BIBLE VERSES THAT PROVES JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONE TRUE GOD

[PHC - DUBU]

 

[cyberdasm]

proving a book by another book?

I'm proving that the bible is true and that Jesus Christ is historically man. You could read it in the account of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny and others. The bible proves that He is indeed man and at the same time God.

let say bible proves diety of jesus christ

do you even care to prove what the bible say is true?

if you are referring to my reply then my answer is yes. My stand is on the grounds of lower criticism.

 

[IvanMHG]

I'm proving that the bible is true and that Jesus Christ is historically man. You could read it in the account of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny and others. The bible proves that He is indeed man and at the same time God.

Pero kung Diyos siya, bakit niya pa kailangang mag-dasal?

 

[plhbg1]

I'm proving that the bible is true and that Jesus Christ is historically man. You could read it in the account of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny and others. The bible proves that He is indeed man and at the same time God.

so all are books that also needs proving, kapag ganyan e walang katapusang verification kasi yung books na sinabi mo ay need din iyon i-verify, nag verify ka nga sa bible na sikat na sikat, iyan pang dagdag books na di ko nga alam na nag e-exist

 

[cyberdasm]

so all are books that also needs proving, kapag ganyan e walang katapusang verification kasi yung books na sinabi mo ay need din iyon i-verify, nag verify ka nga sa bible na sikat na sikat, iyan pang dagdag books na di ko nga alam na nag e-exist

Well in theological world it exist. Pero kung in layman's world hindi. Iba kasi pananaw ng layman at saka theologian. You could spot the difference. May answer is in the theologian's perspective. Pwede mo naman yang mabasa ang aklat na yan. May pirated copy jan sa net. I will give you the difference between the two.
The theologian seeks a deeper study (hermeneutics).
The layman seeks the literal interpretation of the study (mababasa ba, abay mabasa! Ganito kasi mag-isip ang layman eh). That's the reason why the RC's doesn't want their members to interpret the bible for themselves. Kasi magkakagulo sila.
Eh if you're not a catholic then you are a protestant or evangelical perse. Now here is the problem we have too much interpretation. Those interpretation needs to be censored as well. Because there are interpretations that are not coherent with the word of God. Ito ang masasabi ko lang like for example mababasa ba sa bibliya ang new moons theology? Of course literally mababasa but coherently hindi.

Pero kung Diyos siya, bakit niya pa kailangang mag-dasal?

It depends on how do you understood prayer. For me prayer is your connection with God. The same with Jesus connecting to the First person in the God Head that we name as God the Father.

 

[plhbg1]

Well in theological world it exist. Pero kung in layman's world hindi. Iba kasi pananaw ng layman at saka theologian. You could spot the difference. May answer is in the theologian's perspective. Pwede mo naman yang mabasa ang aklat na yan. May pirated copy jan sa net. I will give you the difference between the two.
The theologian seeks a deeper study (hermeneutics).
The layman seeks the literal interpretation of the study (mababasa ba, abay mabasa! Ganito kasi mag-isip ang layman eh). That's the reason why the RC's doesn't want their members to interpret the bible for themselves. Kasi magkakagulo sila.
Eh if you're not a catholic then you are a protestant or evangelical perse. Now here is the problem we have too much interpretation. Those interpretation needs to be censored as well. Because there are interpretations that are not coherent with the word of God. Ito ang masasabi ko lang like for example mababasa ba sa bibliya ang new moons theology? Of course literally mababasa but coherently hindi.

so it will take me to become theologian first before believing bible is true?

 

[cyberdasm]

so it will take me to become theologian first before believing bible is true?

Personalities who are in the academe or not but are using the hermeneutical principle of studying the scripture, that's my definition of theologians. If you don't believe what the scripture says, then it has nothing to do with you. Am I right? Thus, if you are still in the mode of proving the bible's accuracy through scientific means, I think we are not on the same page. Scripture is always above empirical science. Of course, science could back up the scripture. In my own standpoint, the word of God is absolute (not in question unless you do a higher criticism). The first verse in the scripture started with this statement, "In the beginning, God." Hence, the Bible does not prove God's existence but rather it assumes. I don't bow down to the theology of Aquinas that puts reason above scripture.

If you were confused between lay personalities and theologians, the lay or the laity understood the scripture based on how they understood it. When studying the scripture, the majority of the laity do not use any hermeneutical approach known as exegesis. This method, known as eisegesis, is commonly used by the laity in their study of the scripture. if you are a laity or a theologian, the conviction of believing God's word is not by your own merit but by God's work alone. To be precise, the Holy Spirit. Faith is not yours, actually. It is imputed to you. Therefore, in regards to your question, the best plausible answer is not from being a theologian but from the guidance of God. In this way, you could trust His word.

 

[plhbg1]

the Bible does not prove God's existence but rather it assumes.

finally, there is something that we could both agree hehe

Faith is not yours, actually. It is imputed to you.

so faith is not voluntary? but only depends on whom god choose

 

[cyberdasm]

so faith is not voluntary? but only depends on whom god choose

Do you mind having a soteriology class with me. I will explain it to you why faith is imputed.
Just a heads up there is a difference between response and faith. I stand on the ground of wesleyan-arminian principle. Anyway to make it short you can't have a genuine faith apart from Christ. Since all of us are totally depraved which means we cannot in ourselves initiate a salvific relationship if we do not response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. You will be having hard time to accept this notion if you are in the oneness theology.

 

[plhbg1]

Do you mind having a soteriology class with me.

can we have it here so others interested can also learn

Just a heads up there is a difference between response and faith.

i think ibig mo sabihin iba ang faith of those responding kaysa dun sa mga walang conviction (not chosen)?

all of us are totally depraved which means we cannot in ourselves initiate a salvific relationship if we do not response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

so faith is still voluntary but its authenticity depends on the conviction?

 

[cyberdasm]

so faith is still voluntary but it's authenticity depends on the conviction?

We must understand this that without the conviction of the Holy Spirit we cannot initiate a relationship with God. Because our fallen nature prevents us from having faith in God, who is Holy, and human nature is bending to sin. Henceforth our response to the Holy Spirit's conviction is the entrance of being saved. Once we accept we are momentously justified and sanctified. I'm hoping we are in the same page with Wesley and Arminius. If not then this response to your question is futile. When we are talking about conviction that is prevenient grace or preventing grace. That grace will result into faith and repentance. We are talking about systematic theology in this aspect.

 

[plhbg1]

grace will result into faith and repentance.

are you calling true faith as the only faith? or you just meant faith here as true faith

kasi meron portion of my life where i believe "there is god" before i migrated to "there may be god"
faith din ba tawag dun? or faith but it's not a true faith

 

[cyberdasm]

are you calling true faith as the only faith? or you just meant faith here as true faith

kasi meron portion of my life where i believe "there is god" before i migrated to "there may be god"
faith din ba tawag dun? or faith but it's not a true faith

If you will let me expound it, in a Calvinistic sense there is, but in Wesleyan perspective there is none. The one mention in the scripture (Rom 1:17) Calvinist preferred to call it a living faith. However in the Wesleyan's perspective they called it simply as faith. Because a dead faith in Wesleyan's notion they called it backsliding. I think the Calvinist called it temporal or presumptuous if my memory serves it right. However the scripture called it dead faith.
Now back to your question. I defined faith as what it is. Faith is living in righteousness. Apart from it that is already walking in the lower state or walking in the paths of sinfulness. As for your statement that "there is God" yes faith yan (Heb 11:1-3). The second statement is you already backslided. When we are talking about faith that is indicative not a subjunctive.

 

[plhbg1]

The second statement is you already backslided.

so backsliding pala tawag sakin, anu ba ibig sabihin niyan? is my faith gone? kasi ngayon di na ako naniniwala na there is god, ang akin ngayon is there may be god but never naman ako napunta sa there is no god

 

[cyberdasm]

so backsliding pala tawag sakin, anu ba ibig sabihin niyan? is my faith gone? kasi ngayon di na ako naniniwala na there is god, ang akin ngayon is there may be god but never naman ako napunta sa there is no god

Now I might ask you this if you will adhere to wesleyan that is backsliding. Now if you are in the Calvinist you are already reprobated. May I ask gnostic ka ngayon?
Backsliding is an act living in the lower state of life. In short you stop believing. However there is a good news in the word of God which is also adhered by the Wesleyan theology, backsliding could be undone when you start believing again. John 3:16 states, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. That is profound. One of the theological implication of the text is that God is a God of second chances. If you're curious, I'm a Seventh-day Adventist. Happy Sabbath to you my friend.

 

[plhbg1]

Now if you are in the Calvinist you are already reprobated.

nako impyerno na pala ako neto hihi

May I ask gnostic ka ngayon?

di na ako gnostic but i am agnostic na hehe

backsliding could be undone when you start believing again

what if i'm not able to believe again? kasi mukhang solid na yung "hanapan talaga ng proof ang anything claimed" eh

I'm a Seventh-day Adventist. Happy Sabbath to you my friend.

wow ayos din naman pala yung adventist, dami ko matutunan

 

[cyberdasm]

wow ayos din naman pala yung adventist, dami ko matutunan

What I'm telling here is what I've learned in my soteriology classes. If you are willing to learn more bigay ko sayo thesis ko titled: Ordo Salutis and Via Salutis: A Comparative Study of the Salvation Paradigm of John Calvin and John Wesley. Yun nga lang 60 pages ang babasahin mo. Undergrad thesis lang yan. Balak ko pang gawing journal.

nako impyerno na pala ako neto hihi


di na ako gnostic but i am agnostic na hehe


what if i'm not able to believe again? kasi mukhang solid na yung "hanapan talaga ng proof ang anything claimed" eh


wow ayos din naman pala yung adventist, dami ko matutunan

For the first statement yes.. If calvinist ang puntahan mo.
For third statement, You still have time my friend even the satanist co-founder become Christian. I hope God will make a turning point in your life again. Just don't ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing wrong of finding evidence that God existed but don't hardened your heart.
Fourth statement, I will proudly say yes. Salamat sa compliment. To Him be the Glory and Honor.
I know you love to find evidence. The books that I've mentioned earlier are good books. Plus if you have time to read a 600 pages book pwede mo tong basahin, Dinosaur: An Adventist Perspective by Read (Nalimutan ko name, black ang cover).

 

[plhbg1]

bigay ko sayo thesis ko titled: Ordo Salutis and Via Salutis: A Comparative Study of the Salvation Paradigm of John Calvin and John Wesley

nako tambakan mo ako ng maraming info di kayanin ng brain ko hehe

Just don't ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

pero boss di naman talaga lahat pipili-in ng diyos diba, so it means kailangan talagang meron pupunta sa impyerno, kailangan ninyo kami to fulfill what is written in the bible diba?

 

[cyberdasm]

nako tambakan mo ako ng maraming info di kayanin ng brain ko hehe


pero boss di naman talaga lahat pipili-in ng diyos diba, so it means kailangan talagang meron pupunta sa impyerno, kailangan ninyo kami to fulfill what is written in the bible diba?

What did God said in the eze 18:32? He said repent. He doesn't have pleasure of killing the wicked. It means God did not predestinated man to reprobation. Matt 25:41 plainly stated that this lake of fire is for the devil. Kaya nga lang gusto din ng tao eh.. Actually God give us the freedom diba sabi sa Gen. God put enmity between the women and the serpent. Thus it means to say we have the will to respond to God's conviction or to respond to devils accusation that God is unfair.
God's government is fair. Kaya pinapapili niya tayo eh. Kung saan natin gusto. Hindi ibig sabihin na kung pipiliin mo ang panginoon eh matiwasay na ang pamumuhay mo. Pinatay nga si Cristo kahit wala maski isang sala. Tayo pa kaya? Hyper Calvinist understood that God predestinated some individual to be saved and others to be reprobated for God's glory. But I would like to tell you that I don't believe on such theology.

 

[plhbg1]

Kaya nga lang gusto din ng tao eh..

pero meron kasi attribute si god as "all-knowing" so definitely alam na ni god na di ako maniniwala sa kanya diba

respond to devils accusation that God is unfair.

so nag respond din pala ako yun nga lang eh sa devil's conviction, pero naka handa ako maniwala once proven na ang god's existence siguro todo todo pa yung faith ko pag nagkataon super devoted siguro ako