GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Catholic Infant "Baptism"  (Read 5086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #70 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:33:30 »
That infants died physically in the flood says nothing at all about their spiritual condition.
It said more then you want it to say! Again, as always you are SO wrong on infants being innocence of Adam's sin according to doctrine of imputation. Which we shall consider more in depth.
Quote from: Paul in his doctrine taught the church in the first century
Ephesians 2:1-3"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
Paul makes it very clear that even the elect were children of wrath by nature, or by birth. Jesus Christ though born in the "likeness of sinful flesh" was the ONLY one free of Adam's sin by his virgin birth, and God being his Father, NOT Adam!
Quote from: 4WD Yesterday at 06:24:14
That infants died physically in the flood says nothing at all about their spiritual condition.
Then you do not understand many great truths one being God's justice. He would NEVER inflict punishment on innocence people, especially infants and children, NEVER!
Quote from: Abraham
Genesis 18:23-25~"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Indeed God will do righteously, and would NEVER slay the righteous, or innocence  WITHOUT a just cause! So, all that died in both the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah were considered wicked by nature. You and others are holding to a lie and not to the truth of the word of God.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #70 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:33:30 »

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #71 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:42:07 »
It is not a false scenario.  It is the absolute truth.  That is the magnitude and the triumph of the incarnation.  If Jesus could not fail, and if Jesus could not sin, then the passages that soterion posted are simply lies and the whole plan of salvation as presented in God's word is a farce.  God, by way of His foreknowledge knew that Jesus would not fail.  But foreknowledge is not causative.No it was not a gamble, but not because failure was prevented by God; rather in His foreknowledge God knew that it would not fail.  You, like so many, simply do not understand the difference between what God knows will happen and what God causes to happen. It could have been otherwise but it was not; and God knew it would not be otherwise; yet it was Jesus Christ the man who accomplished it as planned, not God who caused it to be accomplished as planned.  The difference is significant.

Yes I know that you are struggling with the concept of foreknowledge, but you just added a whole new dimension to it: God does not know what He Himself does in future.

Jesus is God, right?
Jesus and the Father are One, right?
Jesus cannot do what the Father doesn't want, and the Father cannot do what the Son doesn't want, right?

So then, why would the Father have to look into the future to see what the Son would do?
Your proposition does not make sense.

You make it such that God does not know the future. In order for Him to know the future, He must look into it to obtain information He otherwise would not know.
Then God makes a plan on the basis of what He saw in the future, but before He can actually put the plan into work, He must look ahead in future to see if His plan would work.
And if His plan is successful, God then goes ahead with the plan...but if His plan is unsuccessful God has to modify His plan or perhaps drop it in favor of an alternative plan.

You make God a reactive agent. God in not sovereign because God can only do what the future allows Him to do.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #71 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:42:07 »

Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #72 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:43:08 »
When you come back to discuss Jesus' faith that you see in Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:22, etc., would you discuss also God's faith in Romans 3:3? 

KJV: Rom 3:3  For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
I just gave you the understanding of Romans 3:3 less than a month ago. Go back a read it, very simple to understand.
Quote from: 4WD Today at 05:22:47
[And by the way, I do not embrace a gospel of works over a gospel of grace.
Of course you will not admit, but your teachings prove that you do.
Quote from: 4WD Today at 05:22:47
The problem in that is that you simply do not understand what Paul [or James] was speaking about in their discussions of works and hence do not really understand grace.
Oh, sir, I do understand that works (faith, or any fruits of the SPirit of God) are the ONLY the evidence of being born of God on behalf of Jesus' faith/righteousness/obedience, NOT the means thereof.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #72 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:43:08 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #73 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:56:49 »
That infants died physically in the flood says nothing at all about their spiritual condition.
It said more then you want it to say! Again, as always you are SO wrong on infants being innocence of Adam's sin according to doctrine of imputation.
More specifically, it does not say what you want it to say or what you think it says.  The only doctrine of imputation presented in the Bible is found in Romans 5:13 which says that sin is not imputed when there is no law.  And when you figure out what that means you might well be on your way to understanding the doctrine of imputation.

The basic problem here is that you are perfectly happy with a god who would impute your sins unto your children.  You say you would not; but then say that God imputed the sin of Adam unto Cain, Abel, Seth and the entirety of his descendants.  That is not the God of the Bible.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #73 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 05:56:49 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #74 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 06:16:18 »
Yes I know that you are struggling with the concept of foreknowledge, but you just added a whole new dimension to it: God does not know what He Himself does in future.

Jesus is God, right?
Jesus and the Father are One, right?
Jesus cannot do what the Father doesn't want, and the Father cannot do what the Son doesn't want, right?

So then, why would the Father have to look into the future to see what the Son would do?
Your proposition does not make sense.

You make it such that God does not know the future. In order for Him to know the future, He must look into it to obtain information He otherwise would not know.
Then God makes a plan on the basis of what He saw in the future, but before He can actually put the plan into work, He must look ahead in future to see if His plan would work.
And if His plan is successful, God then goes ahead with the plan...but if His plan is unsuccessful God has to modify His plan or perhaps drop it in favor of an alternative plan.

You make God a reactive agent. God in not sovereign because God can only do what the future allows Him to do.
AVZ, you haven't a clue about any of this. Your logic, as is so often the case, is faulty.

God's foreknowledge is not Causative. Foreknowledge is not predestination.  The two are not really even related. 

God's foreknowledge is absolute.  He knows everything -- past, present and future.  He even knows those things He has not predestined. The future does not in any way limit God.  The future is not necessarily set by God.  That fact that God knows the future is not because He establishes the future.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #74 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 06:16:18 »



Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #75 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 06:24:44 »
The problem in that is that you simply do not understand what Paul [or James] was speaking about in their discussions of works and hence do not really understand grace.
Oh, sir, I do understand that works (faith, or any fruits of the SPirit of God) are the ONLY the evidence of being born of God on behalf of Jesus' faith/righteousness/obedience, NOT the means thereof.
No, sir, you do not.  It is obvious that you do not understand the difference between the works that Paul spoke about in passages such as Ephesians 2:9 and simply doing something such as hearing the word about Christ or believing the gospel message or confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior. And understanding that difference is critical to understanding what God, through Paul, is talking about.
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 06:28:08 by 4WD »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #75 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 06:24:44 »

Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #76 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 07:13:41 »
The basic problem here is that you are perfectly happy with a god who would impute your sins unto your children.  You say you would not; but then say that God imputed the sin of Adam unto Cain, Abel, Seth and the entirety of his descendants.  That is not the God of the Bible.
I'll be short since I'm leaving shortly.

I'm grateful that God in his infinite wisdom has a manner in which he can perfectly, righteously, gloriously, impute sin and impute HIS righteousness unto those who are at enmity against him in a manner in which he is seen as an infinitely righteous person. It works both ways, which tells me that you and your friends do not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ~AND how that the first Adam was a figure of Jesus Christ! You can not see this truth, and you do not even desire to.
Quote from: 4WD Today at 05:56:49
That is not the God of the Bible
It is, it is you that refuses to acknowledge that it is.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #77 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 08:10:05 »
AVZ, you haven't a clue about any of this. Your logic, as is so often the case, is faulty.

God's foreknowledge is not Causative. Foreknowledge is not predestination.  The two are not really even related. 

God's foreknowledge is absolute.  He knows everything -- past, present and future.  He even knows those things He has not predestined. The future does not in any way limit God.  The future is not necessarily set by God.  That fact that God knows the future is not because He establishes the future.

You are impossible to debate with, no argument will ever be able to get you out of your stubborn convictions.

You said: "God, by way of His foreknowledge knew that Jesus would not fail."

This simply is ridiculous.
Your claim is that God appealed to His foreknowledge to see if Jesus would fail.
Which simply deducted means that God wasn't sure if Jesus would succeed, but through His ability to see the future He found out that Jesus would not fail.

Now, very simply again, God cannot fail.
Jesus is God
Hence, Jesus cannot fail!

What you are promoting is the idea that God does not know for certain if He succeeds, unless He looks into the future to check if indeed He does.
That is an absurd premise, because what would happen if God looks into the future and detects that He fails?
Then God would have no choice but to change that future. And that would make God reactive.

The only argument you could have against the above notion is that it is impossible for God to fail in any possible future.
But then again, if it is impossible for God to fail in any future, then He would not need to use His foreknowledge to see if He would.


In response to causation...by inserting Jesus' death in the future and being certain of the outcome, God caused that future to happen in that specific manner.
No other outcome could be possible.

God could have ordained Jesus birth 3000 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or yesterday.
The outcome would have been all the same, failure not being an option.
Not because God foreknew, but because God ordained.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #78 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 08:16:15 »
The future is not necessarily set by God.

If you believe that God has not set the future, then you have no way of believing that there ever will be a Last Day, Judgement and Heaven.
More interestingly however would be the question: If God does not set the future...who does?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #78 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 08:16:15 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #79 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 08:25:50 »
I'm grateful that God in his infinite wisdom has a manner in which he can perfectly, righteously, gloriously, impute sin and impute HIS righteousness unto those who are at enmity against him in a manner in which he is seen as an infinitely righteous person.
And would you be grateful that God in his infinite wisdom has a manner in which He can perfectly, righteously, gloriously impute sin unto your sons and daughters and then decide, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, to not impute HIS righteousness unto any of your sons and daughters, or their children?

Just curious.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #80 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 08:33:52 »
If you believe that God has not set the future, then you have no way of believing that there ever will be a Last Day, Judgement and Heaven.
More interestingly however would be the question: If God does not set the future...who does?

AVZ, I believe that God can and does establish some things; I believe there are some things that He indeed does preordain.  But that does not mean that He must preordain everything.  In fact it requires that he preordains, i.e., causes, very little of the future.  It only requires a nudge here or there across the millennia to bring about what He wants the end to be.

If you do not understand that, then you have a terribly weak and incomplete view of God.  And I personally believe you have a terribly weak and incomplete view of God.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32001
  • Manna: 688
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #81 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 09:23:20 »
AVZ, god doesn't have to look into the future, he EXISTS in the past, present and future simultaneously.

Offline grams

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
  • Manna: 54
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #82 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 09:54:34 »


All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel", we affirm that water baptism has no place in God's spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this day of grace.
 
Eph. 3:


3

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
 

4

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
 

5

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
 

6

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
 
       
8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
 

9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.
 
       
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 09:59:39 by grams »

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #83 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 10:04:48 »
AVZ, god doesn't have to look into the future, he EXISTS in the past, present and future simultaneously.

Just to be clear. I do not believe God looks into the future to determine His actions in the present.
Yes God exists in all dimensions, but that is not where His knowledge comes from.

I believe that God simply...knows.
There is nothing hidden from Him. Not only does He know everything we do, He also knows the things we think and desire.
He knows even before we think (Psalm 139). This universe and all its attributes including time are His creation. And God knows everything about His creation.
Everything that is in the open and everything that is hidden.

God does need to do anything to inform Himself. He knows.
We cannot imagine that kind of knowledge, having all information even before it exists.
There is no question anyone could ever ask without God having the answer immediately. God doesn't need to check or look ahead in the future. He simply knows everything.
If you were to ask God what would be on 01 January 2020, God would know each and every person alive, their thoughts, their wishes, the position of every molecule in the universe, the number of droplets in the sea, the number of stars in the universe and their location.
That is what foreknowledge means.

This discussion is about if Jesus could have chosen NOT to die on the cross and save mankind.
Someone here opted that Jesus could have failed His duties and "any failure on His part would have meant doom for all mankind".
That is what I am disputing.

4WD opted that God through His foreknowledge knew that Jesus wouldn't fail.
That too I consider incorrect.

The fact is that God decided, from before creation, that this was how He was going to save mankind.
It was a decision, a sovereignly ordained event. Jesus could have never given in to the temptation by Satan. Impossible!
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 10:12:02 by AVZ »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #84 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 12:37:37 »
That's a faulty premise.

Men and Jesus are not alike. We are not the same.
Jesus was not the product of man and woman, He was the product of the Holy Spirit and woman.
Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. We are not.

Whilst Jesus was tempted just like we are in His existence as a man, He simultaneously was not tempted in His existence as God.
God cannot be tempted and God cannot sin.

It would not have been possible for Jesus to be sinful or to commit a sin.
His divine nature would not allow it.

Philippians 2:6-8.
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Hebrews 2:9.
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

I do not read, “Jesus became a man only in the physical sense” when I read these and the other previously posted Hebrew passages. Jesus became like His brothers in all things. This tells me that He was physically and emotionally a man who was made to be completely dependent on God for His well being. He humbled Himself completely. I cannot read these passages and see Him using His deity to avoid or escape any possibility of giving in to temptation. His trust in God was His triumph, and that serves as an example to all of us.

It makes no sense to me that He triumphed because of His deity and then He was crowned with glory because it was impossible for Him to do otherwise. The scriptures say He triumphed over sin because He was humbly obedient. That explains to us the extent to which He became human. He did not depend on His deity to save Him; He trusted in His Father.

One of the reasons I have to come to this conclusion is because I find no scriptures that say otherwise. It seems to me like there is a need to protect Jesus from the doctrines of original sin or total depravity. Therefore, the fact of His miraculous birth, and hence His deity, comes into the argument. However, in my view, since those doctrines are not true, Jesus does not need protection from them and we should be able to accept His full humanity while He was on earth. Everything He did- perfect sinlessness, performing miracles, enduring torture and death on a cross- was all due to His complete trust in God.
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 12:47:58 by soterion »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #85 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 12:41:27 »
RB,

Ephesians 2:3.
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Romans 2:14.
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

The word "instinctively" is the same Greek word as "nature" in Ephesians 2:3. This makes me wonder how the Gentiles could by nature do the things of the Law if they are by nature sinners from the womb. This makes no sense if “by nature” means “by birth.” However, if “by nature” in this sense refers to the effects our lifestyle choices have on us, then that makes perfect sense. Our natures can change according to our choice of lifestyle and temperament.

Ephesians 2:3 is not teaching inherited sin and guilt, but rather is teaching that sin was the chosen lifestyle due to our following our own lusts and indulging in the desires of the flesh. Is that not what Adam did? He followed his own lust and indulged in his own desire. He followed the course directed by Satan.

Also, besides “by nature,” the focus seems to also be on the word “children” in the passage. This is not referring to actual little ones. In John 7:44 Jesus accused those to whom He was speaking of having the devil as their father. That would make them children of the devil, although they were adults. Children in Ephesians 2 means something akin to “followers,” not kids. The same is true for “sons of disobedience” in Ephesians 2:2.

Ephesians 2:1-2a starts off saying we were dead in our (not Adam's) trespasses and sins in which we formerly walked... Nothing here says we were dead in our inherited sins.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #86 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 14:34:08 »
Just to be clear. I do not believe God looks into the future to determine His actions in the present.
Just to be clear, nobody said He looks into the future to determine His actions in the present.  One more time you throw out some wild made up straw man.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #87 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 14:38:18 »
Soterion,

Well stated posts.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #88 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 14:47:32 »
4WD opted that God through His foreknowledge knew that Jesus wouldn't fail.
That too I consider incorrect.
What in the world do you think foreknowledge is.  Foreknowledge is simply to know beforehand  -- to know ahead of time  --  or in His own words to know the end from the beginning.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with ordaining, preordaining, planning or any such ability;  it is who God is.
Quote from: AVZ
The fact is that God decided, from before creation, that this was how He was going to save mankind.
It was a decision, a sovereignly ordained event. Jesus could have never given in to the temptation by Satan. Impossible!
If that is the case, then Jesus was not, as God's word says, a human being like the rest of us after all.  If Jesus could not give in to the temptation by Satan, then all that 100% human being was just a farce and one would have to wonder what else was not quite true.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #89 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 20:24:08 »
Philippians 2:6-8.
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Hebrews 2:9.
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

I do not read, “Jesus became a man only in the physical sense” when I read these and the other previously posted Hebrew passages. Jesus became like His brothers in all things. This tells me that He was physically and emotionally a man who was made to be completely dependent on God for His well being. He humbled Himself completely. I cannot read these passages and see Him using His deity to avoid or escape any possibility of giving in to temptation. His trust in God was His triumph, and that serves as an example to all of us.

It makes no sense to me that He triumphed because of His deity and then He was crowned with glory because it was impossible for Him to do otherwise. The scriptures say He triumphed over sin because He was humbly obedient. That explains to us the extent to which He became human. He did not depend on His deity to save Him; He trusted in His Father.

One of the reasons I have to come to this conclusion is because I find no scriptures that say otherwise. It seems to me like there is a need to protect Jesus from the doctrines of original sin or total depravity. Therefore, the fact of His miraculous birth, and hence His deity, comes into the argument. However, in my view, since those doctrines are not true, Jesus does not need protection from them and we should be able to accept His full humanity while He was on earth. Everything He did- perfect sinlessness, performing miracles, enduring torture and death on a cross- was all due to His complete trust in God.

I think you have an incorrect view of the two natures of Jesus.
Both natures did not operate separately from each other. It is not that Jesus had a "dual personality" in which sometimes His human nature was at work and sometimes His divine nature.
It is not that Jesus was OR 100% man OR 100% God, each nature operative independently from each other.
Jesus was 100% God AND 100% human at the same time!

Jesus said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30)
He also said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9)
Further "but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18)
and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9)

The will of the Father was in complete harmony with the will of the Son.
There was and could not have been any separation of the two. Being God, Jesus could not have violated the harmony which existed within Himself..
Neither could the Father violate the harmony that existed within Himself, also being God.

Jesus was God in bodily form, having all attributes of God and humans at the same time.
Any decision Jesus made was the Father's decision.
Hence Jesus could have never decided to cave in to evil. It would have been in violation of the unity He had with the Father, but being God it would have been in violation with Himself.

Whether you believe or not believe in the theologies of Original Sin or Total Depravity is up to you.
These theologies however apply to mankind only. It would be logically incoherent to attempt to apply them to Jesus.
We are not like Jesus. We are not members of the Trinity. We are not God.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32001
  • Manna: 688
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #90 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 20:39:36 »
I have always felt that Jesus somehow “toggled” between God and man. In other words, if he was tempted in all things just as we are, he did so somehow without his divine attributes. I believe he endured the cross  without his divine attributes somehow. Besides 100% + 100% doesn’t add up, and a poor way to describe the indescribable.
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 20:44:53 by Jaime »

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #91 on: Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 23:56:07 »
I have always felt that Jesus somehow “toggled” between God and man. In other words, if he was tempted in all things just as we are, he did so somehow without his divine attributes. I believe he endured the cross  without his divine attributes somehow. Besides 100% + 100% doesn’t add up, and a poor way to describe the indescribable.

Well, "toggling" between natures would be problematic.
It would mean that sometimes Jesus would be 100% man and 0% God, and sometimes Jesus would be 100% God and 0% man.
The problem is that man cannot be God, and man cannot become God.

So "toggling" from God to man would be possible, but once Jesus was 100% man He would not be able to toggle back to being God.
The only way for Jesus to toggle back to being God is if He would have some remnant left from His divine nature that made it possible for Him to toggle back.

So your proposal of toggling between states is not really resolving the issue, because even in your proposal when Jesus was 100% man He also was, at least partially, God.
Your idea of toggling incorporates the necessity that Jesus was 100% man and God at the same time.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #92 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 00:19:58 »
AVZ,

During His ministry, Jesus forgave sins and accepted worship; He acknowledged His relationship with the Father. He proved He was the Messiah to come. However, He gave up His equality with God to be fully human during His life here. He humbled Himself to be completely obedient. Just think about that. His resistance to any and all that might have threatened His ministry was a matter of will, His faith. If it was His divinity that saved Him, then He did not empty Himself so as to truly humbly submit to God.

Nobody who believes as I do is saying that He was not God become flesh. It's just that He set aside Godly attributes so as to be truly human. He had to experience what being human really means and so understand our struggles, passions, etc. You said yourself that He had all the attributes of humans. I have to believe His emptying Himself of His equality with God means He did not allow Himself to exercise all the attributes of God at the same time as His humanity.

While Jesus was here, He was what God meant man to be. He was made like man in every way so as to fulfill God's will in every way and triumph. Again, it makes no sense that He should afterward be crowned for accomplishing what He had no choice but to accomplish, as if there was absolutely no chance for any other result. He was highly exalted because He had persevered by faith as a man, not as God.

Btw, I'm not so sure that Colossians 2:9 refers to Christ when He was on the earth during His ministry. He had divested Himself of His equality with God so as to come among men as fully man. At least He certainly didn't exercise or manifest this fullness of deity. It was after He accomplished God's will that He was highly exalted, crowned with glory and honor, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #93 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 02:12:37 »
AVZ,

During His ministry, Jesus forgave sins and accepted worship; He acknowledged His relationship with the Father. He proved He was the Messiah to come. However, He gave up His equality with God to be fully human during His life here. He humbled Himself to be completely obedient. Just think about that. His resistance to any and all that might have threatened His ministry was a matter of will, His faith. If it was His divinity that saved Him, then He did not empty Himself so as to truly humbly submit to God.

Nobody who believes as I do is saying that He was not God become flesh. It's just that He set aside Godly attributes so as to be truly human. He had to experience what being human really means and so understand our struggles, passions, etc. You said yourself that He had all the attributes of humans. I have to believe His emptying Himself of His equality with God means He did not allow Himself to exercise all the attributes of God at the same time as His humanity.

While Jesus was here, He was what God meant man to be. He was made like man in every way so as to fulfill God's will in every way and triumph. Again, it makes no sense that He should afterward be crowned for accomplishing what He had no choice but to accomplish, as if there was absolutely no chance for any other result. He was highly exalted because He had persevered by faith as a man, not as God.

Btw, I'm not so sure that Colossians 2:9 refers to Christ when He was on the earth during His ministry. He had divested Himself of His equality with God so as to come among men as fully man. At least He certainly didn't exercise or manifest this fullness of deity. It was after He accomplished God's will that He was highly exalted, crowned with glory and honor, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him.

Soterion,

I understand your viewpoint, but what you propose raises a very big question: when did Jesus become God?

You say that Jesus emptied Himself from all divine attributes and came to earth.
So then, since Jesus was emptied of all divine attributes, when walking on earth did Jesus ever got back those divine attributes?
When during His walk on earth did Jesus become God again? Or was Jesus never God when walking this earth and did He remain human only?

So if Jesus emptied Himself in the manner you describe: "If it was His divinity that saved Him, then He did not empty Himself so as to truly humbly submit to God." and "It's just that He set aside Godly attributes so as to be truly human." how is it that Jesus whilst emptied of every divine attribute:

- Knew the hearts of people (Luke 11:17)
- Knew the future (Matthew 16:21)
- Commanded the sea and the wind (Matthew 8:27)
- Jesus confirmed He was the only way to the Father, even before He actually died on the cross (John 14:6)
- Ask of people to believe in Him even before He actually achieved salvation on the cross?

These things show that Jesus had divine attributes and appealed to His divinity even before he was crucified. According to you in the time He was emptied of any divinity.

Finally a question: Do you believe Jesus still is fully God and fully human in heaven?

Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #94 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 05:23:35 »
I understand your viewpoint, but what you propose raises a very big question:
AVZ, Soterion choice of words was not wisely spoken, yet I would not make another man an offender over such words. He used some words that showed his understanding is somewhat lacking concerning the Sonship of Jesus Christ, yet he believes that Jesus is BOTH God and the Son of God in ONE complex person. He just does not know how to rightly divide its truth, and so what, most do not. Even some mighty men of faith, greater than both of us in many other ways.
Quote
when did Jesus become God?
Well, that not the big question, the big question is when did Jesus become the Son of God! Jesus in his Divine nature IS the Everlasting Father of ALL things~He is the I'AM THAT I'AM~eternal both ways with NO beginning. As to his Sonship, that had a beginning and the record of THAT BEGINNING is recorded for us to see and understand in Luke Chapter one.
Quote from: AVZ Today at 02:12:37
Finally a question: Do you believe Jesus still is fully God and fully human in heaven?
He most certainly IS~that's the ONLY way that anyone will ever see God according to Matthew 5:8 where Jesus said:
Quote
"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
God is a Spirit that NO MAN or angels have ever seen God, or will ever see~YET, in the person of Jesus Christ, in his glorified human body we shall see God when we look upon his Son in that day, who is the very express image of God.  Selah.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 05:31:08 by RB »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6320
  • Manna: 165
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #95 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 06:49:34 »
I think you have an incorrect view of the two natures of Jesus.
Both natures did not operate separately from each other. It is not that Jesus had a "dual personality" in which sometimes His human nature was at work and sometimes His divine nature.
It is not that Jesus was OR 100% man OR 100% God, each nature operative independently from each other.
Jesus was 100% God AND 100% human at the same time!

Jesus said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30)
He also said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9)
Further "but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18)
and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9)

The will of the Father was in complete harmony with the will of the Son.
There was and could not have been any separation of the two. Being God, Jesus could not have violated the harmony which existed within Himself..
Neither could the Father violate the harmony that existed within Himself, also being God.

Jesus was God in bodily form, having all attributes of God and humans at the same time.
Any decision Jesus made was the Father's decision.
Hence Jesus could have never decided to cave in to evil. It would have been in violation of the unity He had with the Father, but being God it would have been in violation with Himself.

Whether you believe or not believe in the theologies of Original Sin or Total Depravity is up to you.
These theologies however apply to mankind only. It would be logically incoherent to attempt to apply them to Jesus.
We are not like Jesus. We are not members of the Trinity. We are not God.
Nearly all of that is pure conjecture.  If original sin or the even worse Total Depravity is a human condition, then Jesus was subject to that human condition.  Either that or Jesus was not human as the Scriptures say.  Now the truth is that both original sin and Total Depravity are false doctrines that have no place in Christian thinking.  Neither are human conditions.  Sin is not transmitted physically from parent to child.  I truly do believe that of all false teachings, both Original Sin and Total Depravity are among the worst false teachings out there.  Both lead to intolerable conclusions about the character of God and His attributes.

Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Manna: 272
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #96 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 08:17:48 »
Nearly all of that is pure conjecture.  If original sin or the even worse Total Depravity is a human condition, then Jesus was subject to that human condition.
I agree with what I highlighted in red.
Quote from: 4WD Today at 06:49:34
Either that or Jesus was not human as the Scriptures say.  Now the truth is that both original sin and Total Depravity are false doctrines that have no place in Christian thinking.  Neither are human conditions.  Sin is not transmitted physically from parent to child.  I truly do believe that of all false teachings, both Original Sin and Total Depravity are among the worst false teachings out there.  Both lead to intolerable conclusions about the character of God and His attributes.
Coming back to address this and a few things that AVZ said which I do not agree with. I must take care of a few things first...RB

Offline jojo50

  • Matt.12:50-For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Manna: 10
  • Gender: Female
  • servant of Jehovah ,believer in Jesus words
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #97 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 08:34:32 »
i totally agree because scriptures shows one has to repent, then get baptized, (Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit). as you stated, babies and small children can't comprehend Jehovah God's words. peace

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #98 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 09:40:45 »
AVZ,

It seems when you responded to my post that you misunderstood much of what I said. I believe this is due to how polar opposite we believe in this issue. I try to be careful how I word what I say. I go over it repeatedly to make sure I am communicating what I want to communicate. This is not to say that I am right in my doctrine, just that I am trying to say what I believe (and my trying can still fail me). No doubt my poor communication, despite my efforts, is what's going on here. Let me show you what I am talking about and try to answer some of your queries.

Soterion,

I understand your viewpoint, but what you propose raises a very big question: when did Jesus become God?

Jesus has always been God, Jehovah, the Almighty. Nothing I said questioned Jesus preexistence as God nor suggested He did not maintain that identity during His ministry. If He had not been God while on earth, He could not have spoken as God, received worship, etc.

You say that Jesus emptied Himself from all divine attributes and came to earth.
So then, since Jesus was emptied of all divine attributes...

I never said Jesus was emptied of all divine attributes. I said he emptied Himself of His equality with God and that He set aside Godly attributes to be fully human. That does not mean all attributes since I acknowledged that His authoritative words and actions belong to one who is God. He had to have empty Himself of some attributes, which at least refers to their use, or else the scriptures I posted about His humanity and dependence on God make no sense.

...when walking on earth did Jesus ever got back those divine attributes?
When during His walk on earth did Jesus become God again? Or was Jesus never God when walking this earth and did He remain human only?

Jesus was always God. If not, how could He speak as God with all of the authority that goes with that identity. Setting aside certain aspects of His divinity does not rid Him of that identity. Like I said, our opposite view on this topic is where such questions probably come from.

Anyway, I did address when He was restored with what He had previously divested Himself of. Quote: "It was after He accomplished God's will that He was highly exalted, crowned with glory and honor, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him."

So if Jesus emptied Himself in the manner you describe: "If it was His divinity that saved Him, then He did not empty Himself so as to truly humbly submit to God." and "It's just that He set aside Godly attributes so as to be truly human." how is it that Jesus whilst emptied of every divine attribute:

- Knew the hearts of people (Luke 11:17)
- Knew the future (Matthew 16:21)
- Commanded the sea and the wind (Matthew 8:27)
- Jesus confirmed He was the only way to the Father, even before He actually died on the cross (John 14:6)
- Ask of people to believe in Him even before He actually achieved salvation on the cross?

Like I said, He is God and spoke as Him, but the miracles and such were by faith. How could the apostles do such similar things during their ministry? Did they have to be God?

These things show that Jesus had divine attributes and appealed to His divinity even before he was crucified. According to you in the time He was emptied of any divinity.

He emptied Himself of that equality as far as their manifestation was concerned. Quote from me: "He had divested Himself of His equality with God so as to come among men as fully man. At least He certainly didn't exercise or manifest this fullness of deity."

Finally a question: Do you believe Jesus still is fully God and fully human in heaven?

Quote from me: "Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him."

No doubt I may do the same to you and misunderstand some of your position due to our disagreement. In such a case I hope you will clarify with me so that we can understand each other better. I wish you all the best in your study of scripture and in your sharing with others here.

God bless...

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #99 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 09:48:07 »
AVZ, Soterion choice of words was not wisely spoken

They may not have been wise, but they were mine.  ::wink::

I appreciate your words in that post. We'll disagree on the topic but you have a good heart about it.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #100 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 09:50:13 »
Nearly all of that is pure conjecture.  If original sin or the even worse Total Depravity is a human condition, then Jesus was subject to that human condition.  Either that or Jesus was not human as the Scriptures say.  Now the truth is that both original sin and Total Depravity are false doctrines that have no place in Christian thinking.  Neither are human conditions.  Sin is not transmitted physically from parent to child.  I truly do believe that of all false teachings, both Original Sin and Total Depravity are among the worst false teachings out there.  Both lead to intolerable conclusions about the character of God and His attributes.

::nodding::

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5462
  • Manna: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #101 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 10:30:20 »
AVZ,

It seems when you responded to my post that you misunderstood much of what I said. I believe this is due to how polar opposite we believe in this issue. I try to be careful how I word what I say. I go over it repeatedly to make sure I am communicating what I want to communicate. This is not to say that I am right in my doctrine, just that I am trying to say what I believe (and my trying can still fail me). No doubt my poor communication, despite my efforts, is what's going on here. Let me show you what I am talking about and try to answer some of your queries.

Jesus has always been God, Jehovah, the Almighty. Nothing I said questioned Jesus preexistence as God nor suggested He did not maintain that identity during His ministry. If He had not been God while on earth, He could not have spoken as God, received worship, etc.

I never said Jesus was emptied of all divine attributes. I said he emptied Himself of His equality with God and that He set aside Godly attributes to be fully human. That does not mean all attributes since I acknowledged that His authoritative words and actions belong to one who is God. He had to have empty Himself of some attributes, which at least refers to their use, or else the scriptures I posted about His humanity and dependence on God make no sense.

Jesus was always God. If not, how could He speak as God with all of the authority that goes with that identity. Setting aside certain aspects of His divinity does not rid Him of that identity. Like I said, our opposite view on this topic is where such questions probably come from.

Anyway, I did address when He was restored with what He had previously divested Himself of. Quote: "It was after He accomplished God's will that He was highly exalted, crowned with glory and honor, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him."

Like I said, He is God and spoke as Him, but the miracles and such were by faith. How could the apostles do such similar things during their ministry? Did they have to be God?

He emptied Himself of that equality as far as their manifestation was concerned. Quote from me: "He had divested Himself of His equality with God so as to come among men as fully man. At least He certainly didn't exercise or manifest this fullness of deity."

Quote from me: "Certainly now all the fullness of deity dwells in Him."

No doubt I may do the same to you and misunderstand some of your position due to our disagreement. In such a case I hope you will clarify with me so that we can understand each other better. I wish you all the best in your study of scripture and in your sharing with others here.

God bless...

Soterion,

No beef with the misunderstanding, I like a good discussion even if we disagree.
I think I got your point of view better now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I understand.
Jesus was God, but in order for His divinity not to interfere with His humanity, He "dropped" some of His divine qualities.
The first question that comes up is, if indeed Jesus dropped some divine qualities...He was not FULLY God. Correct?
So in His walk on earth Jesus as fully man, but somewhat God? Is that what you are saying?

The other question I have for you is which divine attributes would you propose Jesus "dropped"?
Omnipresence? Omnipotence? Omniscience?
You must realize that if Jesus ceased to be either of the above, He would cease to be God.
God is either fully God or He if not God. There is no such thing as a half-God or "almost" God.
Just to illustrate that with an example: If Jesus would have "dropped" His inability to sin, He would cease to be God because God is unable to sin.
Or if Jesus would have "dropped" His omniscience, He would cease to be God because God is omniscient.
There is not such thing as an unholy God or an unknowing God.


You said "He is God and spoke as Him, but the miracles and such were by faith. How could the apostles do such similar things during their ministry? Did they have to be God?"
I don't think that's correct at all. Jesus did the miracles because He was God. In fact Jesus was the Creator Himself.

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Jesus was and is the Creator God. He does not need faith to perform miracles, He can do them because He is God. He can create when he so desires, He can heal when He so desires and He can command the elements if He so desires.

Now people in scripture have performed miracles before. Neither of them were God. So I do not understand your question why the Apostles could perform miracles.
They did them through faith and by the power of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean that the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit need to have faith in order for them to do miracles.

You seem to be struggling with the "reward" of exultation for Jesus. You are of the opinion that God could only exalt Jesus for something He would do as a human being.
That is also not correct. God can exalt Himself for something He did or does as God. The angels worship and exalt God, not because He did something human...but because He did something being God.

The thing that Jesus emptied Himself of was His eternal position in heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said so Himself: "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began." (John 17:5)


Finally I would like to repeat my question from the previous post, you did not answer it:
Do you believe Jesus still is fully God and fully human in heaven?

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3419
  • Manna: 112
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #102 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 12:18:38 »
AVZ,

"...not FULLY God..?"
"...somewhat God..?"
"...half God"
"...almost God"

 ::frown::  I do not see how anything I posted warrants those kinds of questions and responses. Maybe I deserve those kinds of responses because of my word and grammar choices, but I feel like I was pretty clear where I stand about Jesus being fully God.

As for your last question which you said I did not answer, was Colossians 2:9 not enough?

Now, you asked about His omnipresence, His omnipotence, His omniscience. Here are, I believe, a couple of fair questions:

Do you believe Jesus, during His fleshly ministry on the earth, was omnipresent? If you say yes, prove your answer. I see Him limited to His physical body at the time.

Do you believe He was omniscient during His fleshly ministry on the earth? How do you explain Matthew 24:36?

Does this mean that I do not believe Jesus was fully God? Absolutely not. How He chose to reveal Himself and to exercise (or, rather, not exercise) His Godly attributes does not in any way detract from His identity as God. He chose for a while to make Himself lower than the angels, to be made like His brethren in all things, to trust in God and appeal to Him for all things, rather than to trust in Himself and make full use of His divinity.

To me, scripture couldn't be clearer on this matter. I have to say that because of the failure of those who believe otherwise to show from scripture contrary to this understanding. Just to be clear, I believe it is an incorrect handling of scripture to take the present form and abilities of Jesus while He is in heaven and apply them to Him while He was on the earth prior to His resurrection.

I am apparently a very poor communicator, but I do not know how to say what I believe about Jesus' nature, while in the flesh on this earth, any clearer than I have in the cumulative words in my last two or three posts on the matter.  ::shrug::

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32001
  • Manna: 688
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #103 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 12:30:52 »
The truth is that 100% man and 100% God is a very poor explanation of the nature of Jesus. It seems to me, when Jesus wanted to be man, he was 100% man. When he wanted to be God, he was 100% God. Was he ever 50/50 God and man? Maybe so, but 100/100 makes no sense.

Soterion, you communicate very well. Some people’s understanders are faulty.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Manna: 33
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Catholic Infant "Baptism"
« Reply #104 on: Mon Feb 19, 2018 - 14:23:40 »
The women in Corinth are defined as MAD because they believed that only if they were driven into ecstasy the "gods" were speaking to them almost always in gibberish which the priest interpreted and the musician put into verse and sang it to the "worshiper." The worshipers normally got fleeced of their food money before they could get out of town.

The men with UNHOLY hand often let wrath or an ORGY break out and so Paul commanded the men be SILENT using the same word he used against women.  In all of the "women be silent" passages the evidence is that they believed their gibbering in songs made the MEDIATORS.

To correct them the inspired Paul defined the same ONE PIECE PATTERN commanded from the wilderness onward:

1Tim. 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Tim. 2:5 For there is ONE God,
       and one mediator between God and men,
       the MAN Christ Jesus;
1Tim. 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be TESTIFIED in due time.

God is [Theos] and Jesus is Lord [Kurios]

God breathed the breath of life into ADAM and He had the power to BREATH or start the dna splitting by His Word. This was to refute the understood view that GODS has SEX with mortal women and the son was a SEMI-GOD.  God MADE JESUS TO be both Lord and Christ and Jesus said that HE had all of the authority of Father, Spirit and Son.  Catholics continue the Babylonian and Egyptian account that SPIRIT is female.  Jesus said MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE: the Word is the SEED.

Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,[Theos]
Rom. 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom. 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, [Kurios]
            which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom. 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power,
            according to the spirit OF holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

By definition in Hebrew and Greek "spirit" is never a people but the mental disposition of that person." Spirit is never used of a person's DISEMBODIED mind or spirit.

Jesus was first acknowledged as God's Son when He came up out of the waters of Baptism.

All of the Little Flock have A holy spirit so that: the FLESH returns to the DUST and the Spirit returns to God Who gave it.  Jesus was the UNIQUE "Begotten FROM the Dead" without the flesh returning to dust.

I probably will be RAPTURED from the forum but you might find some evidence that Jesus who claimed to be the SON is ever called God in the "Lord [yhwh] the only truly God [Elohim] sense.

God told Moses to identify Him as AM...Ex. 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord-God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my NAME for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

In Zechariah Joshua or Jesus is a hyphenated name.