Finally catching my breath here, so I figured I’d jump back in and catch up on some of this backlog... 🙂
So, I see Aaron got banned. That means his comments are just sitting there on ice until—if he ever actually gets unbanned—they finally see the light of day.
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Alright, let me try to break this down so it actually makes sense...
Look, here’s the thing: God could have been the very definition of love regardless of whether He ever bothered to create humanity or not. It’s not about us. It’s because God Himself exists as the Trinity—three persons in one. That internal relationship is where the essence of love lives, independent of everything else.
Look, if you want to talk about love, let’s get one thing straight: you can't have it in a vacuum. Love isn't just some abstract concept you sit around thinking about; you actually have to be able to give it to someone and, eventually, receive it back. It's a two-way street. Think about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They didn't just suddenly decide to start loving each other. They've existed "always," long before the world was even a thought. There was this perfect, seamless unity and mutual love between them from the very beginning. That deep, internal connection? That’s what eventually overflowed and fueled the entire act of creation itself. It all started there.
Look, here’s the thing: if God existed before the angels or the entire universe were even a thought, and He was the only person in existence, then He couldn't have been "love." It just doesn't add up. It makes it seem like His most defining characteristic depends entirely on the creatures He eventually made. And honestly? A god like that isn't even God. A real God—the actual Almighty—wouldn't need His core nature to rely on some random creation just to function. That's just bad logic.
Ugh, hopefully that makes things clear now? 😉
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Thanks for being polite about it, but honestly, let’s be real—your comment isn't exactly coming at me with an aggressive tone. 👍
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Look, it’s simple: the Father and the Son—they are two, yet they are one. I know, it sounds like a contradiction, but hear me out. They are two distinct persons, sure, but they share the exact same divine nature. Both are eternal, both are all-powerful, both are all-knowing, and both are omnipresent. And don't even get me started on the fact that every single one of those divine attributes applies to the Holy Spirit as well. It's all connected.
I'll get back to David Booth7 about this later.
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Look, I already laid it out for you above—they’re essentially the same thing, but they aren't actually the same person.
Look, I get it—as humans, we’re basically trying to grasp the ocean with a plastic spoon. It’s impossible to fully wrap our heads around the depths of God. But let’s be real: God actually made Himself known through the Bible. You look at all three persons in the Bible, and they all carry those divine characteristics. Honestly, that whole "God is love" argument? It just proves the point even further.
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
He never truly separated himself from the Father—I mean, even during His time here on Earth, He was crystal clear about being one with Him. It’s right there in the text: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). You can't just ignore that part.
Look, those three hours on the cross when He cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"—that wasn't just some random outburst. That was the moment that perfect, unbreakable bond He had with the Father was shattered. Why? Because He took the weight of every single sin in the world onto His own shoulders. At that point, the perfect and holy God had to deliver a righteous judgment. He had to judge the very sin that He Himself had taken upon Himself. It’s heavy, and it's exactly what happened.
The cry from the cross was pretty much the only time Jesus actually addressed the Father as "God." Usually, he just called him "Father." But once he settled the debt for our sins—shouting "It is finished" (which basically means "Paid in full")—he was back in that close communion with the Father, calling out to Him as "God" again.
Father."Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 24:46).
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Look, here’s how I see it: Jesus basically "put on" a human nature. That doesn't mean he somehow stopped being God in his essence. It's more like he voluntarily set aside those divine privileges while he was walking this earth—just like that passage from Philippians 2 we were talking about earlier.
His divine nature was made manifest on the Mount of Transfiguration when He transformed in glory before His three closest apostles—Matthew 17:1-8
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
I didn't quite finish my thought there. Jesus, in His glorified, resurrected body, is still human, but He is also fully God. Right now, He is in glory, sitting at the right hand of the Father—meaning He’s no longer in the position described in Philippians 2 where He was stripped of equality with God.😉
But since He is also the Son of Man, that gives Him the most legitimate right to judge people—and to do so most justly: as a man, because He lived through everything we go through, and as God, because He is all-knowing.
Kenneth Barnes7 said:First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁
Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."
Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."
You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?
You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕
I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, let's keep moving:
You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.
Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...
So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."
Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."
Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"
"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"
In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.
How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂
Isaiah 53 (link)
First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.
It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷
And Psalm 22 (link)
It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"
Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?
Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"
Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉
P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂
Hmm, I have to admit, I don't see what's so wrong with the translation "defender." After all, a defender is someone who stands up for another. Maybe the most accurate translation would be "advocate," but that's not far from "defender."
But look, Jesus wasn't talking about the parakletos in the context of Judgment Day, because He told the disciples:
"And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Defender to be with you forever: the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him because He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17)
The point is, the disciples already know Him, and they'll still be around when the parakletos arrives.
to be continued...
