Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Let's assume the correct translation is "justified by his own Spirit", you still have not said what is the problem with that. Three different posts so far and they all pretty much add up to "I don't the sound of that", without any statement actually explaining what is wrong with that .
Is the I AM Just? Is the I AM Righteous? How do we know? We know because we know He is God and HE says so? Well that is pretty much God (a Spirit) showing Himself to be Just or Righteous by His own word. We also know by His actions, He has proven Himself to the world Righteous, and you have a problem with that?
But why would that alone be a problem? Do you also have a problem with the idea of God being manifested in flesh? God being seen of angels? God being preached to the world or God being received up into glory?
This thread WAS supposed to be a poll, but I see Im going to have to move it to the debate area. BTW If anyone wants to debate their position that Jesus is not God, we have made a way for you to debate one other person in a one on one debate, uninterrupted and with a definite beginning and ending so it won't just be a rambling flame war back and forth, then the rest of us can judge. Anyone UP for the challenge'? If so visit the sub forum and offer a challenge
|
Being just is not the same thing as being justified. That is the essence of my question prax. Just and justified are not interchangeable terms. How exactly was Jesus or God justified in the Spirit? Can you elaborate?
This brings me back to one of my continual points. We should not use scripture to support any doctrine when we do not totally understand that scripture. I think any reasonable person can understand why doing such a thing is a bad idea. What do you think?
Threaded Mode
