CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Did Jesus say He is God ?
 

Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses



Your Ad Here
Place your ad here !



J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...


More
More

Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses



Your Ad Here
Place your ad here !



J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...


squarecurls Views: 2,576
Published: 14 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 1,064,471

Re: Did Jesus say He is God ?


Been there done that,

>>>One of the most outrageous things you have said, squarecurl, is that "Jesus didn't pray to Himself" (is there some kind of actual reasoning here?).<<<

Yes, there is some kind of actual reasoning.

I was responding to beej's question: Did Jesus say he is God? While I could have used many more words, I felt that beej would know what I was talking about and didn't need to include a reference to his question.


>>>The final result of the revelation OF Jesus Christ was that it was given TO John
I'm sure you feel satisfied that you argued("...by sending his angel TO his servant John").

Is this the question that you are suggesting I didn't answer?
"Who does this verse say gave Jesus the Revelation?"

There is no possible way you could actually believe that, after reading my post, I did not provide any indication of an ANSWER/solution to that question (unless you completely disregarded what I wrote because seeking an "answer" is not your purpose here). You should at least have been able to sense that I was disagreeing that the purpose of the revelation was that it was TO John, not simply shared with John.

It is true that the Father initially gave the revelation to Jesus, but for the purpose "to show his servants", and the way that it was done was by "sending an angel" TO John.<<<

Actually, it was quite hard to discern exactly what you thought.

I have pulled the following statement out of the above >>>quoted<<< comments.

>>>You should at least have been able to sense that I was disagreeing that the purpose of the revelation was that it was TO John, not simply shared with John.<<<

I never stated who the revelation was given to, whom it was intended for, or anything of that nature. I only asked a question. From your response, I did know that you were making assumptions of what I did think, though.


>>>It is of little consequence whether that SINGLE VERSE is thought to mean that the revelation was FOR Jesus or John (because the rest of the BOOK makes it clear that the revelation was TO John), but a SINGLE VERSE should never be taken out of context ("verse Christians" and GODLY Christians are two different things).<<<

Yes, John received the revelation... from the angel, who received it from Jesus who received it from God. After John received it, according to the verse, the revelation is for the bond-servants of Jesus... so that they may know the things shortly to come to pass.

And actually, I think nothing of the bible is of little consequence.

You are very right, though, about Godly Christians and verse Christians being two different things. Yet, the two are not mutually exclusive.


>>>If this is the question that you are suggesting I didn't answer...
Did/Does God have a beginning or end?

that's because you don't offer any reasoning (REASON, not CURIOUS attitude) for ASKING/presenting the question (it is a nonsensical question). <<<

It is regrettable that you did not realize that that my question was in response to a scripture that beej posted, a scripture which I quoted immediately before asking that question. That scripture that beej posted was, by the way, from Chapter One, Verse 8 of the Book of Revelation.


>>>This is a DEBATE forum, not a "nonsensical question" forum. Intelligent people can only properly debate intelligent questions (yes, questions do have to have some kind of reasoning behind them, for INTELLIGENT people). <<<

Then, please help and debate while not making assumptions pulled out of the air based on nothing. It only confuses matters.

I do note, again, your condescending tone. Not that it affects my soul any.


>>>What GOOD reason do you have for asking that question in the first place (if any, is your reason GOOD/legitimate?, or are you simply attempting to suggest doubt and uncertainty in order to disrupt Godly beliefs?)<<<

For the sake of clarity, I shall repeat myself and then respond to your questions.

It is regrettable that you did not realize that that my question was in response to a scripture that beej posted, which I quoted immediately before asking that question. That scripture was, by the way, from Chapter One, Verse 8 of the Book of Revelation.

That is why I referenced back to verse 1. Are you following? Beej posted this scripture: The Revelation of Jesus Christ 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The verse has Jesus saying that He is the beginning and the ending.

So, I asked: Does God have a beginning or an ending?

I feel that that is a very legitimate question.

>>>or are you simply attempting to suggest doubt and uncertainty in order to disrupt Godly beliefs?)<<<

Godly beliefs based on the truth cannot be disturbed.

If by asking that question, doubts and uncertainty crop up then it is the responsibility of each individual to go to God for clarification.

If doubts and uncertainty exist, then it is very telling that an individual has not the truth yet. The fact that a person may have such confusion is is not a criticism, but is instead an indication that a drawing closer to God is needed.


>>>You went on to say "Also..." like your intention is to only cast/suggest one doubt after another.<<<

Well, at least now you are admitting to imagining what my intentions were. The imagination is a poor way, imo, to discuss serious matters. Creates confusion where none need exist.


>>>For whose benefit were you thinking out loud when you wrote this...
"I think that the reason most people think that Jesus is God is because of the trinity doctrine" (suggesting more doubt).<<<

I have no problem with the trinity doctrine, yet I also realize that many do not support or believe in this mystery. It's true what the bible says, you know, that: it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but it is to the glory of kings to search out a matter.


>>>I'm sure you feel satisfied that you argued ... <<<

I do not feel that I am arguing. Arguing is not conducive to discussion. Though, I will say that I had to remind myself of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 before responding to you today.

4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


>>>I'm sure you feel satisfied that you argued your way out of everything I posted by REPLYING (not ANSWERING) to each point in my previous post, <<<

I regret to hear that you feel that I am talking at you instead of with you.


>>>but your reply to the "chapter/book" mistake you made ("Perhaps...") was simply "nothing to be proud of". <<<

I also regret that you find reason to criticize conciseness. Being redundant, I guess, could have it's advantages and have tried to be so in this reply to you.


>>>I have no doubt that you will now hone your skills to attack Christian beliefs, ...<<<

It is also regrettable that imagination has such a hold of your mind. I am a Christian and know that our 'beliefs' are founded on profound truths. Until those beliefs are transformed into knowledge, our religion will continue to suffer from in-fighting and will not accomplish that which Jesus, His disciples and apostles and Paul called us to be: in unity.


>>>but in doing so, you will at least learn not to insult our intelligence by calling a chapter a "BOOK"...DUH! <<<

And then again, perhaps you may come to appreciate conciseness.

By the way, did you know that the bible originally had no chapters or verses? They were all individual books. The people who reproduced the bible found that it was easier on them if they broke the books down into it's present format of chapters and verses.

Anyway, I don't plan on any time soon being intentionally redundant often. So, maybe you will just have to learn to forgive me for not saying: First chapter, first verse in the Book of Revelation instead of: the first verse in the Book of Revelation.

After all, it is the same thing.


>>>(and maybe The Lord will get to someday teach you about GODLINESS).<<<

"Get to". Yes, it is the Lord's privilege and gift, isn't it?

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23


Be Well,
SC
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  www.curezone.com

0.609 sec, (5)