:35 does not tell us that Jesus is to be worshipped on account of the Father giving Him power over everything - that is JW interpretation, and the JW scholarship has been soundly trashed for its emptiness.

Instead, I have shown you that before the Incarnation, Jesus was already worshipped by all the angels (Heb. 1:6 - 'And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him'). You must have a serious problem ignoring what others are saying so that you could try to deceive yourself with lame excuses.

If you worship a "created being", you're promoting civilised idolatry. And because Jesus was not created, He is to be worshipped because He is God. Your JW fallacy can't deal with that, which is why you keep dashing here and there to John 3:35 that says nothing about why Jesus is to be worshipped.

Now, isn't peculiar that you acknowledge Jesus is to be worshipped? And yet you deny His Deity? I thought the JW assert that only 'God' is to be worshipped? Ah yes - I remember your claiming to be Anglican; but have I not shown you that the Anglicans also acknowledge that Christians believe that Jesus is God? Have I not? Dude, you just have nothing to cover your bragado - it's empty, so just zip it.

2.You would wonder why Jesus and God were worshiped separately in rev. since they are still the same person and why the Holy spirit was not worshiped too since the other two of the proposed 'trinity' were worshiped.

Does Revelation 5:13 tell you that the Father and Christ were worshipped separately? Are you thick? Your problem is that you often want to force your cowardly antics into a book you really have no clues about so you could dribble in bits and bits here and there.

Viaro has decided not to see reason so anyone trying to show him the way is wasting valuable time which is why i pleaded with him earlier to abandon this thread.

Yes, you wanted viaro to abandon this thread so you could come sell your JW snake oil to the gullible and provide grounds for your apprentices who are supporting your drama to deceive the public. Sweet. I have tried to reason with you guys by both quoting verses and discussing issues. Not once would you and your apprentices address any question offered you ... and then you claim I'm trying to not see reason.

@Karo93:

You speak as if muslims don't worship Mohammed who is just an ordinary "prophet". Why do muslims do Asolat to him, if they don't worship him and yet he is not acknowledge to be a god of some sort as opposed to our Jesus who is the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6).

You really need to go and check the meaning of the word worship and then see how it applies to what the muslims do to Muhammed everytime you gather for Asolat, which is the same word the solat muslims observed (five times) every day. God can choose to express Himself anyway He likes, whether as Trinity or otherwise. Never limit my God. Trinity is just an expression of how unfathomable He is, especially to unbelievers like you.

John3.35. “The father loves the son and puts everything in his power”

Doesn’t john.3.35 clearly destroy all claims that Jesus is God?? Doesn’t it show that Jesus didn’t always have power over everything??

Doesn’t it show that the father has everything but CHOSE to give all to his son OUT OF LOVE??

Jesus cannot have being the owner of everything from the start and yet be given everything by someone.

Isn’t it clear that even if Jesus were to be God there will be a higher power than him-the one who gave him power over it all??

Is it to hard to understand that Jesus is now the owner of everything because it was GIVEN to him and not that it always belonged to him?

Why have you decided to close your eyes to the truth? Are your minds as closed as prophesied in john.12.40? My heart burns for you!

First things first i did not run but my internet connection was faulty.
2.whats up with the Jehovah W? i neither attend nor accept them into my house.

C'mon viaro i never said that it was when jesus came to earth that he was given power over over all.

Lastly are you trying to tell me that the father and son were not worshipped separately?[only God knows what your brain is for]Are you forgetting that there were two thrones even in rev.22?Have you forgotten that in john.14.1 jesus asked the disciples to believe in God and ALSO in him?what are you trying to say?

@ Karo93. . .

My Nairaland experience has taught me a few things - one of them is the extent of the power of the blindfold of dogma.

There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY: NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE, NOT EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT THERE IS THE BIBLE THAT WILL CONVINCE A TRINITARIAN THAT JESUS THE JEWISH CARPENTER IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This thread has run 10 pages already and the pointers are starkly clear to those who choose to see. . . that Jesus cannot be God - not biblically, and not even by simple logical inference without reference to the bible.

I advise you to drop the subject. Your last post was particularly incisive: the whole idea of power being "given" to the son is more than enough to conclude the debate - it is obvious that giver and receiver cannot be the same person.

Just leave it - no one will listen. You will only get unnecessary insults for your efforts.

Stay blessed.

karo93:

John3.35. “The father loves the son and puts everything in his power”

Doesn’t john.3.35 clearly destroy all claims that Jesus is God?? Doesn’t it show that Jesus didn’t always have power over everything??

Doesn’t it show that the father has everything but CHOSE to give all to his son OUT OF LOVE??

Jesus cannot have being the owner of everything from the start and yet be given everything by someone.

Isn’t it clear that even if Jesus were to be God there will be a higher power than him-the one who gave him power over it all??

Is it to hard to understand that Jesus is now the owner of everything because it was GIVEN to him and not that it always belonged to him?

Have you ever considered what we have discussed prior to your recent pretentious yapping? Neither authority nor role determines essence - that is as simply as I can put it for you; and unless you eternally want to blind yourself to plain facts, I don't see how that should be difficult for you to grasp.

John 3:35 is NOT the reason why Jesus Christ is to be worshipped. At least you yourself acknowledge that He is to be worshipped - you don't deny that. However, we disagree on what basis that should be evident. For me, if you worship a "created being", then you are promoting idolatry in the Biblical sense. But since you are basing your worhip of Jesus Christ on the denial of His Deity, you have no leg to stand on - that is why John 3:35 does not give you the reason as to why worship is to be ascribed to the Son of God.

The only reason why Jesus is worshipped is because of Who He is in His ESSENCE: He is Deity - He is God: and that is the only reason why worship is ascribed to Him (Hebrews 1:6). Now why are you deliberately ignoring that fact? Since I started pointing this issue out, you have categorically ignored it to argue your hypocrisy repeatedly. At least, I do not ignore what you present: but you have constantly evaded the points I raise.

Why have you decided to close your eyes to the truth? Are your minds as closed as prophesied in john.12.40? My heart burns for you!

You've been lying, so please stop this drama of claiming to know the 'truth'. You are the one person who has been twisting Biblical quotes (like your twisting of Acts 20:28 and Phil. 2:6 and claiming it was from the Good News translation - that was an obvious lie which you did not correct at any time). Should readers not be concerned for people like you who go about claiming 'truth' whereas all you do is lie constantly from start to finish?

karo93:

First things first i did not run but my internet connection was faulty.
2.whats up with the Jehovah W? i neither attend nor accept them into my house.

Your interpretations and duplicity are only fitting the JW style of hermeneutics like a hand fits into a glove. You can sit down here and claim to be an Anglican and yet display your JW disguise. Anglicans, as far as I know, do not deny the Deity of Christ (nevermind some Anglican Bishops who tried to do so). Baptists do not deny His Deity. Catholics do not deny His Deity. The only group that have agreed on their theological position to deny the Deity of Christ is JW - and your arguments here are just about the same things one would find from any JW propagandist.

C'mon viaro i never said that it was when jesus came to earth that he was given power over over all.

When did that happen then? Please be clear and play less on your dribbling games.

Lastly are you trying to tell me that the father and son were not worshipped separately?[only God knows what your brain is for]

I showed you Revelation 5:13 as an example - thanks, my brain is mine, and I use it well.

Are you forgetting that there were two thrones even in rev.22?

Sorry, dude - there is ONLY ONE THRONE in Revelation 22. If you carefully read verses 2 and 3, it becomes all the more plain to see that the one throne is ascribed to the Father and the Son - ("the throne of God and of the Lamb" - singular "throne", and not plural thrones.

When you want to see the plural 'thrones', turn to Rev. 20:4 ("I saw thrones, and they sat upon them" ... But in Rev. 22:2 & 3, it is rather just one throne.

Certainly, there are different thrones spoken of in the book of Revelation - such as the 'thrones' in Rev. 20:4, and a 'great white throne' in Rev. 20:11. But did you consider carefully why there was just one throne in view in Revelation 22:2 & 3? It was because chapter 7:17 says that the Lamb which is 'in the midst of the throne' - He is there, in the midst, and not seated on another throne to pluralise the single 'throne' in Revelation 22.

If you want more info, please look at Revelation 3:21 - there Jesus is not sitting on another throne, but rather in the same throne of the Father: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne". We often tend to look at these things through the lenses of reductionism as if everything has to be understood in a literal sense, and that is why so many folks have serious problems seeing there is only one throne in Revelation 22:2 & 3.

Have you forgotten that in john.14.1 jesus asked the disciples to believe in God and ALSO in him?what are you trying to say?

Lol, dude, there is only one faith (Eph. 4:5) - therefore, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in God in the Biblical sense (John 5:24 & 6:40 and 12:44). By believing in God and believing in Christ, a believer is not espousing two beliefs or having two seperate faiths - rather, by believing in Christ, the believer believes in God in precisely the same one expression of faith.


Sorry karo93, your arguments in Revelation 22 in seeing two separate thrones is why you are yet confused. And that is the same reason why you're seeing a sort of worship that tends to idolatry in the Biblical sense. As long as you keep grasping at thin air to argue what is not there, your confusion remains.

Deep Sight:

@ Karo93. . .

My Nairaland experience has taught me a few things - one of them is the extent of the power of the blindfold of dogma.

Good one - is that why you are self conceited to have been blinding yourself by your own dogma of OOI? Do you ever take time to see your own blind dogma before you whine and complain about what others believe?

There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY: NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE, NOT EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT THERE IS THE BIBLE THAT WILL CONVINCE A TRINITARIAN THAT JESUS THE JEWISH CARPENTER IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

At least Trinitarians have good sense to make a case for what they believe - and they do so with more common sense than you could ever have refuted calmly without evading ANY point being discussed. You have not demonstrated any dot of understanding about "essence" or "begotten" even after I discussed them - which you have categorically ignored with the yelps of a weakling.

Yet, nothing anyone tells you in your rogue religion would convince you of the fallacy of your mathematically suicidal OOI, nor of the fallacy of your 'singularity' that has not even impressed you yourself, nor of yet the fallacy of your own dubious 0 + 0 = 0 suddenly becoming "something", nor a myriad of your other prosaic fallacies! ALL of them bar none are as redundant to date as ever - and no amount of deistic duplicity has been able to give your OOI a facelift nor spared it from collapsing into its doomed blackhole. Live with it.

This thread has run 10 pages already and the pointers are starkly clear to those who choose to see. . . that Jesus cannot be God - not biblically, and not even by simple logical inference without reference to the bible.

From the first few pages, the point has been soundly made: that Jesus is God and is to be worshipped. That Jesus is to be worshipped has not been refuted by even karo93 himself - so this puerile drama so characteristic of your charade is best reserved for the circus you like to play in Dubai.

I advise you to drop the subject. Your last post was particularly incisive: the whole idea of power being "given" to the son is more than enough to conclude the debate - it is obvious that giver and receiver cannot be the same person.

Hahaha! Good one - fantastic!   Right, karo93 - you're being advised to drop the argument you started. At least, none of your amanuensis is now backing you any further. Why? Go figure!

Just leave it - no one will listen. You will only get unnecessary insults for your efforts.

No, we won't listen to drab drama ignoring patent issues while you deniers continue to confuse yourselves from Genesis to Revelation on matters which you do not know anything about. Let karo93 ask you: how do you worship your OOI without recourse to anything you steal for your rogue religion - what would you say? What would you produce for your own worship of your collapsible OOI? 'Nothing' magically becoming 'something' by mathematical suicide - that is what karo93 will join with you in worshipping, no?

You guys make me laugh with the way you miserly back-pat each other.

Ok.

techJ:

@Karo93:

You speak as if muslims don't worship Mohammed who is just an ordinary "prophet". Why do muslims do Asolat to him, if they don't worship him and yet he is not acknowledge to be a god of some sort as opposed to our Jesus who is the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6).

You really need to go and check the meaning of the word worship and then see how it applies to what the muslims do to Muhammed everytime you gather for Asolat, which is the same word the solat muslims observed (five times) every day. God can choose to express Himself anyway He likes, whether as Trinity or otherwise. Never limit my God. Trinity is just an expression of how unfathomable He is, especially to unbelievers like you.

YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM IF YOU THINK MUSLIMS WORSHIP MUHAMMAD

adamabdul:

YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM IF YOU THINK MUSLIMS WORSHIP MUHAMMAD

oh yeah they do . . . you can lie all you want.

MY FINAL ASSAULT
1.Cor.8.6
There is ONLY one GOD, THE FATHER, who is the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS and for whom we live and there is only one LORD, JESUS CHRIST through whom all things were created and through whom we live.

The normal saying [though not in the bible] is that
Father [Yahweh] +Son [Jesus] +holy spirit=GOD [trinity]
But this verse as quoted from the BIBLE tells us that, Father [Yahweh] =GOD [1]
And Son [Jesus] =LORD [1]

As this verse shows us, we live for the father [Yahweh] our God because he is our creator and not his son.

[For those confused about how the father made all things through the son I will explain like this; If you send your driver to give some goods to your mother, can it be said that it was your driver that generously gave to your mother??]

Lastly
Jn.3.35
The father loves the son and puts everything under his power.

Jesus cannot be God because he was “empowered” by someone which means that if Jesus is to be God there will always be a higher God-the one who empowered him.

[p.s. you cannot empower yourself but someone else.]

With this I would have loved to pass the verdict that JESUS IS NOT GOD and that THERE IS NO TRINITY, but I would want to see the opinion of viaro et al on this post
[pls attack my post directly and don’t bring up other post or verses for this will make us continually move in circles and I am tired of playing that game with you guys]

karo93:

MY FINAL ASSAULT

You were only fighting against yourself from onset, so this so-called "assault" you're waving is simply beating yourself and weeping on your exercise.

1 Cor. 8.6
There is ONLY one GOD, THE FATHER, who is the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS and for whom we live and there is only one LORD, JESUS CHRIST through whom all things were created and through whom we live.

Eh, mr karo93, instead of twisting the text, why don't you do the simple thing and quote it directly? Here is what ESV says on that same verse - 'yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.' You owe your very existence to Jesus Christ - for that is what John 1:3 has said already as well.

Such verses present us with a simple question: who was Jesus Christ before His Incarnation?

I asked you that question directly and you dodged it. Well done. After disappearing from this thread, you surfaced again only to assault yourself and yet twist what you're quoting.

The normal saying [though not in the bible] is that
Father [Yahweh] +Son [Jesus] +holy spirit=GOD [trinity]
But this verse as quoted from the BIBLE tells us that, Father [Yahweh] =GOD [1]
And Son [Jesus] =LORD [1]

As this verse shows us, we live for the father [Yahweh] our God because he is our creator and not his son.

The same verse tells you that you were created by Jesus Christ. Compare again with John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17 and other verses. Both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were involved in creation, and I don't remember any Trinitarian in this thread saying that Jesus did not create the world - you and your friends are the only ones denying the fact that Christ is Creator by virtue of the fact that creation came into existence through Him. So, making out that only the Father is Creator is quite laughable - it would mean that you're denying Christ had anything to do in creating anything.

[For those confused about how the father made all things through the son I will explain like this; If you send your driver to give some goods to your mother, can it be said that it was your driver that generously gave to your mother??]

The analogy fails flatly. The first question I'd ask is this: who made the 'goods'? Sending anyone to deliver the goods does not tell us anything at all about who made the goods in the first place. In creation, we're not speaking about the Creator sending someone or anyone to deliver creation to anyone else. Colossians 1:16-17 tell us as regards Christ being Creator, that "all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." It is not as if Christ came and delivered creation to anyone else and then walked away - nope, for it says clearly that He Himself sustains all things within creation.

Lastly
Jn.3.35
The father loves the son and puts everything under his power.

Jesus cannot be God because he was “empowered” by someone which means that if Jesus is to be God there will always be a higher God-the one who empowered him.

[p.s. you cannot empower yourself but someone else.]

This is why I noted very early that you're a preacher of tritheism, not Trinity. John 3:35 does not speak about the Father giving Christ 'power' or "empowering" Him - that was another sleight of hand you tried there. The divine love expressed between the Father and the Son are encapsulated in John 17:10 - "All mine are yours, and yours are mine", does that sound what you were arguing? It helps to quote the verse (John 3:35) for what it says and not what you want to twist it to read - that verse does not say that the Father "empowered" the Son.

With this I would have loved to pass the verdict that JESUS IS NOT GOD and that THERE IS NO TRINITY, but I would want to see the opinion of viaro et al on this post

That's the only reason why I would reply yours - because you specifically invited me to do so. There is clearly a Trinity in the Bible, and you can choose to deny it all you want. The fact that you're too busy twisting verses from the Bible says a lot about your approach to these matters; not to mention that you never pay attention to anything that others have pointed out. I, for one, do not ignore anything you argue - I address them, buttressing my points with ancillary verses to show the case for my convictions. You, on the other hand, are fond of ignoring what has been said, evading direct points, denying clear statements, and then twisting Bible verses - how are we to take you any seriously at all?

[pls attack my post directly and don’t bring up other post or verses for this will make us continually move in circles and I am tired of playing that game with you guys]

You're running round in circles on your own. If there be a need to quote ancillary verses to show your fallacy, I won't hesitate to do so. After all said and done, you can continue your running around.

@viaro
Jesus was begotten by God before the creation of the world and he lived in glory with his father

MY VERSES ARE FROM THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE[how many times do you want me to tell you]

about my analogy-what's your problem with who makes the goods? my analogy makes clear how God created all through his son so what's up?

What sense are you trying to make through things made THROUGH HIM for i did not deny that

finally your attack on john.3.35 does not flow! are you insinuating that GOD did not give christ power over all?? when you give someone power what are you doing? are you not "empowering" him?

i am tired of your allegations about me dodging questions for you know i have answered all that make sense so if you mind you could repeat at least one of them.

For viaro's sake i quote from kingjv
john.3.35
The father loves the son and has GIVEN all things into his hand.

doesn't it point to the same fact that jesus didn't always have all things??
that it was GIVEN to him out of love and not that he owned it?

karo93:

@viaro
Jesus was begotten by God before the creation of the world and he lived in glory with his father

The word "begotten" does not mean that Jesus was created. You guys often repeat this cheap argument about "begotten" because in your mentality it conveys the idea of 'create' whereas it does not apply to Christ in that sense - which is why I have dealt with it and asked that you guys go and answer simple questions about the meaning of that word as used in reference to Christ in Scripture.

(1)   DeepSight opines that 'being "begotten" connotes a beginning' (post #159), which us factually false.

(2)   Image123 tried to answer DeepSight on that word in post #165, pointing out that 'Jesus Being 'the only begotten of God' does not connote a beginning of existence in scripture'

(3)   Not satisfied, DeepSight pointedly asked me in post #189: 'And equally being "begotten" means. . .? ? ?'

(4)   And I answered him briefly in post #190 that 'The word "begotten" does not mean that He was "created".'  I then went on to explain in simple terms what that word means in reference to Christ, and summarised thus: "No other 'being' (angel or human being) is called the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father in Scripture."  Now, if you karo93 have searched through Scripture and seen any other being referred to by that term, kindly post the verse and let's see.

(5)   DeepSight failed to discuss anything but went on to dubiously try to force his arguments on 'begotten' in post #256 by asserting, 'It makes no difference if he is described as the “first begotten” – the fact simply remains that he was “begotten” and as such came into existence at a point.' The reason anyone would be making such peurile statements is because they have never taken the time to study the meaning of the particular words used in Scripture (μονογενής, monogenēs) and are just going by the sound of the English word ... which is precisely what you karo93 are doing here.

(6)   Nonetehless, in posts #260, #261 and #274 I addressed this issue once again and showed that the essence of Christ does not suggest that He was a created Being before the Incarnation. Of course, DeepSight could not rise to grasp that point; and even when in post #277 I noted the fact he was not seeking to address the point at all, since that time until now my questions are still begging answers from you guys.

(7)   Please go to post #281 and address all five questions on the issue of "begotten" and let's talk further. If you just dismiss them lazily, I would not be charitable to you if you come back complaining after ignoring the point. If you're unable to handle it, please don't make further reference to the issue - for all intents and purposes, the term "only begotten" (μονογενής, monogenēs) does not mean that Christ was created or had any beginning. Anyone arguing to make it so is only arguing out of illiterate noise and duplicity.

karo93:

MY VERSES ARE FROM THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE[how many times do you want me to tell you]

Did that verse not tell you that Christ created all things? Look at it again. Your problem is that you're forcing your own prejudices into the text and ignoring what it says.

Besides, what does that same Good News Bible say of John 1:1?? Have you read it? Let me quote it for you - "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Did you skip that verse also in the same Good News Bible? And why?

about my analogy-what's your problem with who makes the goods? my analogy makes clear how God created all through his son so what's up?

Your analogy fails flatly - I would repeat it until you see your attempt to cheat by ignoring the question of creation: 'who made the goods?'  You're more concerned with who delivered the goods, and delivery and creating are not even close. Find another excuse.

What sense are you trying to make through things made THROUGH HIM for i did not deny that

I've made the point already, so please stop pretending you can no longer read with simple understanding. Who created all things according to that verse which you quoted (1 Cor. 8:6)? Did you check with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 as well? Come back making analogy of delivery of goods - those verses are plain to see, and it's your choice to try not seeing them.

finally your attack on john.3.35 does not flow! are you insinuating that GOD did not give christ power over all?? when you give someone power what are you doing? are you not "empowering" him?

First, I did not "attack" any verse - not John 3:35 or any other. You've been busy "assaulting" any verse you don't understand, and that's to your own loss.

Second, that verse does not say that God "empowered" Christ - please stop twisting the verse, thank you. I have shown an example from John 17:10 to eplicate what is meant - all that the Father has are given to the Son; and all that the Son has are also given to the Father. Who is "empowering" who in that instance? This is why you quickly left a disclaimer that I should not quote other verses - because you want to snatch a verse out of its context and give it your own private interpretation.

i am tired of your allegations about me dodging questions for you know i have answered all that make sense so if you mind you could repeat at least one of them.

Please scroll up - I have outlined them again. You can just jump to post #281 and answer those 5 questions, then others will come up. Dismissing them will not work for you, so please don't try that cheap escapist fantasy with me. Cheers.

karo93:

For viaro's sake i quote from kingjv
john.3.35
The father loves the son and has GIVEN all things into his hand.

doesn't it point to the same fact that jesus didn't always have all things??
that it was GIVEN to him out of love and not that he owned it?

Where does it say that God "empowered" Christ in that verse? Afterall, your argument was this:

Jesus cannot be God because he was “empowered” by someone which means that if Jesus is to be God there will always be a higher God-the one who empowered him.

. . . you see how your arguments are not following about "empowering" Christ in that verse?

John 17:10 (KJV) - "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them" ::: who is "empowering" who in this verse??


And for your own sake, this is what Good News Bible that you often quote says on John 1:1 - "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God". What denials would you next be making to condemn (or "assault" your favourite GNB on that verse??

Viaro

my good news talks about God given power to jesus if you read it well[seeing as u read the version]

given someone sometin and given power over somethin all drive to the same point;the person is not the richest[didn't always own everything] or the most powerful or most supreme- there is someone above the person[which is the point i am trying to drive across] so what is your point in hammering on it?

someone else has already explained that john.1.1 and you could do well to find it or if i have time i would tell you the post number.

karo93:

Viaro

my good news talks about God given power to jesus if you read it well[seeing as u read the version]

given someone sometin and given power over somethin all drive to the same point;the person is not the richest or the most powerful or most supreme- there is someone above the person[which is the point i am trying to drive across] so what is your point in hammering on it?

I was not hammering anything. You were the same fellow who wants to cement your whole career of denials on John 3:35 and that is why I had to point out that your twisting what that verse says is not helpful. That verse does not saying anything about the Father "empowering" Christ. Your quoting the verse to suit your whims may not be much of a problem - but your conclusive twisting of its meaning is factually false, especially where you are ignoring that the same Good News Bible categorically declares that Jesus is God. Why are you ignoring that one as well to argue your own dubious conclusions on John 3:35?

someone else has already explained that john.1.1 and you could do well to find it or if i have time i would tell you the post number.

Please tell me, if you have someone else in mind than TrueSeeker in post #150. The reason why I ignored it is because it was essentially JW dubious interpretation - and we know that JW's scholarship has been exposed for the emptiness it is, as well the fact that they had misquoted other people in their attempt to garner support for their mistranslation of John 1:1.

you have not addressed my point on john.3.35

my point is that there is someone higher up than jesus and that person is the one who gave him all things and this is directly supported by john.14.28 where jesus says the father is greater than him.
My point is that the person higher up is THE ONLY GOD while jesus is THE ONLY LORD

stop dodging bullets by claiming that i am twisting verses for i have told you where i quote from

karo93:

you have not addressed my point on john.3.35

I have addressed it in the last few posts and also buttressed the point I made with John 17:10. You on the other hand have forever refused to see the point nor have you addressed what I said in citing John 17:10. Why are you dribbling round issues.

my point is that there is someone higher up than jesus and that person is the one who gave him all things and this is directly supported by john.14.28 where jesus says the father is greater than him.

I have addressed John 14:28 in this thread in post #260 while you scooted away from this same thread you opened. After I did, neither you nor you supporters said anything about it other than complain here and there - as you always do.

My point is that the person higher up is THE ONLY GOD while jesus is THE ONLY LORD

I addressed this same issue in post #260 in showing that Jesus is God as to His essence. That is what John 1:1 even in the Good News Bible that you often like to quote from.

stop dodging bullets by claiming that i am twisting verses for i have told you where i quote from

Where did I dodge anything? I have answered every single objection that you have raised, some of them repeated several times. You have never attended any question that have been offered you, even after your complaints have been addressed. What happened to the 5 questions I reminded you are waiting to be answered in post #281? I don't see you even making any attempts, and yet you pretend to be actually answering questions?

You are beginning to sound like a time waster who is not interested in a discussion at all.

@ Karo93 - Dogma remains a terrible blindfold. It is Like a leech. It clings steadfast over the eyes of the dogmatic, and no reason can unhinge it.

Nothing can prevent a man who is determined to worship a fellow man from doing so.

Deep Sight:

@ Karo93 - Dogma remains a terrible blindfold. It is Like a leech. It clings steadfast over the eyes of the dogmatic, and no reason can unhinge it.

Have you carefully thought about how your own dogma often affirms your blindness? No matter how many times other people try to explicate what they believe, it is your dogmatic leech that blinds you from seeing what they are saying and still keep ranting on your own rigid assertions.

Nothing can prevent a man who is determined to worship a fellow man from doing so.

Did karo93 deny that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped? Please go back and check his posts - karo93 has NOT denied that Jesus is to be worshipped, so what are you snaking up to him about that for?

Oh! viaro i now get your understanding of the trinity[correct me if i am wrong] you believe it to be similar to the husband and wife as one.

this clearly shows us that though they are one flesh;they are not the same person and yet they are called couple[God] they are two different people. and that is my point.

while jesus is one with God[because he follows his fathers ways as solidified in jn.14.20 where his disciples are in him too]he is not yahweh just as a wife does not bear her husbands real name but his family name.

According to your belief jesus is one flesh with God but assuming my marraige analogy is correct they are not the same person so jesus is not Yahweh.
The trinity is the belief that God is jesus and the holy spirit and that is what i am against.

karo93:

Oh! viaro i now get your understanding of the trinity[correct me if i am wrong] you believe it to be similar to the husband and wife as one.

this clearly shows us that though they are one flesh;they are not the same person and yet they are called couple[God] they are two different people. and that is my point.

while jesus is one with God[because he follows his fathers ways as solidified in jn.14.20 where his disciples are in him too]he is not yahweh just as a wife does not bear her husbands real name but his family name.

According to your belief jesus is one flesh with God but assuming my marraige analogy is correct they are not the same person so jesus is not Yahweh.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What you're doing is preaching your tritheism, not Trinity. The relationship in the Godhead does not make Jesus one God while the Father is another God - where did I ever imply that in any one of my posts?

Besides, karo93, why is it taking you more than eternity to answer those questions? I have answered every single objection you whip up, quoted other verses to compare them, and presented you with some questions. First you complained that you did not see the questions - and I have reminded you in recent posts no less than twice at least! Why are you always and forever dodging questions so you can come back with new fallacies?

viaro i did not say they are separate gods i say that only the father is God and the others are his subordinates. and i did not agree with your union. i was just trying to explain to you on your own terms.

I have seen your questions and will answer them properly before i bring in more points. i just dont know the need of the questions hence i have to make sure they are answered to suit any reason for which you may want them.

karo93:

viaro i did not say they are separate gods i say that only the father is God and the others are his subordinates.

I have seen your questions and will answer them properly before i bring in more points. i just dont know the need of the questions hence i have to make sure they are answered to suit any reason for which you may want them.

Please address those questions. Your continued attempt to argue tritheism is no longer amusing but rather getting boring as it is.

and while i am at it i want to know what you believe"begotten" to mean? other than being brought into existence by someone else which makes that person your superior.

for as far as i know jesus was begotten so would you like to shed some light on that?

karo93:

and while i am at it i want to know what you believe"begotten" to mean? other than being brought into existence by someone else which makes that person your superior.

for as far as i know jesus was begotten so would you like to shed some light on that?

I'm sure you never read through my post at #305. If you ever did, you would not come back and ask that same question. Nice try. Why don't you look for another excuse?

Karo i asked about Acts 20:28& u ve not responded. Who was Luke talking about?