Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[RedFan]

Is your word…someone other than You?

My word isn't a "someone" at all. But it IS something "other" than me. It is a verbalization I use to communicate, but it isn't "me." I'd still be "me" if I were mute and unable to communicate.

Is your word…not always With and IN You?

My word emanates from me when I choose to verbalize. If you want to call that "always with" me, fine, although I would characterize it as "created at my whim of the moment" rather than "always with" me. (Before I verbalize, it doesn't exist, so how could it be "with me?" But I digress . . .)

Because Gods Word…IS God.

John's Prologue certainly characterizes it that way, but I think John's point is that God creates by his "Word" (God SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light; and so on) -- and the Son is that creative aspect of God, a la John 1:3. (Col. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 8:6 express the same point.) We can't analogize this to human language.

Because God Word is always With and IN God.

If you want to build a case that -- unlike humans who simply call up their words as needed to communicate -- there is a sense in which God's creative Word never leaves Him and is in some sense "IN" Him (not spatially, but existentially), I will happily help you. It's going to take a deep theological dive, though. There is some esoterica here that will require a detour into Philo's Logos theology. Are you up for it, or are you content with taking John's Prologue at face value, and not peering under the covers?

 

[Johann]

John's Prologue certainly characterizes it that way, but I think John's point is that God creates by his "Word" (God SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light; and so on) -- and the Son is that creative aspect of God, a la John 1:3. (Col. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 8:6 express the same point.) We can't analogize this to human language.

This is error.

J.

 

[Pierac]

Good Morning @APAK , @face2face , @Pierac

the LORD Jesus Christ accepted and recieved and expected being called "good" and being called "God" and being worshipped

Did you check with your pastor before you wrote this Nonsense....

No One but God is Good
One day a "rich young ruler" came to Jesus and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (v. 19). The traditional explanation I was taught is that Jesus stops this young man right in his tracks because he needed to realize that Jesus really was God. It is as if Jesus said, "Don't you realize who I am? I am God Himself. Don't call me ‘good’ without remembering this. Recognize who it is you are talking to!" Sound a bit strained? Whilst admitting that Jesus’ reply is difficult I think there's a better explanation. Jesus was saying that he himself is not God. This is the natural, obvious sense so let's look at it in more detail.

The word for "good" here is the Greek word agathos. It is an adjective which according to the G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament, third edition. Agathos properly refers to "inner excellence." In Joseph Henry Thayer’s, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, agathos when used of God refers to the fact that He is completely, perfectly, and essentially good.

Jesus says that only God is agathos or good. It refers to God's holiness, his "otherness," that which sets Him apart from all of His creation. On the practical level it means that God cannot help being good, God cannot sin, nor can He even be tempted to sin. God alone is "incorruptible" and immortal (1 Tim 1:17).

On the other hand, Jesus reject for himself the description agathos, that inner quality of perfection which belongs only to God. "In essence he rejects this divine attribute of holiness and, on the negative side, he rejects incorruptibility." This means that Jesus was a real human being and had the option of being either good or bad. Jesus’ temptations were real; he could have succumbed and failed. For he was not agathos, that is not good, and not God in the absolute sense of the word. This means that he was liable to corruption (Acts 2:27). But it also means his victories were real. The Bible teaches that Jesus learned obedience (Heb.5:8). God the Father has never had to learn goodness.

Truly, there was a certain goodness that Jesus did possess. His was a goodness unique in human history. We know that he "increased [grew] in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and with man" (Luke 2:52). This was the sinless goodness that had been possible for Adam, originally. This is the goodness that qualified him to be the Good Shepherd who gave his life as a sacrifice for us. But the word describing him as "The Good Shepherd" (John 10:11) is a different Greek word, kalos, meaning morally excellent and worthy of recognition. This type of goodness certainly describes our Savior.

So what does this all mean? Evidently when the young man addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher" Jesus took offense. His response indicates a rebuke in fact: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (This crucial phrase ei me heis ho theos may also be translated "but the one God," which is a strong unitary monotheistic affirmation from Jesus’ lips: "no one is good but the one God.")

The Trinitarian Raymond E. Brown in his book, An Introduction to New Testament Christology writes, "The text strongly distinguishes between Jesus and God, and that a description of himself to which Jesus objected was applicable to God. From this text, one would never suspect that the evangelist referred to Jesus and God."

Surely we do not honor the Lord Jesus when we attribute to him what he himself rejected and what belongs only to his Father in heaven? If confirmation that this is the correct interpretation is sought, and we need only to turn to revelations 15. After his resurrection and ascension into heaven Jesus is seen leading the worship directed to God his Father. All the victorious Saints of God singing "the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the lamb, saying, ‘Great and marvelous are Your works, O LORD God, the Almighty… Who will not fear, O LORD and glorify Your Name? ForYou alone are Holy" (v. 3-4). Even now in heaven the Lord Jesus’ confession is that his Father "alone" is holy. As the lamb of God, Jesus still worships God his Father as the only one who is good! Only his Father, the Lord God Almighty, is the source of all moral excellence. How much better to agree with our Lord Jesus and confess that there is only one who is good, that is God. Jesus rejects the identification of himself with the one true and good God in Luke 18:19.


Next time ask permission from your pastor before you post... Then You may not have to look so silly... and be corrected by Jesus like the certain ruler was in Luke.... Saying and posting exactly what got his traditions of men spanked by Jesus!!!

OMG!!!! How do you not know these thing????

 

[Pierac]

Elohim is plural and does NOT include the angels.

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification:

Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

How do you not know these things...

 

[Pierac]

Moses said to God that the children of Israel will ask the name of the one who sent him, then asked what name shall he tell them: "Καὶ εἶπε Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξελεύσομαι πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ἐρῶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς: ἐρωτήσουσί με, τί ὄνομα αὐτῷ; τί ἐρῶ. πρὸς αὐτούς; Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ "Qu. καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὧν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς: "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." (Ex. 3:13-14)

Fast-forward to the scene of Jn. 8:57, the Pharisees ask Jesus, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?”, and He responds by claiming to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham, but more importantly, He called himself by the ancient title ascribed only to God Himself: "...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) γενέσθαι ἐγὼ (I) εἰμί (AM)" (Jn. 8:58). The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God.” How do we know this was their interpretation of His words? We know it from their reaction. They responded by attempting to stone Jesus for having claimed to be God (an act of blasphemy they considered worthy of death): "ἦραν (picked) οὖν λίθους (stones) ἵνα (to) βάλωσιν (throw) ἐπ' (at) αὐτόν (him): Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ." (Jn. 8:59)

Trinitarians can reconcile Jesus calling Himself God in Jn. 8:58 and saying, "“Why do you call me good? No one is good except one—God" in Mk. 10:18. How do you reconcile these two verses?

I Am
There has been quite a bit of discussion on John 8:58. What happened to this verse as to confuse so many? Let's start in Exodus.

KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now we shall read the same verse from the Greek Septuagint

Septuagint Exo 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην [εγω ειμι ο ων] και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ [ο ων] απεσταλκεν με προς υμας

Note the two separate Greek words used for 'am'

Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.
Now when translated literally you get a whole different look. What happened to the other I am's?

The Hebrew Bible uses the word (hâyâh H1961) in the place of "Am" which is a verb meaning to exist, to be.
Check the Strongs' number.

Clearly Jesus did not say (εγω ειμι ο ων) nor did he state (ο ων), in John 8:58. Jesus spoke the words (εγω ειμι) just like other people in the bible who are not God. So just what was Jesus saying?

But what about the great "I Am him" statement of Jesus? Especially that classic one in John 8:58 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born I am"?

Surely here Jesus makes the same claim for himself that Jehovah God made back in Exodus 3 where the LORD says to Moses at the burning Bush "I Am Who I Am." Surely Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament as Trinitarian belief asserts?

Now here is something very obvious that they never told me in church. This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament.

Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he." You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics. This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear. Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ. "I who speak to you am he." In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah. Definitely not “I am is the one speaking to you!”

In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man. Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right." Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, " ego eimi!" And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent? Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM? Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!

What Jesus is saying is simply “Before Abraham was born, I am he,” that is, "I am the Messiah."

Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One. On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents. Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw. The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God. Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was." Also, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."

The conclusion is inevitable. Jesus’ claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.

The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus Was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:6. They give the very reason they wanted Him dead!

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Jesus, NEVER claimed to be God!


Again.... how do you not know these things!!!

 

[face2face]

OF course this is no shocker or surprise to us who know the Truth = Philippians 2:5-11

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.

For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Son to Servant NOT God to Servant!

I'm certain if you read the Epistle which it seems you are yet to do you might catch on to the context of the letter.

PM if you need any support

F2F

 

[face2face]

the problem with this generation

Thanks dad

 

[amigo de christo]

Thanks dad

Why thank you son . I been hoping you would hear in time . Oh my dear son has returned . let us kill the fatted calf and make merry .

 

[face2face]

Why thank you son . I been hoping you would hear in time . Oh my dear son has returned .

Thank you for meeting me at the gate!

 

[amigo de christo]

Thank you for meeting me at the gate!

have my dear sons eyes really been opened , is this a dream , has face two face finally heard .
OH let all rejoice . Interfaith is of anti christ and its time we gonna preach the dire needto beleive JESUS is the CHRIST
and all the lovely words in that bible of Christ and later the apostels . OH every word is truth .
OH rejoice with me my friends , my son is headed back to the BIBLE to learn for himself .

 

[face2face]

have my dear sons eyes really been opened , is this a dream , has face two face finally heard .
OH let all rejoice . Interfaith is of anti christ and its time we gonna preach the dire needto beleive JESUS is the CHRIST
and all the lovely words in that bible of Christ and later the apostels . OH every word is truth .
OH rejoice with me my friends , my son is headed back to the BIBLE to learn for himself .

I wouldn't go that far - I still see a single all powerful Father coming out to meet me and not some three headed freak show!

 

[Taken]

My word isn't a "someone" at all. But it IS something "other" than me. It is a verbalization I use to communicate, but it isn't "me." I'd still be "me" if I were mute and unable to communicate.


My word emanates from me when I choose to verbalize. If you want to call that "always with" me, fine, although I would characterize it as "created at my whim of the moment" rather than "always with" me. (Before I verbalize, it doesn't exist, so how could it be "with me?" But I digress . . .)


John's Prologue certainly characterizes it that way, but I think John's point is that God creates by his "Word" (God SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light; and so on) -- and the Son is that creative aspect of God, a la John 1:3. (Col. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 8:6 express the same point.) We can't analogize this to human language.


If you want to build a case that -- unlike humans who simply call up their words as needed to communicate -- there is a sense in which God's creative Word never leaves Him and is in some sense "IN" Him (not spatially, but existentially), I will happily help you. It's going to take a deep theological dive, though. There is some esoterica here that will require a detour into Philo's Logos theology. Are you up for it, or are you content with taking John's Prologue at face value, and not peering under the covers?

I am content Gods Word, Gods Spirit, Gods Power IS God…Lord God Almighty…

The cover is no longer a dilemma for some.

Luke 12:
[2] For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[amigo de christo]

I wouldn't go that far - I still see a single all powerful Father coming out to meet me and not some three headed freak show!

so let us sum up the matter . Now i believe in being honest .
So in a quick summary you tell me how do you view interfaith finding common ground .
Lets start with that .

 

[Wrangler]

@RedFan, no point by point rebuttal?

LOL Trinity anti-logic on display. 1st, one cannot logically prove a negative. (And I think you are smart enough to know that)

2nd, as a lawyer, you know the burden is on the one who makes the positive claim, e.g., the defendant is guilty or liable, H0 v Ha. Trinitarians have failed to prove with Scripture that Jesus is God. The trinity is not in Scripture. Scripture does not teach that it is important to believe in the trinity or that Jesus is God.

The complete absence of the trinity as an explicit teaching is proof enough that it is a false doctrine. Jesus did not teach the trinity. Jesus did not teach us to pray to the trinity. Why would Jesus followers teach what Jesus did not?

3rd, theologically, If he were God, it would mean he suffered on the cross for nothing! It would make a mockery of his entire ministry, pretend death and worst of all, we are still enslaved to sin for Jesus did not pay the wages of sin IF he were God who cannot die.

4th, Scripture proves by contradiction that Jesus is NOT God over and over again. No one "becomes" God. Jesus died, which alone demonstrably proves he is NOT God.

Jesus said true worshipers will worship the Father. John 4:23. This means false worshippers worship the trinity. Rev 1:1 proves the resurrected Jesus having been given all authority in Heaven and Earth sitting at God's throne in heaven is STILL not God (for God gave Jesus the revelation). Jesus has a God. God does not have a God.

Now for the converse. Mark 1:1 identifies Jesus as the son of god - not god the son. There are many proof texts that God is NOT Jesus. There is only God the Father. This is not equivalent to there is only God the trinity.

Jesus, himself said the Father is the only true God. That means the trinity is a false god. Then there is the OT which explicitly and repeatedly tells us who God is (and it is not Jesus or the Holy Spirit or all 3 combined).

1. God also said to Moses ...Yahweh ... is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered for generation after generation. Ex 3:15 (REV)
2. You shall have no other gods before me (including the trinity god). Ex 20:3 (singular pronoun referring to the LORD God YHWH, who we relate to as father)
3. Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone! Deut 6:4
4. “I am Yahweh who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself." Isaiah 44:24
5. I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no God. Isaiah 45:5
6. O God ... you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth. Ps 83
7. I am Yahweh your God, and there is no other. Joel 2:26

In response to all this, you got nothing! I'd love to see a point by point rebuttal but I know I'll never get it. You have to ignore all this and adopt extreme eisegesis, pretend the man-is-god thesis is the central message of Scripture, to satisfy your IDOL. There is no proof text that Jesus is not God?!

View attachment 56415

Isn’t ignoring all this so typical @face2face, @APAK, @Keiw?

 

[face2face]

so let us sum up the matter . Now i believe in being honest .
So in a quick summary you tell me how do you view interfaith finding common ground .
Lets start with that .

The issue with interfaith is where to start?

If Christianity has developed its own understanding of the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ and the means by which salvation is achieved, what foundation can be found for common ground?

I'll give you an example.

The Bible speaks of a Victory over the Flesh which happened through death.

1 Corinthians 15:56, which says, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."

See how Paul states the "sting of death" is SIN

Now Paul states that Christ died to sin once having tasted death Heb 2:9

Can you see the correlation?

My Lord had sin nature which is held under deaths dominion, meaning death is working in the Lords body until once day he will either die of old age or be killed!

Trinitarians ignore all of the above! They ignore every aspect of the Lords nature, his struggle in sins flesh and every single work done in Christ because they make him a God.

Be honest amigo - where is the common ground?

My focus is in the Life of Christ - his example in the flesh while Trinitarians focus is in Divinity - the miss the point of Christ altogether!

Jesus' view had to be this "But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people" Psalm 22:6

Which Christian in this forum would be able to comprehend how Christ would view himself and his nature in this way? And mark my words, , if you don't believe Psalm 22 is Messianic, you'll have far more issues to contend with than just the Trinity!

God will not be mocked! He knows the man he raised from birth.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@RedFan, no point by point rebuttal?


Isn’t ignoring all this so typical @face2face, @APAK, @Keiw?

3rd, theologically, If he were God, it would mean he suffered on the cross for nothing! It would make a mockery of his entire ministry, pretend death and worst of all, we are still enslaved to sin for Jesus did not pay the wages of sin (tasted death once!) IF he were God who cannot die.

It's a harmful doctrine as it removes reality and replaces it with falsehood

If Christ didn't completely and utterly cease to exist which is the meaning of death then we have no Victory over it.

It would mean a Trinitarian is still under the Law of Sin and Death and in their sins.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Again.... how do you not know these things!!!

A heads up, Lux is a serial reposting offender (SRO!). I would see her in the same way the Lord viewed those fickle believers in John 8 who turned on him. she won't listen and most certainly will never engage with any of your posted material. You are better openly posting your truths into the forum than deal with her copy and pasting.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

Trinitarians have failed to prove with Scripture that Jesus is God.

I agree. @Johann may not, but I do. I've been saying this for years. (Like our back and forth in Post #2,755 of The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed.) Scripture is equivocal on the subject. One can marshal verses on both sides.

THE Trinity can Now be discussed.

@Johann A.D. 300 Trinitarian prayers unknown in the Church. A.D. 325 "Nicene Creed" affirms Christ to be "Very God of Very God". A.D. 370 Doxology composed: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen." A.D...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Marvelloustime]

Oh my dear friend
Many will remain at their present condition
having eyes but see not
having ears but hear not .
And while its truth that On the day of the LORD the sheep and the goats will stand before him .
All seeing the VERY TRUTH in front of them . Not a goat one gonna hear well done enter in ........
There is good reason i remind us of what we already know .
David , many there be that are in deadly dire danger of eternal damnation .
And though they might even sing the song , when we all get to heaven , We shall shout the victory
many have denied the true image of GOD and followed another jesus , another spirit , another gospel .
THEY WONT SINGING IN HEAVEN DAVID but rather screaming in eternal judgement .
Now that might sound a lil grave , a lil hard stance , maybe even judgemental to most .
BUT ITS REALITY friend . FELIX TREMBLED when paul witnessed . aint a darn thing wrong with being grave .

@amigo de christo

 

[APAK]

@RedFan, no point by point rebuttal?


Isn’t ignoring all this so typical @face2face, @APAK, @Keiw?

Still they attempt to force larger squares into smaller circles, or force scripture verse puzzle pieces into place not meant to be attached, and to have dog ears - the pieces just don't fit! And they still call it all good....