₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
That is what I am saying..it is all the idea of the Christian religion.
It was never there in the Jewish scriptures see Deuteronomy 6:4. It was formulated by the Christians. That's why you find it in the Christian scriptures. They all copied and integrated pagan ideas into their religion because Constantine wanted a single religion for the empire. So they added something from every religion from the empire to form their new religion ..
God is one indivisible entity(consciousness) not a Greek/Roman/Jewish man up in the sky..

Deuteronomy 6:4
שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד׃
“Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is unique.

The word unique is the Hebrew אֶחָֽד (echad) meaning one or united

sonmvayina:
That does not even make any sense...how do you guys get your head around all these bull ship.

Even the passages from the Hebrew scriptures speak of God in the singular...(I am....)

Why is it hard for you guys to accept that Christianity is a lie and was only created to deceive...?

Genesis 1:26 – The Plurality of God

> "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...'"


In this verse, God uses the plural pronouns "Us" and "Our," which indicates a plurality within God. While some argue that this could be a royal "we" or a reference to the heavenly court (angels), the context of the verse suggests a deliberation within the Godhead, pointing to an early hint of the Trinity.

The book of Hebrews then goes on to make it harder to explain it away: Hebrews 1:3:

> "Who (talking about Jesus, read the surrounding verses) being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Colossians 1:15 (KJV) also speaks of Jesus as the image of God:

> "Who (talking about Jesus, read the previous verses) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."

Nachmonides:
You are correct that Philo of Alexandria spoke of the logos (Greek for "word" or "reason" ) as an intermediary between God and the world. However:

Philo’s logos was a philosophical construct rooted in Hellenistic thought, not the same as the Logos in John 1:1-14.

The Gospel of John presents the Logos as eternal and personal, identifying it with Jesus Christ:

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."



John’s Logos reflects Jewish and biblical theology rather than solely Hellenistic ideas.


Also, the Holy Spirit has sometimes been described using feminine imagery, particularly in early Christian writings and Jewish thought where ruach (Spirit) is feminine in Hebrew.

The symbol of the dove comes from Scripture itself:

Matthew 3:16: "And when Jesus was baptized... he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove."

"Like" a dove, not that it was a dove.


This does not mean the Holy Spirit is feminine or a separate god, but that different symbols are used to express God’s attributes and actions.


The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did formalize the doctrine of the Trinity, but[b] it did not invent the idea[/b]. Early Christians recognized the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit long before Nicaea:

Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul speaks of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit."


Nicaea clarified and defended these truths against heretical teachings like Arianism, which denied Jesus’ full divinity.

Arianism teaches that Jesus Christ is not fully divine, but rather a created being who is subordinate to God the Father. In essence, Arius (named after him, a Christian Priest ) argued that:

Christ (the Son) was the highest of all created beings, but not co-eternal or of the same essence as God the Father.

The Father is the "only true God," and the Son was created by the Father before the foundation of the world. He is distinct from the Father and therefore not equal in divinity.

Arianism essentially rejects the doctrine of the Trinity as it is understood in mainstream Christianity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal, and of the same essence (homoousios in Greek).


Arius's famous phrase was: "There was a time when the Son was not." This indicated that the Son had a beginning and was not eternal like the Father.

sonmvayina:
It is a big insult against the creator of the universe...
This idea was first started by Philo of Alexandria. He was the one who put forward the idea of a logos. He thought that the logos was distinct from the creator but part of it.
Justin Martyre took the idea even further and added a third entity....which at the beginning was a feminine entity. And was often symbolized as a dove..
Then when Nicaea came round, the new established church ran with the idea and incorporated it in their creed.
It is all bull crap. God is one. Not three in one. He is the creator and can NEVER be part of creation. You can never be part of the soup you created and none of the ingredients in the soup can become like you....does not make any sense.
Meanwhile I have read the whole of Micah 5. All these rubbish you guys are arguing about is not even there...

You are correct that Philo of Alexandria spoke of the logos (Greek for "word" or "reason" ) as an intermediary between God and the world. However:

Philo’s logos was a philosophical construct rooted in Hellenistic thought, not the same as the Logos in John 1:1-14.

The Gospel of John presents the Logos as eternal and personal, identifying it with Jesus Christ:

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."



John’s Logos reflects Jewish and biblical theology rather than solely Hellenistic ideas.


Also, the Holy Spirit has sometimes been described using feminine imagery, particularly in early Christian writings and Jewish thought where ruach (Spirit) is feminine in Hebrew.

The symbol of the dove comes from Scripture itself:

Matthew 3:16: "And when Jesus was baptized... he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove."

"Like" a dove, not that it was a dove.


This does not mean the Holy Spirit is feminine or a separate god, but that different symbols are used to express God’s attributes and actions.


The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did formalize the doctrine of the Trinity, but[b] it did not invent the idea[/b]. Early Christians recognized the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit long before Nicaea:

Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul speaks of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit."


Nicaea clarified and defended these truths against heretical teachings like Arianism, which denied Jesus’ full divinity.

sonmvayina:
It is a big insult against the creator of the universe...
This idea was first started by Philo of Alexandria. He was the one who put forward the idea of a logos. He thought that the logos was distinct from the creator but part of it.
Justin Martyre took the idea even further and added a third entity....which at the beginning was a feminine entity. And was often symbolized as a dove..
Then when Nicaea came round, the new established church ran with the idea and incorporated it in their creed.
It is all bull crap. God is one. Not three in one. He is the creator and can NEVER be part of creation. You can never be part of the soup you created and none of the ingredients in the soup can become like you....does not make any sense.
Meanwhile I have read the whole of Micah 5. All these rubbish you guys are arguing about is not even there...

The Bible strongly affirms that God is one:

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."



Christians agree that God is one. The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim there are three gods, but that one God exists in three persons. This is not a division of God's essence but a distinction in His self-revelation.

Nachmonides:
It is unserious to think the Groom wouldn't know when it was time to get his Bride, he can never be caught unprepared. He knows his preparation has a lot to do with the father's approval.


In Jewish wedding traditions, the father of the groom played a critical role in deciding when the groom could retrieve his bride. His approval was based on specific considerations, all of which had to align with readiness and preparation. These details provide profound spiritual insights into the timing of Jesus' return as described in Matthew 24:36.

The Completion of the Bridal Chamber

The groom was tasked with preparing a place for his bride, typically a room added to his father’s house. The father’s role was to:

Inspect the chamber: Ensure that it was complete, suitable, and properly furnished to provide for the bride.

Set a standard of readiness: The father’s approval signified that everything was prepared for the new couple’s life together.


Spiritual Parallel:

Jesus told His disciples He was going to prepare a place for them in His Father’s house (John 14:2-3). The Father will only send Jesus to gather His Church when the heavenly preparations are complete.

Ensuring the Groom’s Readiness

The father also considered the readiness of the groom:

Maturity: The groom needed to demonstrate responsibility and capability to care for his bride.

Obedience: The groom’s deference to his father’s authority reflected his readiness to lead a household.


Spiritual Parallel:

While Jesus is fully God and always perfect, His earthly mission exemplified obedience to the Father (John 5:19). The Father’s timing reflects the completion of God’s redemptive plan through Christ.

The Bride’s Readiness

The father ensured the bride was adequately prepared:

The bride needed to demonstrate vigilance, readiness, and faithfulness while waiting for the groom.

She needed to have her wedding garments and lamps prepared for the groom’s arrival.


Spiritual Parallel:

The Church, as the bride of Christ, must remain spiritually prepared (Revelation 19:7-. The Father may wait until the Church reaches a certain level of spiritual maturity and faithfulness.


Alignment with the Wedding Feast Preparations

The father also considered the larger logistical readiness:

The preparations for the wedding feast needed to be complete, including food, drink, and accommodations for the guests.

A poorly timed wedding could disrupt the community or reflect poorly on the family.


Spiritual Parallel:

The heavenly Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9) signifies the culmination of God’s plan. The Father’s approval reflects perfect timing, ensuring all elements of the redemptive plan are in place.

The Element of Surprise

An essential part of the Jewish wedding tradition was the element of surprise.

The father intentionally kept the exact timing a secret to maintain anticipation and readiness among the bride, groom, and their families.


Spiritual Parallel:

Jesus’ return is intentionally kept unknown to humanity, angels, and even the Son during His earthly ministry, ensuring believers live in constant vigilance (Matthew 24:42-44).

A serious bible student would then ask, based on observation:

If the Bride's readiness was critical to the approval of the father of the groom, why then the parable of the ten virgins in Chapter 25 in that they weren't ready



The parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1–13) emphasizes the importance of readiness for the return of Christ, the Bridegroom, but it also highlights that not everyone will meet the standard of preparedness required for entry into His kingdom. The lack of readiness among the five foolish virgins underscores the necessity of vigilance and personal responsibility in spiritual matters.


The Bride's Readiness vs. the Virgins' Readiness

In Jewish weddings, the bride's readiness was critical, but the parable focuses on the virgins (bridesmaids) who accompanied her. These virgins had a supporting role, ensuring the bridal procession went smoothly. Their lack of readiness represents:

Not the bride herself being unprepared but individuals who fail in their responsibilities as part of the broader community.

A failure to meet their duty to honor and celebrate the bridegroom's arrival.


Spiritual Implication: While the Church (the bride of Christ) collectively represents the Bride, individuals within the Church must still ensure their personal readiness.


Two Types of Virgins

The parable contrasts two groups:

The Wise Virgins: Had oil in their lamps, symbolizing preparedness, faith, and perseverance.

The Foolish Virgins: Neglected to bring extra oil, symbolizing spiritual negligence and lack of readiness.


The foolish virgins’ unpreparedness doesn’t mean the Bride (the Church) as a whole was unready, but it serves as a warning that not all who identify as part of the Church are genuinely prepared for Christ’s return.


The Father’s Approval

In the context of the Jewish wedding analogy:

The Father’s approval of the groom’s return was based on the completion of preparations, including the bride's readiness.

However, the parable of the ten virgins shifts focus to the individual’s preparedness to join the wedding procession.


Even if the bride (the Church) is collectively ready, individuals must still ensure they are personally prepared to partake in the Bridegroom’s arrival. This readiness involves:

Maintaining faith and righteousness (symbolized by the oil).

Living in anticipation of Christ’s return.


Why Were Some Virgins Unready?

The unprepared virgins represent those who:

Assume they have more time to prepare.

Lack genuine commitment or fail to persevere in their faith.

Are spiritually negligent, failing to nurture their relationship with God.


Their exclusion from the wedding feast reflects the truth that only those who are genuinely ready and faithful will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Nachmonides:
Matthew 24:36 was Jesus using a Jewish wedding idea to explain the coming of the Messiah (Bridegroom)


In Chpt 25, he goes on talking about the parable of the the ten virgins and a wedding feast immediately after Chpt 24 ends, following the same train of thought.

It is unserious to think the Groom wouldn't know when it was time to get his Bride, he can never be caught unprepared. He knows his preparation has a lot to do with the father's approval.


In Jewish wedding traditions, the father of the groom played a critical role in deciding when the groom could retrieve his bride. His approval was based on specific considerations, all of which had to align with readiness and preparation. These details provide profound spiritual insights into the timing of Jesus' return as described in Matthew 24:36.

The Completion of the Bridal Chamber

The groom was tasked with preparing a place for his bride, typically a room added to his father’s house. The father’s role was to:

Inspect the chamber: Ensure that it was complete, suitable, and properly furnished to provide for the bride.

Set a standard of readiness: The father’s approval signified that everything was prepared for the new couple’s life together.


Spiritual Parallel:

Jesus told His disciples He was going to prepare a place for them in His Father’s house (John 14:2-3). The Father will only send Jesus to gather His Church when the heavenly preparations are complete.

Ensuring the Groom’s Readiness

The father also considered the readiness of the groom:

Maturity: The groom needed to demonstrate responsibility and capability to care for his bride.

Obedience: The groom’s deference to his father’s authority reflected his readiness to lead a household.


Spiritual Parallel:

While Jesus is fully God and always perfect, His earthly mission exemplified obedience to the Father (John 5:19). The Father’s timing reflects the completion of God’s redemptive plan through Christ.

The Bride’s Readiness

The father ensured the bride was adequately prepared:

The bride needed to demonstrate vigilance, readiness, and faithfulness while waiting for the groom.

She needed to have her wedding garments and lamps prepared for the groom’s arrival.


Spiritual Parallel:

The Church, as the bride of Christ, must remain spiritually prepared (Revelation 19:7-. The Father may wait until the Church reaches a certain level of spiritual maturity and faithfulness.


Alignment with the Wedding Feast Preparations

The father also considered the larger logistical readiness:

The preparations for the wedding feast needed to be complete, including food, drink, and accommodations for the guests.

A poorly timed wedding could disrupt the community or reflect poorly on the family.


Spiritual Parallel:

The heavenly Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9) signifies the culmination of God’s plan. The Father’s approval reflects perfect timing, ensuring all elements of the redemptive plan are in place.

The Element of Surprise

An essential part of the Jewish wedding tradition was the element of surprise.

The father intentionally kept the exact timing a secret to maintain anticipation and readiness among the bride, groom, and their families.


Spiritual Parallel:

Jesus’ return is intentionally kept unknown to humanity, angels, and even the Son during His earthly ministry, ensuring believers live in constant vigilance (Matthew 24:42-44).

GothamCities:
In Acts 1:7, He clarified but you ignored and decided to maintain your faulty stand. Is that right?

You thought He didn't know everything but after He's clarification, you could see He knows everything as the Father. He is the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, how can He not know? You're mixing clearly defined roles and responsibilities with ability.

It's difficult (not impossible) to comprehend the idea of the trinity.

sonmvayina:
The passage you quoted says the person will be a ruler in Israel. Was Jesus ever a ruler in Israel? If not ..I don't think it is him.

I am suspecting the person would be a reincarnated David...will be the future king in Israel and a Messiah that God will raise to usher the world into a world wide peace.

Certainly not Jesus.....he was never a ruler in Israel.
This is how pastors deceive people by taking text out of context, thereby loosing the message in the story.

Who quoted?

Nachmonides:
Why would Jesus say "no one knows but the Father"?

This alludes or relates to Jesus' role during His earthly ministry. While Jesus is fully God and fully man, Philippians 2:6-7 explains that He "emptied Himself" (often called the kenosis), voluntarily limiting the independent exercise of His divine attributes to fully embrace humanity.

Humanity and humility: As a man, Jesus chose not to access certain aspects of divine knowledge. His statement shows submission to the Father’s will, aligning with His mission on Earth.

Role distinction: In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles. Jesus consistently presented the Father as the ultimate source of authority, reflecting the unity and order within the Godhead.


2. Why wouldn’t those asking Him know that only the Father knows, whereas Jesus knew?

Cultural Context: In Jewish thought, the "day or hour" often referred to the coming of the Messiah or the Day of the Lord, which was seen as an unknowable event. Even so, the disciples still hoped Jesus might provide specific clarity or reveal more than what was traditionally understood.

Misunderstanding Jesus’ Role: The disciples often misunderstood aspects of Jesus’ mission and His statements (e.g., Matthew 16:21-23). They might have expected Jesus, as the Messiah, to reveal everything about the end times.

Jesus’ Teaching Style: Jesus often taught in ways that revealed truths progressively. By stating that "only the Father knows," He emphasized reliance on God’s timing and discouraged speculation.

Matthew 24:36 was Jesus using a Jewish wedding idea to explain the coming of the Messiah (Bridegroom)


In Chpt 25, he goes on talking about the parable of the the ten virgins and a wedding feast immediately after Chpt 24 ends, following the same train of thought.

DaddyCoool:
Just summarize for us dummies.
How does that statement NOT mean that the Son does not know everything

Why would Jesus say "no one knows but the Father"?

This alludes or relates to Jesus' role during His earthly ministry. While Jesus is fully God and fully man, Philippians 2:6-7 explains that He "emptied Himself" (often called the kenosis), voluntarily limiting the independent exercise of His divine attributes to fully embrace humanity.

Humanity and humility: As a man, Jesus chose not to access certain aspects of divine knowledge. His statement shows submission to the Father’s will, aligning with His mission on Earth.

Role distinction: In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles. Jesus consistently presented the Father as the ultimate source of authority, reflecting the unity and order within the Godhead.


2. Why wouldn’t those asking Him know that only the Father knows, whereas Jesus knew?

Cultural Context: In Jewish thought, the "day or hour" often referred to the coming of the Messiah or the Day of the Lord, which was seen as an unknowable event. Even so, the disciples still hoped Jesus might provide specific clarity or reveal more than what was traditionally understood.

Misunderstanding Jesus’ Role: The disciples often misunderstood aspects of Jesus’ mission and His statements (e.g., Matthew 16:21-23). They might have expected Jesus, as the Messiah, to reveal everything about the end times.

Jesus’ Teaching Style: Jesus often taught in ways that revealed truths progressively. By stating that "only the Father knows," He emphasized reliance on God’s timing and discouraged speculation.

DaddyCoool:
You that have read extensively, please explain to us what this says:

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"

It has been explained up there.

I wrote 2 texts concerning it yesterday, and the 3rd today, about an hour ago; the one you refused to read.

DaddyCoool:
I don't have to read all this to know it all boils down to the same thing:
Christ at that point did NOT know everything.
Even if you write a whole encyclopedia on it, that'd still be the bottom line

That's not what it says.

You shouldn't engage in such conversations; scriptural conversations, if you're not ready to read extensively and explain extensively.

DaddyCoool:
Na wa for you o.
What have we been discussing all this time??

Matthew 24:36 New International Version (NIV)
"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"

No matter semantic tricks you try, you can't read that and still honestly say the Son was all-knowing at that point. Simple

Hello there, there are many perspectives that respond to your argument.

1. Kenosis (Self-Limitation of Christ)

The doctrine of kenosis (Philippians 2:6-7) teaches that Jesus, in His incarnation, voluntarily limited certain divine attributes, including His omniscience, to fully experience human nature. Proponents of this view argue that Jesus was not all-knowing during His earthly ministry because He willingly chose not to exercise that aspect of His divine nature.


2. Two Natures of Christ (Hypostatic Union)

This view asserts that Jesus has two natures—fully God and fully human. While His divine nature remained omniscient, His human nature might not have had access to all divine knowledge. In Matthew 24:36, it is argued that Jesus is speaking from His human nature, not His divine nature.


3. Progressive Revelation

Some suggest that during His earthly ministry, Jesus revealed truths progressively as appropriate for the time. At that moment, He might not have disclosed the knowledge of the day and hour because it wasn't part of His mission to do so.


4. Functional Subordination

This perspective highlights the relational dynamics within the Trinity during Jesus' earthly ministry. The Son submits to the Father functionally but remains equal in essence. In this context, the "not knowing" might refer to Jesus' role and mission rather than an absolute lack of knowledge.


5. Mystery of the Trinity

The nature of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) involves complexities that transcend human understanding. Some argue that such passages reflect this mystery and cannot be fully resolved through human reasoning.


Counterpoint to the Argument :

While Matthew 24:36 might suggest a limitation in knowledge, broader biblical evidence affirms Jesus' divinity and omniscience. For instance:

John 2:25 says Jesus "knew what was in each person."

Colossians 2:3 describes Him as the one "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Jesus' Omniscience Demonstrated Elsewhere in Scripture

John 16:30: The disciples declare, "Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you." This acknowledgment reflects their understanding of Jesus' omniscience.

John 21:17: Peter confesses, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

These statements show that Jesus' omniscience was recognized during His ministry, suggesting that Matthew 24:36 does not contradict His divine knowledge but highlights a specific context of His mission.

The Son as the Revealer of Divine Knowledge

Matthew 11:27: "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." This demonstrates that the Son possesses unique divine knowledge shared with the Father, affirming His omniscience.

Jesus often reveals divine truths to His disciples (e.g., predictions of His death and resurrection), showcasing His role as the mediator of God's will. The statement in Matthew 24:36 may reflect not an absolute lack of knowledge but His role in withholding that specific revelation.

The Cultural and Theological Context of the Passage

In Jewish wedding traditions, the exact timing of the wedding feast was determined by the father of the groom, and no one else, not even the groom, was expected to know. Jesus' reference to "only the Father" could have been a culturally resonant metaphor to illustrate the unpredictability of the end times, rather than a literal admission of ignorance.


Scriptural Evidence of Selective Disclosure

Acts 1:7: After His resurrection, Jesus tells His disciples, "It is not for you to know times or dates the Father has set by His own authority." This suggests that certain aspects of divine knowledge are intentionally not disclosed to humanity, even by Jesus Himself. The limitation in Matthew 24:36 could be about the purpose of His revelation rather than His inherent knowledge.

The Son’s Voluntary Submission to the Father

Hebrews 5:8: "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered." This highlights the Son's role in submission during His earthly ministry. The "not knowing" in Matthew 24:36 can be understood as part of this submission, not a denial of His divine attributes.

John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me." Jesus consistently emphasized His alignment with the Father's will, which may include deferring the revelation of certain truths.

Foreknowledge of Events in Jesus’ Ministry

Jesus accurately predicted events that required divine omniscience:

The destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2).

Peter’s denial (Matthew 26:34).

Judas’ betrayal (John 13:26-27).

The precise circumstances of His death and resurrection (Mark 8:31).


Such foreknowledge underscores that Jesus was not limited in knowledge but chose to disclose only what aligned with His mission.

The Unity of the Trinity

John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." This statement emphasizes the unity of purpose and essence between the Father and the Son, making it unlikely that the Son could be truly ignorant of something known to the Father.

The apparent "not knowing" in Matthew 24:36 may be a relational statement within the Trinity, emphasizing the Father's role in the divine plan rather than a literal limitation in the Son’s knowledge.

Post-Resurrection Omniscience

After His resurrection, Jesus’ divine authority is fully emphasized:

Matthew 28:18: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me."

This authority implies full access to divine knowledge and power. If there were a temporary limitation during His earthly ministry, it no longer applies post-resurrection, affirming His eternal omniscience.


The Purpose of Matthew 24:36

The purpose of the statement may not be to emphasize a lack of knowledge but to direct attention to the unpredictability of the end times and the need for constant vigilance. The focus is on the disciples’ preparedness, not on the metaphysics of Jesus’ knowledge.

Thus, reconciling Matthew 24:36 with the broader theological context requires understanding Jesus' earthly mission and the interplay between His divine and human natures.

Janosky:
Oga,
@ Colossians 2:9 is Paul writing about Jesus Christ a spirit person with fullness of divine nature who sits in heaven at God's right hand?

Oga,use your brain nah .
Colossians 2:9 and Colossians 3:1 is not rocket science.

Jesus Christ is not a spirit person, he is a man.

He died as a man, and rose as a man.

Shalom to you too.

I didn't get what you were trying to communicate though.

Janosky:
Is Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 3:1 in your own Bible?

Oga,is Christ ( with the fullness of divine nature) sitting in your parlor?
Is Christ sitting at God's right hand in your sitting room?

Where was Christ dwelling at the time of Paul's conversion?

Oga,go and study your Bible.

Shalom .

What are you implying—yes Christ is seated at the right hand of the God according to Col3:1.

Nachmonides:
This is what Col2:9 says,

Colossians 2:9
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,



Nothing like the Apostle Paul talking about a resurrected Jesus, nor about a spirit person in heaven.

Please review.

Col2:9 is a continuation of v.8, and it is a warning against false philosophy. Period.

Janosky:
@ Colossians 2:9 Paul wrote about the resurrected Jesus,a spirit person in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45) having fullness of divine nature ( which the disciples would also partake of , 2 Peter 1:4 & John 17:5,21-22).

This is what Col2:9 says,

Colossians 2:9
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,



Nothing like the Apostle Paul talking about a resurrected Jesus, nor about a spirit person in heaven.

Please review.

Nachmonides:
There's no disagreement with 1Timothy3:16. It is clear.


On the concept of Trinity, Apostle Paul doesn't explicitly mention the word Trinity, but his writings strongly reflect the concept.


Paul frequently references the Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit together in a way that suggests their distinct roles yet unified purpose:

2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit[/b] be with you all."

Ephesians 4:4–6: "There is one body and [b]one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all."


2. Jesus Christ's Divine Nature
Paul unequivocally affirms Jesus’ divinity:

Same Colossians we are on;
Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

Philippians 2:6–11: Paul describes Jesus as being in the form of God but humbling Himself to become human and obedient to death, emphasizing His equality with God.


3. The Holy Spirit as Divine
Paul views the Holy Spirit as the presence of God within believers:

Romans 8:9–11: Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ, showing their unity in divine activity.

1 Corinthians 6:19: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?"


4. Paul’s Monotheism
Paul remains firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet he reinterprets it in light of Christ:

1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." This verse shows Paul integrating Jesus into the Shema (The Shema declares that the Lord (YHWH) is the one and only God, emphasizing monotheism as central to Jewish belief. ) (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), a central affirmation of Jewish monotheism.

If your take is now that because Paul didn't mention Trinity explicitly, he didn't teach it therefore, that would be unwise;

Strawman Fallacy:

In this case, the fallacy would occur when someone misrepresents the argument or belief that Paul (or the Christian tradition) teaches the Trinity. By demanding that Paul explicitly mention the Trinity using modern terminology, they are oversimplifying the complexity of early Christian theology and imposing anachronistic expectations on Paul’s writings. The doctrine of the Trinity, as it is understood today, was not fully formalized until later in church history (e.g., the Nicene Creed in 325 AD), so to expect Paul to use the term "Trinity" is a misrepresentation of what he was teaching.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):

This fallacy occurs when someone assumes what they are trying to prove. In this case, assuming that Paul could not have taught the Trinity because he didn't explicitly use the term "Trinity" is a circular argument. The premise is that the Trinity must be explicitly mentioned in a certain way (which is a modern formulation), and the conclusion is that since Paul didn’t use this term, he didn’t teach the Trinity. This reasoning assumes that the doctrine couldn’t have been taught in other forms, which is precisely the point being debated.

Janosky:
"Who/which was manifest in the flesh".

There is no Theos '(God)' in that verse (1 Timothy 3:16).
Paul is not a Trinitarian.

There's no disagreement with 1Timothy3:16. It is clear.


On the concept of Trinity, Apostle Paul doesn't explicitly mention the word Trinity, but his writings strongly reflect the concept.


Paul frequently references the Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit together in a way that suggests their distinct roles yet unified purpose:

2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit[/b] be with you all."

Ephesians 4:4–6: "There is one body and [b]one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all."


2. Jesus Christ's Divine Nature
Paul unequivocally affirms Jesus’ divinity:

Same Colossians we are on;
Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

Philippians 2:6–11: Paul describes Jesus as being in the form of God but humbling Himself to become human and obedient to death, emphasizing His equality with God.


3. The Holy Spirit as Divine
Paul views the Holy Spirit as the presence of God within believers:

Romans 8:9–11: Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ, showing their unity in divine activity.

1 Corinthians 6:19: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?"


4. Paul’s Monotheism
Paul remains firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet he reinterprets it in light of Christ:

1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." This verse shows Paul integrating Jesus into the Shema (The Shema declares that the Lord (YHWH) is the one and only God, emphasizing monotheism as central to Jewish belief. ) (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), a central affirmation of Jewish monotheism.

Bill's critique wasn't on if Christ was God or not.
His focus was on paragraphing.

You are unwise, in fact if you join both vv.8-9 of Col2
It adds a stronger weight to the fact that truly in Christ dwells the fullness of deity.

Janosky:
Bill Mounce was against the format of most Bible translations to separate Paul's thoughts in verse 8 &9.
But he (Mounce) did not follow that format.

Rather,he made sure that the thoughts expressed by Paul in verse 8 flows into verse 9 uninterrupted.

"Christ is NOT fully God" , the point stands.

Bill Mounce discusses the complexities of translating Greek texts into English, focusing particularly on the use of paragraphs, which are modern editorial tools not present in the original manuscripts. He highlights two examples from Colossians (Col 2:8–9 and Col 4:10) to illustrate how paragraph breaks can influence interpretation.

1. Colossians 2:8–9:

Paul warns against “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (v. 8 ) because “in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells in bodily form” (v. 9).

Bill critiques the NIV’s decision to place a paragraph break between these verses, arguing that it unnecessarily separates closely connected ideas. He emphasizes the importance of understanding these verses together, as v. 9 provides the theological basis for the warning in v. 8.



2. Colossians 4:10:

He examines the paragraph break in a list of Paul’s associates. Here, the break helps clarify that Tychicus and Onesimus (vv. 7–9) are not Jewish Christians, in contrast to the Jewish associates mentioned later (v. 11b).

Janosky:
Oga, what did Bill Mounce write about Colossians 2:9?
"Jesus Christ is NOT fully God."
Oga go and edit Bill Mounce Trinitarian view about Colossians 2:9


Did you see Theos ('God') in the 1 Timothy 3:16 Bill Mounce Greek interlinear?

Oga, tell us nau

Concerning 1Timothy 3:16:

καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
And most certainly, great is the mystery of godliness: Who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among the Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

What's the matter with the scripture that you point out?

Janosky:
Oga, what did Bill Mounce write about Colossians 2:9?
"Jesus Christ is NOT fully God."
Oga go and edit Bill Mounce Trinitarian view about Colossians 2:9


Did you see Theos ('God') in the 1 Timothy 3:16 Bill Mounce Greek interlinear?

Oga, tell us nau

Even after reading the article you still cannot see it.


Colossians 2:8
Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν·
Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ,

Colossians 2:9
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,




Paul was warning them against false philosophy that is not according to Christ and then goes on to say that in Christ dwells all the fullness of deity bodily.

Nachmonides:
Hello there, go and read what Bill said in his article.

What you're doing is cherry picking, and out of context at that.

Here is the link to the article, for anyone interested:

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/paragraphs-col-2-9-and-4-10

Janosky:
Your fellow Trinitarian & Bible scholar disagrees with your claim about Colossians 2:9
"Jesus Christ is NOT fully God "

"

The correct rendition of 1 Timothy 3:16 is "who/which was manifest in the flesh".

Trinitarians smuggled "God" into that verse to deceive gullible folks.
Oga, pls go and verify.

Hello there, go and read what Bill said in his article.

What you're doing is cherry picking, and out of context at that.

GothamCities:
Wow!

This shows that many of Christ's statements which confuse many readers could actually be understood if one has a good knowledge of Jewish customs! Since Jesus tailored His teachings to His audience.

From your inputs, it means Jesus' answer regarding the timing of His second coming is not a matter of Him not being all knowing but a matter of individual specializations within the Trinity. The timing of the Son's coming is the Father's responsibility. Not the Son's. It is the Father's sole prerogative.

1 Corinthians 12 tells us that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost have different responsibilities as they work together for a common goal.

Thanks very much for this input. It is an eye opener regarding that statement of Jesus.

As a matter of fact, you are correct.
It's to the glory of God that the eyes of our understanding be enlightened as the Apostle Paul wrote. I am happy that you see it clearly.


Yes, it's not a matter of Jesus not being all knowing.


The book of Matthew itself was written primarily to a Jewish audience, it employs a lot of Jewish culture and traditions that upon reading would be clear immediately to a Jewish reader.

Keep on going brother. I will pitch my tent here.

DaddyCoool:
God is also all-knowing.
Please explain:
"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"

That's an interesting scripture you have put there.



Matthew 24:36, where Jesus says, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only," has profound parallels with the customs of a Jewish marriage in Jesus' time. These customs offer a rich metaphor for understanding the relationship between Christ and His Church and the timing of His second coming.

1. The Betrothal (Kiddushin)

In Jewish tradition, a marriage began with a betrothal, a formal agreement that legally bound the bride and groom. During this time:

The groom would offer a bride price (a valuable gift) as a symbol of his commitment.

The bride would accept and prepare herself for the wedding.


Parallels:

Jesus, the bridegroom, offered His life as the bride price for the Church (Ephesians 5:25).

The Church, as the bride, prepares herself for His return through faith, obedience, and readiness (Revelation 19:7-8 ).

2. The Groom’s Departure to Prepare a Place

After the betrothal, the groom would leave the bride's home to return to his father’s house. There, he would prepare a place for the couple to live, often by adding a room to his father’s house.

The groom’s return date was not fixed and depended on the father's approval of the preparations.

Only the father could give the final approval for when the groom could retrieve his bride.


Parallels:

Jesus told His disciples He was going to prepare a place for them in His Father’s house (John 14:2-3).

The Father determines the timing of Christ’s return to gather His bride, the Church, reflecting the Jewish custom.

3. The Bride’s Preparation

While the groom prepared the home, the bride had to remain vigilant and ready because she did not know the exact time of the groom’s return.

She would keep her lamp filled with oil and prepare her wedding garments.

The groom often came unexpectedly, usually at night, preceded by a shout to announce his arrival.


Parallels:

Jesus warned His followers to stay alert and prepared for His return, likened to the arrival of a bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13).

The oil in the lamps of the wise virgins represents readiness and spiritual preparation.

4. The Wedding Feast (Nissuin)

When the father deemed the time right, the groom would return to the bride’s house with a procession of friends to bring her to his home.

The wedding culminated in a grand feast lasting several days.


Parallels:

The second coming of Christ will be the moment when He gathers His Church to Himself, likened to the bride being taken to the groom’s house.

The heavenly marriage supper of the Lamb is the ultimate celebration of this union (Revelation 19:9).


5. "No One Knows the Day or Hour"

The phrase, "only the Father knows," resonates directly with the Jewish wedding custom where the timing of the groom’s return was solely the father’s decision. This emphasizes:

The sovereignty of the Father in determining the appointed time.

The element of anticipation and readiness, as the bride and her household did not know the exact time.

Jesus used imagery familiar to His audience, likening His return to a Jewish wedding. The phrase “only the Father knows” aligns with the father’s role in Jewish weddings, highlighting the mystery and anticipation of the second coming. This analogy deepens the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with His Church and the call for believers to remain prepared and vigilant for His return.

You're simply unintelligent to be attacking scriptures, you have no idea the weight of study involved. You should keep shut and spend the next 30 years studying to see if the things it claims are true.


You remain foolish to your own detriment.
Even the science you believe in is catching up with scriptures and agreeing.

I used to be an ardent adherent of science and scorned at scriptures, unbelievable fables I'd call them, like you I scorned at it.

Until I humbled myself in the study.
The eyes of my understanding became enlightened.


I shouldn't have engaged this conversation, reading from your profile, you seem to be everywhere, attacking Christians, you have your mind made up. You attack Christians, get another hobby, start "attacking" scriptures, examine to see if it is true. Be true to the science of theology, see if it doesn't get vindicated.


I believe in the power of God for you, towards you, you are not a lost cause. You too, can be used by God for his glory, I am not to engage in endless conversations that lead to unbelief.


Shalom Kobojunkie.

I will be mute on this matter henceforth.

Kobojunkie:
What in the world is all of this meaningless gibberish for? All I asked for a simple conclusion based on the statements which where all of them declarations taken from the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israe. Is it that you don't understand what a conclusion statement should be from the given statements or what? Again! 🤔

Did you ever take a class in Logic for instance? If you did, this would be a good exercise for you to exercise your critical reasoning abilities as opposed to spewing religious gobbledegook any further.


What do you think would be the most reasonable conclusion from all of the above proclamations made by the person of Jesus Christ?
Take your time — days even — to respond. 🤔

Read all of my texts, you'll find the conclusion there.