Is Jesus God?

Now that I am unsuspended I think I can bring all of this in to clarity with stinging accuracy and specification.Funny i didt even realize why i had been suspended until I took a closer look. I felt like Homer filling out Lis'a application for a beauty contest in which it said "do not write in this block", he put "OK" in the block"As I have been following the debate I see that you have made two or three ASSUMTIONS and ASSERTIONS Peg that have not been substantiated in any real fashion. the first is that deity can come in parts. since the scriptures describe God as everlasting or eternal and as you have admitted Christ is deity, then you would of course need to substantiated that Christ is only a part of God as deity.second you have assumed that Christ was created before his incarnation. Another assumption that needs to be demonstrated.Thirdly you have assumed through out the debate, that the terms FATHER and Son have any application before the incarnation. it should be easliy understood that these terms are athropomorphic in usage. There is not a single passage to support the idea that there was anything in existence before his incarnation or creation itself, besides simply God, or that he is actually a Son in comparison to the Father.Simply put these are terms that have meaning only after the incarnation.In reference to the passage where Christ said IAM, the rest of the context about them being upset would make no sense if he were simply saying I existed in some form before Abraham, they KNEW EXACALLY WHAT HE WAS CLAIMING.It is sometimes translated, "I am WHO IAM". instead of "I Am THAT IAM". the first is a lazy translation. The first only shows distinction, whereas the second shows existence itself.christ was claiming existence of all that there was and they knew that and they knew he was claiming to be God himself.Since you have admitted that he pre existed and that he was deity in some form, it behooves you from scripture to demonstrate that he was created and that God can come in parts.It should be understood that every expression relating to God in human understanding is anthropomorphic in nature. God does nto Go or come here or there. God does need to literally see anything, or know this or that,even thought he scriptures represents him in that fashion.
this is the only way we can understand how things are communicated.Christ was not a son before his incarnation, he was simply God. God humbled himself, reorganized God material to become (weak term) something changed God material to represent itself to mankindNow I am not saying that God did not literally live and die as a man. God comes in two parts essence and thought (or the mental or thinking part produced by the essence, eternal in character.Personalites are a way for humans to understand DISTINCTIONS IN EXISTENCE. It may be that personalites as described in God are a way for us to understand Gods natur and character that we cannot. While the scriptures make clear distinctions in God from a human standpoint, there is absolutley no indication, that there is a son and father relationship before incarnation.Yes I am aware of the passage in Daniel, but it must be understood that this is written from God and for human understanding again, with a view to Christ's (God)incarnation.Just like Pauls vision, (caught up in the third heaven)Daniels had to be put in a form that he could understand in his limited mind. secondly it is a visionary prophecy of what god would accomplish in christ, Immanuel, God with us.take this as an example. imagine how God represents himself in heaven, setting on a throne, with Christ beside him. While this may actually be visible to the heavenly host, it is simply a manifestation of Gods TRUE NATURE, which is Spirit, something undefinable and explainable to any and all of Gods creation, angels or otherwise. God manifests himself and a heavenly court for his creation to exist and understand because none can truely understand Gods actual existence. Yes it is true that we are all God material, but Christs claims go much deeper and are much more direct than simply being material, he claims to be God Himself. Please provide passages where CREATED BEINGS, ANGELS HUMANS OR WHATEVER, EVER MADE OR IMPLIED WHAT CHRIST DID.the scriptures,not another being represent angles as sons of god. Christs calims are much more bold and deliberate.example. In the instance where christ said which is it easier to do, tell the man his sins are forgiven or tell him to stand up and walk, christ should have presentesd the person to the priest for forgiveness of sins, yet he circumvented that rule, only because he was God that had established the rule in the first place, ie,"the son of man is Lord even of the sabbath". etcNo angel or man ever made such bold assertions, claims or conditions.Certainly you can see that God cannot created more eternal God, yet Paul said. "In him dwelt ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY""Let this mind be In you which was also in Christ Jesus who being in the FORM of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made of himself no reputation AND TOOK ON THE FORM OF A SERVANT and became obedient, EVEN UNTO DEATH'peg God is NOT OBEDIENT TO GOD, he is equal with God and only God chose the form of a servant and decided to do this BECAUSE OF HIMSELF and for himself and his creation Every single detail from God to man while literal and menaingful is ANTHROPOMORPHICthere is only God doing stuff, he was not literally A SON before HE decided to take on Human formthere are equally as many scriptures that represent Christ as purely and only God and those that represent him as a son. so if we take them collectivley, no angels or men made his claims or assertions. the only real possible solution with them collectively is that it is simply God manifesting himself, in terms we can comprehend. DONT OVER EXTEND, THE LITERALNESS OF HIS INCARNATION TO A TIME PREVIOUS.Here is a pretty good article covering some of the usages and references to Christ as GodGoDaddy Security - Access DeniedEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

he did this for the same reason he taught people how to pray, the same reason he was baptized, not to wash away his sins Peg, but to be an example on how to follow God. His dependency was an example. an illustration of respect and to demonstrate authority, not because he was actually dependent on the father, but to show to humans the source of all authorityoften times he healed never involking the name of the father. often time he performed miracles of his own power. they are examples of how God is God and how to show respect for that authority at times. How to be a servant .when he did involk his fathers name it was to demonstrate that he and the father were one.the realationship you explained here Peg is one of respect. Paul makes it clear that he was equal with God. While many may be called sons of God, none were siad to be equal or possess the fullness of the Godhead Both are true and all is true but where one trumps the other, one must lend itself to athropomorphism. So if Christ is equal to God, the lesser son of man and son of God expressions, of necessity must take on a different value.Here is an example. Christ is said to be "made sin", not that he sinned or became sinful, but took it on to get rid of itAnother says "Who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth"What do I make of the two, the same I do with the totality concerning Jesus' nature, I take them all togetherIf the Nt did not make it clear he was God and the son of God and the son of man, if the first one was left off I would believe as you do, but ICANT because all are there and there is no mistake.lets say for example that the only refernces to Christ in the scriptures were Son of God and Son of Man, I then would believe that he was more than man but less than God, but since there are more accurate descriptions, I must take thos as well. So i say to myself, oh now i get it this is God becoming a servant, yet he was born a son to God and is also a son of mary or man.Paul and others didnt write these things with our discussions in mind, its just the way it is Surely you can see Peg, like the passage in Daniel, these are propjhetic passages about the incarnation AND ITS PREMINECE IN CHARACTER. Now Peg add to these scriptures the totality of what the inspired writer says, He is equal with and in him DWELT ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD.He cant be both, less and equal at the same time. Do the anthropomorphic math My idea is not that God comes in parts, my idea is that we cannot understand Gods nature and makeup. He helps us with terms like, father, Son, Holy Spirit, personalities, trinity, etc.Again, if all things in heaven and earth are made by and through him and nothing that is made is made without him (this is describing God), then firstborn and creation when applied to Christ cannot mean him. he did not create himself. if it does apply to him it can only have application to his incarnation, or the premenince of his birth and ressurection. thats why he is also called the first born of the dead, or firstfruitsHe is called the 'FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD", it does not mean he was the first one ever raised, only that his was superior remember the larger description TRUMPS the lesser description. he cant be both the creator and the created. this is quite obviously a prophecy about his incarnation, NOW WATCH, which was in place SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH Your confusing obedience, with oneness. christ could have choose not to die as he suggest in the garden, but oneness with God would not let it happen. As a human being he is showing the correct thing to do. It was worked out since eternity Surely you can see the difference between Christ and humans being filled with the spirit.if christ is not a part of God Peg, as you suggest, how can he be equal with God? How can the fullness of the Godhead reside in him?Make a pie out of the whole teaching on the subject PegEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Peg writes:It should be easily demonstrated by even the casual reader Peg that there are certain attributes ascribed to Jesus by himself and the NT writers that are not claimed and attributed to anyone elsePlease provide a passage that suggest or indicates that any created creature, was the source of all creation of both things in heaven and earth. This alone indicates that Christ is God, if Genesis 1:1 is to be believedAgain, while Jesus certainly attributed his dependency to God as a human being, he also at times healed and performed miracles on his own accord Hardly, the passage says that "ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in him
I agree Peg that some phrases and passages can be viewd and interpreted to gain a different meaning, but I dont see how the statement that, Christ was, while in the flesh equal with God could be manipulated to come to another conclusion, other than that stated by the inspired Apostle.You will find no ther passages that ascribe this meaning to a created beingI think your main problem here is that youwant to maintain that Christ is not actually a part of God, but you have trouble finding passages that refer to anyother created being (as you suggest for Christ) detailing attributes that should and only could be attributed to God, like that of creation.If Christ is not actually a part of Gods nature or make up, what is he some super created being with special abilities?Because Christ said, "why do you call me good,there is none good but God", which means he could not be the perfect sacrifice, if he was not perfect. How can he be less than perfect, yet a perfect sacrifince?"Who did no sin , niether was guile found in his mouth". If Christ was completley GOOD, perfect and sinless and there is only one that is Good, that would make Christ God, by Christs own wordsOr christ could have been claiming Godship,by saying, do you realize what you are calling me when you call me GOOD? In his instance he is saying to the person, do you realize you are calling me God.In this instance and passage Christ is claiming to this person that he is actually God. If he is not good in any respect as a created being, as this passage would suggest then he is and WAS NOT QUALIFIED to be a perfect sacrifice. Would you say that there was ever a time here or before the incarnation that Christ this created being was NOT GOOD or LESS THAN PERFECT?Of course you see your delimma here. If he was always good or perfect that would make him God,according to Christs own words. If not then he is not the Lamb without spot or blemmish, correct?EAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

Jesus never exclaimed, IAM NOT GOOD, in this context, he was testing the mans resolve. He, at another time exclaimed IAM. Change it to what you wish, the text certainly allows the IAMShow me a passage by Christ or another writer where it is stated he is and was not perfect. All passages in this connection indicate exacally the opposite,"that he was without sin and no guile was found in his mouth""he was in all point tempted as we yet WITHOUT SIN" thanks for restating exacally what happened in the text, your delimma still exists, he was either completley good or he is not without spot and blemish as the rest of the NT states. So which is it?EAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.

Even if we attribute this passage to an actual being Peg, it is said to have existed in the same way God has FROM ETERNITYSpeaking of wisdom it says23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began. "Appointment certainly should be understood and brought into focus with the everlasting aspect. When was the beiginning of eternity? Did jehovah actually start at some point with wisdom or was it always with him. John 1:1EAM

The answer is duh and No
lets start with the most startling of your statements first. this is probably the silliest question I have ever heard from a biblical perspective. you cant create perfection, GOOD, sinlessness, in a moral sense, where freewill is involved. thats not perfection thats creating a robot.Chist (who Paul states in no uncertain terms is EQUAL WITH GOD) as Paul states, humbled himself and took on the form of a servant and became obedient, even unto death. these are choices H not an act of creationObviously you have not learned the simple rule in biblical interpretation that the higher regard and designation trumps the lesser. If an inspired writer designates Christ as equal with God any other verse that SEEMS to contradict it or LESSEN its import should be understood in another context.here is a simple example. christ is called the son of Man, but he is also called the unique or only begotten Son of God. from these verses alone it is easy to see he was more than a human being a human son etc. Now if another writer by inspiration comes along and says he is equal with God, i can find ways to manuver that passage depending on my theology or I can understan it to mean what it says.here is a simple question. if as you suggest Jesus was a created being, how by any strech of the imagination or interpretation could he be equal with God. No created being is or could be equal with God Yes.As God he humbled himself and became human, from a position of respect and took on the FORM of a servant. being born as a man he was MADE A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGLELS. It is in this very beautiful respect that he was subserviant to his heavenly father, but now watch, as Paul puts it, he never ceased to be God or equal with God, he simply took on the role of a servantWhat you do not accept I believe AS PEG does is that the same Spirit that inspired Christ inspired Paul, to make a complete picture of Christ. heck if there were no verses that did not state he WAS equal to God, i would not believe it either. I cant disregard them or change them to fit my theology. H, IM not ignoring these verses, Im explaining in context that God humbled himself to a position where his actions required servitude. Besides this these verses do not say he was not God, they must interpreted in light of the whole context of scripture right hereHebrews 2:10."For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation PERFECT through sufferings." Hebrews 2:10.H, in scripture perfection, sinless and GOOD usually have to do with eachother. Even if jesus did stump his toe at times it would have nothing to do with the requirements of a sinless sacrifice or him being completely good (moral). he was sinless and therefore completely GOOD. If only God is GOOD and christ was sinless and perfect then he was God, according to Christ and Pauls inspired logic.the question he ask the person was not to imply he was not GOOD, but to demonstrate that the person asking the question did not understand the meaning of the expression of "Good teacher", in the first place He can create a creature that does not make mistakes, its called a robot, but he cannot create a creature that is sinless, perfect or good where freewill is not involved. since the scriptures make it clear that christ was sinless, perfect (in a moral sense), therefore GOOD, and none are good but God, it doesnt take a rocket scientest to figure out that Christ is God here was a perfect place to dispel any misunderstanding about who he was claiming to be, yet he claims that he and the father are one.if there is any misunderstanding about what he meant the inspired writer later clears it up calling him equal with God Rpmans 9:5here is a last question. if only God is good and jesus is not God, IN WHAT WAY WAS JESUS NOT GOOD?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Consider the word usage, he or it was there from everlasting according to verse 23 of chapter 8. verse 23 and 24 they make it clear that this thing (person or wisdom) was FROM EVERLASTING. it being brought forth is USAGE, it being made known to creation itself, not that it was createdAgain the higher language in this case EVERLASTING trumps brought forth. It can't be both and the same as regards its ACTUAL existence.Yes Christ was created (born) as a man, but his time was from everlastingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Wreg pites: Philipians 2:5-11 writes:
5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.
8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.
9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,
10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground,
11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.What translation is this anyway, you did not list it. I noticed that it says , "although he was existing in Gods form". I wonder what that means from your translation. I wonder if WAS, meant before and during his incarnation. Every translation I see makes him God in some form, even yours.It appears that your translation is saying, that he did not think it necessary to maintain Gods nature, or sieze it, because he needed to empty himself of it to accomplish his earthly ministry.Your interpretation of the verse makes little sense, for if he is not equal wtih God, he cannot EMPTY himself of something he does not have in the first place, HE CANNOT LET GO, UNGRASP, some thing he does not ALREADY have in the first place, correct?The verse would make no sense and the rest of the passage would make little sense, unless in his God in the first place, correct?And finally, why mention that he is not God and not equal with God in the first placehere it is is from the NIV: Phil: 2 This passage is amazing to me because it explains who he is and what he did. As I stated before, I would not believe it either if not for such passages and others that make it abundanty clear.If God is the only good entity, how is it that Christ was not good? Hmmm?Here it is from the ASV. Here is another point. If the writer is not making the claim that he is equal with God, why would he say it is not a thing to be grasped and what did he emptyhimself of?After describing Christ, the rest of the passsage would make no sense, if was not God to begin with. IOW, why reinforce that he is not God, if it was clear to everyone in the first placeIf Christ is not God, why would the writer need to make that point in the first place.Again Peg your problem is, that while you believe he is a created being, NOT A PART OF GOD, there are absolutley no other allusions to created beings that appear to have the qualities of God , as the scriptures make it clear that Christ did. Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, etc.Again, the scriptures make it so clear that he is on a par with God, that one really has to work hard to make it otherwise. Since Heritic, chose not toanswer the question, perhaps you can.In what way was Christ not completely GOOD, which ofcourse would make him God.EAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

Peg writes:but in this instance Peg, christ's response is in response to a direct question, about who can forgive sins. jesus responds to that question directly, which was, are you saying you are God.He did not go into a discourse about what the law said and required about priest, delegation and the such like. His response was to an indirect implication that he was claiming to be God. he had the opportunity in that instance as in so many others to dispel the idea that he was claiming to be God, HE DID NOT. As a matter of fact he used an illustration that indicated he was God."Which is it easier to do, tell the man his sins are forgiven or take up your bed and walk". In this instance he did not call on the name of the father or appeal to God beforehand.Surely this would have been a good opportunity to dispel any mistakes in that connection.the deciples always proceeded thier actions by an appeal to god or jesus Christ power and authority.Jesus reference to authority of the Son of Man and the power to forgive sins CAME AFTER THE FACT. This is one of the reasons the leaders were disurbed, by stating who is thisd MAN that he can forgive sins.notice no one ever accused the Apostles of making themselves equal with God because the always made it clear what the source of thier authority was and was not.Here Christ does it after to the fact.jesus' usage of the Son of Man is due to the fact that they refered to him as a man. here is what transpired. Jesus did this of this own authority (as God) in this instance, then after the fact responded to a direct question about being a man. In which he said, if you must know fellas even the Son of Man has power to forgive sins here on earth. Had they never asked the question refering to God and man, he would of course never responded to the INDIRECT IMPLICATION, and he would have left the impression that he indeed was Godthere is good reason the Apostles were never accused of being God and NOWWATCH THIS, and when it was implied by being worshiped at times, they VERY QUICKLY dispeled the very ideaEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

No not a different person I was at another persons house trying to respond on a diiferent computer and when I requested the password it gave me MEA, for some reason. If sinless is not perfection from a moral standpoint what in the heck is it. Perfect in scripture does not mean, one does not stump thier toe, it means complete or a level of maturity. Then where the idea of SINLESSNESS is attached it enhances the idea of perfection to level of moral superiority. Christ was morally superior to Noah and Job, evenif they were muture in thier settings. Noah was generally a moral person in a world where everyone elses mind and imagination was continually evilYes Job and Noah were said to be perfect in thier generation, but the hierarchy of scripture does not attribute sinlessness to them as it does Christ.Romans states that ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD". Now if thier is a passage that says that Noah and Job never commited one sin, then this would apply to them as well, it does not.now there are scriptures that say Christ is an exception to this rule. Therefore those passages are trumped by the passages that say he never committed sin Yes. But certainly you understand that the word perfection in scripture carries with it the idea of completness and maturity, not that no mistakes were ever made. Sinlessness means morally perfect. Job and Noah were not candidates for the Messiahship, not even Abraham Sorry but he did. Phil 2:1-5 Now H take these scriptures in conjunction with Phil 2 and see what you come upwithYes he sits in this position from a standpoint of position and authority, God doesnt actually sit anywhereIronically the very same verse that states that Jesus is equal to God, Phil 2:1-6,explains these verse in thier proper context.When Jesus (God) emptied himself of his position, he then became a servant to God or the father, still being God in the flesh. As a human son as God with us, he was all the things these verses you quote suggest.After Paul explains that he is EQUAL with God, he explains at another place, that ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD, DWELT (PRESENT TENSE) IN him while he was in the flesh.He could not empty himself of his deity or Godship, if he did not posses it in the first place Phil 2 states in no uncertain terms that Jeus is equal to God. the verse makes no sense otherwise.Hey Herictic, Satan tried to overthrow God in heaven alledgedly. Now my question is where did he think he would hide to plot it out. Hes not the brightest crayon in the box Herictic Jesus did not limit his powers he limited his status and took on the form of a servant.Have you seen that new reality tv show called UNDERCOVER CEO. here the CEO steps down temporarily AND SERVES IN A WORKERS POSITION, TAKING ORDERS AND WORKING FROM A WORKERS POSITION. he takes ORDERS from those TEMPORARILY above him, FOR A PURPOSE. he has lost no authority or powerChrist as Paul states was equal eith God, but made allittle lower than the angels for our salvation. Only God is sinless, only God can provide salvation. "Blessed is the man to whom GOD does not imput sin". That is charge to his account.Conclusion Christ was God doing these things
EAM If God the father was in charge from a position of authority, then nothing lost in the form of answers. correct? Gods purpose was fulfilled in him stepping downto take on the form of a servantEAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

This is a continuationof the last Heritic post from my other MEA designation. We are one and the same, no pun intended We do not know that he stubbed his toes, but we do know he was sinless, which is good by any standard. What else would be left, to be considered good?now you have even claimed that jesus was not good. In what way was jesus not good, since we know from scripture he committed no sin. According to 1John 3:4, sin is transgression of the lawJesus was not using it in any different sense than that I have described. if there is another sense, then present it. This is why i asked you if jesus was not good how was he not good you claim God is perfect, yet people dont believe in him, people disobey him and some will eventually be lost from him.Do you still want to use this as a standard of Perfect? Lets try this one more time. I have agreed with jesus' statement that all men (ok lets go ahead and include women, since they do do small things for us like give us life, ha ha) are gods, we are created in the image of God and have a spirit that will live on.this is how we are godsNowhere however, is it claimed by an inspired writer that a creature, created human, either existed before they were born or that they were equal with God Phil 2. further no created human being is declared to be sinless, if fact all are said to have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. conclusion, we are not God in the same way jesus is, even if we are designated as such.again I am not avoiding your verses I am answering them in substance and context. if you feel I have not addressed one, I will be happy to review it from this standpoint. they do not show that he IS NOT GOD, they explain what Paul meant in Phil 2, in his servant stateBy the way are you paying any attention to my specfic arguments?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

A masterful attempt I must admit, but my debate instructors would be disapointed if I had missed such an obvious evasion. They taught that if something is clearly in violation of the truth it will pop out at you, read it and read it again.Here it is.
You discussed form and seizure but you missed the only thing in the passage that makes sense to the passage, the word equal. The word usedhere in this passage I understand is that of that of a triangle, EQUAL IN ALL ITS PARTS, that its meaning in the original correct.So form and seizure are trumped by the word equal. So his form and the fact that he was equal in all his parts to God, make it obvious that he could not violently seize what was already his. He also considered it a thing not to be violently siezed, but he cannot empty of somting he doesnotpossessNow watch, for the passage to make sense, he EMPTIED himself of that EQUALITY, to take on the form of a servant.So perhaps you could translate the word EQUAL for us. peg I dont know anybody that would read the above verse and come to your conclusion.For your interpretation to make sense we would have to assume Paul or Christ might have believed Christ was equal to God in the first place. if Christ is the humble individual he was said to be, why would Paul need to assume that anybody thought that in the first place.IOW why use terminology that states that Jesus is not God and not equal to God to demonstrate Christ was humble. A bit far fetched dont you think?No disresect Peg but it does demonstrate how a simple statment and verse can be mutilated beyond reasonMEA writes:
If God is the only good entity, how is it that Christ was not good? Hmmm? they are Peg
My point exacally . Good form and courtesy would requie that I not point out that you avoided the question. If God is the only good entity, then how was Christ not good. Was there a aspect of his nature that was not complete or good Was there anyway in which Christ didnot do this, was there any aspect of him that could be considered not goodBTW, when we are finished here would like to discuss more of you or my beliefs?EAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

I cant force Phil 2 down your throat Peg but anythingking person can see what it is saying. EXPLANATION is only required when simple readings and simple meanings are circumventedYou know Christ is completely good and that makes him God, if only God is good, perhaps you could explain in what area he is missing the mark of not being good .Further Peg, and I know you believe in the totality of scripture and how some scriptures take priority over others. In this connection I have demonstrated over and over, that Son of God is superior to Son of Man and I demnstratd that passages hat directly or indirectly imply his deity and God head even superceed that of the Son of God.the passagesyou used should be understood in connection with the idea of humility and becoming a servant.the bottom line there would be NO VALID REASON TO SAY JESUS IS EQUAL TO GOD, if he was not. Again, there would be no valid reason to say he WAS NOT GOD, if he indeed was not. It only makes since to point out that he is equal to God, to demonstrate what he did AND WHAT HE GAVE UP.Only God is sinless and he is therfore both the JUST andthe JustifierCol states that ALL things were made by and through, there is NOTHING THAT IS MADE, that was not made by him. He did notcreate himselfEAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

Not sinners Peg, but those that have commited acts or thoughts contrary toGods will. Sinners carries the idea with it that it is continuous action."For if we sin wilfully after we have recieved the knowledge of truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sin." herewsif there are none Good but God, then it would follow that even angels sin (as did satan and the demonsthat followed him), they however persisted in thier sin, others actions are simple mistakes as those that closely follow God nowIt is my guess that the blood of Christ applies even in heaven, as all authority is his there as wellit would be unreasonable to assume that if angels have free will that they do not sin.it is generally assumed that when angels sin they are immediatley expelled. This however, is easily refuted in the respect that Satan DID NOT COME TO HIS FOLLY AND PRIDE OVER NIGHT.
Much forgiveness was probably involved in his actions until like Sodom it was determined that enough was enough.So yes there is every indication fromboth reason and scripture that they do have sin, but are not SINNERSEAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.

Why does this surprise you, angels are created beingsWill you now deny that satan was an angel, will you deny that angels have freewill. Will you deny that scripture applies the attribute of SINLESSNESS TO ONLY GOD AND CHRIST? if christ is saying that God is good in the same way everyone else is good, then his statement makes no sense. how is ONLY GOD GOOD. You stated that God is the STANDARD of good. perhaps you could explain what you mean by that statementWith this distinction it should be obvious that Jesus is using the word good to mean sinless. Since Christ is said to be sinless and and everyother person having sinned and come short of the glory of God, even a tyro in logic would be able to see that it is iimplying that Christ is God. Your not a tyro are Peg? Well I knew you would eventually get around to answering PART OF my question, even if it was indirectly. So jesus is completely good correct?So Ill put it in another form to drive the point home for you. If jesus is sinless and and good in every respect, is there any sense in which he was not good? And if he is GOOD in every respect and not, not good, why wouldnt this make him God In each of the situations it should be clear that in the case of the man, his was an immediate on the spot decision. With Satan, would you have us believe the ridiculous situation that one evening he was completely faithful to God in his heart and the next morning, hey, Ill overthrow God today.Pride is a process and he BECAME puffed up with pride.there are to many examples in scripture where God punished immediatley (acts 5) then at times did not use expulsion and death as a punishment for others its only confusing if you dont understand scripture Peg, slow down and I and others will walk you throught it.A person that is drunk, having never drunk before, is drunk, but is not a drunkard, but not a drunkard in the sense of the daily actionA person that sins has sinned and is considered a sinner in Gods eyes, but not in the sense that there remains no more a sacrificce for the sin. They have not sinned wilfully and continuosly to the point that God has had enough of thier actionsThis is why the NT, describes a SIN, THAT IS UNTO DEATH.Sin according to 1John 3:4 is transgression of the law, Gods perfect law any of Gods law given to man. there were specific times when Joshua's hand was stayed, because God decided that a specific peoples SIN WAS NOT YET COMPLETE, that is they had not reached the point of no return, ie Ninevah. At other times, even when Abraham stood in for them (Sodom), God said No. He only can judge when this happens Are these people also described as sinless, if they are not Peg, it would only take a tyro in reasoning to see that THEY are not being described or implied to be God Is there something wrong with this biblical definition?So yes, angels sin, as was indicated by Satan. So yes, there is every reason to believe that if they have freewill, that they all have sinned, since, NOW WATCH THIS, only God is said to be GOOD and Sinless. If this is the case one would would be hard pressed to find anyother creature that has not , correct.Perhaps you are prepared at this time to find another passage that states, someone besides God, that is sinless and good in the sense Christ designated God as good and sinless.Again if there is no distinction in what Christ meant by calling God good verse anyone else, his statement makes no sense and has no application. if as you suggest that God is the standard of good, what standard is that, PLEASE DESCRIBE THAT STANDARDI await egerly your passage and your explanationEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.