Discussion on the Christ Jesus.

[dulpeks]

---

dartzed....kabalo ko nakasbot na ka sa buot pasabot ni techfinder....

[dartzed]

You should put verses into proper exegesis prior inserting your own opinion.

nganu bro wala ka kabasa sa verse diin gisulti na gipakanaog sa amahan ang anak?
nganu bro wala ka kabasa sa verse diin gisulti na namatay ang anak sa ginuo sa cross?..

Yes, God sent a Son!, but that doesn't mean tha he was not referring to himself. As wha I've said before, Jesus sometimes spoke in enigmatic way. There are things which you seemed contradicting but are not.

then why sent the Son for the Father na pwede man dai ang Father?..
then why address the Sons words and actions to the Father if the Son is still the Father?..

WIll you question God, if that's his plan before the foundaion of he world? Will you question God for sending himself to fulfill the greatest act of love?

hhhmmmm were taking about John 10:30 "the Father and the Son as one or not"

hehehe

[GOSPELofROCH]

youre diverting bro.
Tubaga ang question, nagpabilin bang bata si JESUS?
So kung nidako na siya , ni-exist pa ba gihapon siya isip bata?

Or basin nagIMAGINE napud ka.

Peace!

i 2nd!

[bcasabee]

hahay....basta ang importante inig sinulog kay jamming ta tanan......lingaw kaayo na....

[BaDBoY]

OT: and where is itachi and rcruman? they should read this healthy interaction...

[Ironside]

How did Christ use the word "ONE"?


Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;

21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:



Here we have the prayer of the Lord Jesus for His sheep, His disciples. Verse 21 states that they interindwell each other [the Father and the Son]. Now notice verse 22:


THAT THEY [HIS DISCIPLES] MAY BE ONE JUST AS WE [THE FATHER AND THE SON] ARE ONE.


Was the Lord here praying that his disciples of different personalities become one person just as the Father and the Son are one person granted if the Oneness doctrine is true? Of course not. That would dehumanize his disciples.




Just as the Father and the Son are one, He prayed that His disciples maybe one [united one].


The pattern of the disciples oneness is the oneness of the Father and the Son. Notice the word "Just":


Joh 17:22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:


If the Lord prayed that His disciples become one person just as the Father and the Son are one person then this prayer was never granted. For they remained distinct personalities althroughout their lives.



If the Son is just the Father, why bother pray to the Father when He Himself is the Father?


Why use the word "US" [see verse 21] if they are just one in person?

[dartzed]

dartzed....kabalo ko nakasbot na ka sa buot pasabot ni techfinder....

You should put verses into proper exegesis prior inserting your own opinion.

Yes, God sent a Son!, but that doesn't mean tha he was not referring to himself. As wha I've said before, Jesus sometimes spoke in enigmatic way. There are things which you seemed contradicting but are not.

WIll you question God, if that's his plan before the foundaion of he world? Will you question God for sending himself to fulfill the greatest act of love?

oh wala naman lagi mo mureply?..

btw i was just playing with you guyz.. hehehe
actually i know what you both mean, i just screw you a little..

im glad na you fought back, well keep it up mga bros..
just dont get triffled with the other religions bro ky kabaw mo sa tinuod..

anyways the answer about my question is simple: BELIEVE lang gud unsa ang gisulti sa Ginuo for "that is the mystery of our faith".. hehehe

anyways many verses na ang nagprove ani na question, ug natubag nani.. in fact isa ko sa ni deffend ani just scan lang sa other threads there you see my posts..

hehehe

[Techfinder]

nganu bro wala ka kabasa sa verse diin gisulti na gipakanaog sa amahan ang anak?

John 3:17 and 5:30, along with other verses of Scripture, state that the Father sent the Son. Does this mean that Jesus, the Son of God, is a separate person from the Father? We know this is not so because many verses of Scripture teach that God manifested Himself in flesh (II Corinthians 5:19, I Timothy 3:16). He gave of Himself; He did not send someone else (John 3:16). The Son was sent from God as a man, not as God: "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son or pre-existence of the man. John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God, and we know he did not pre-exist his conception. Instead, the word sent indicates that God appointed the Son for a special purpose. God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and then put that plan in operation. God gave the Son a special task. God manifested Himself in flesh in order to achieve a special goal. Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus the Apostle of our profession, apostle meaning "one sent" in Greek. Briefly stated, the sending of the Son emphasizes the humanity of the Son and the specific purpose for which the Son was born. (Oneness Pentecostal Theology)

nganu bro wala ka kabasa sa verse diin gisulti na namatay ang anak sa ginoo sa cross?..

Again Christ’s death in the Cross was a substitution for sinful mankind and couldn’t be used as valid argument against the absolute oneness of God in the Godhead.

Then why sent the Son for the Father na pwede man dai ang Father?..

Bro. darzt, the Father is spirit and for him to be tangible is to manifest himself as a SON/HUMAN. Dli pwedeng magpakamatay ang Espiritu busa nagpakatawo siya in the person of the Son. Mao bitawng gitawag siya nga ANak sa tawo.

God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16)

God is a Spirit without flesh and blood and invisible to man. In order to make Himself visible to man and in order to shed innocent blood for our sins, He had to put on flesh. Jesus is not another God or a part of God, but He is the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh. He is the Father; He is Jehovah who came in flesh to bridge the gap between man and God that man's sin had created. He put on flesh as a man puts on a coat.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…" (Hebrew 1:1-3).

then why address the Sons words and actions to the Father if the Son is still the Father?..

Jesus was leading us to a spiritual life with God (himself). In his human state He makes himself an intercessor between man and God. He wants us to know that there’s a divine reality in heaven, yet indirectly referring to himself. We all know that’s the way he used to speak, we can’t blame him on this, and we can’t blame him for indirectly referring himself in the 3rd person (e.g. Matthew chapter 4, john 17:3).Should you ask why he spoke in enigmatic way, just call my attention.

hhhmmmm were taking about John 10:30 "the Father and the Son as one or not"

Yes, we‘re still on the smooth flow of the story. That’s why I’m trying to explain you the scenario.

[dartzed]

@Techfinder

oh kalma lang hehehe

i know what you mean.. hehehe

iya jud dai gipangita oh..

just keep it up bro..

hahaha

[Techfinder]

@Techfinder

oh kalma lang hehehe

i know what you mean.. hehehe

iya jud dai gipangita oh..

just keep it up bro..

hahaha

thanks brad, btw, kinsa man ang mga trinitarians diri, pwede ako nasad ang mu interrogate?..hehehe