Job Bautista was Confused of Christ Divinity as the Son of God

Here's another blog article to educate someone who never understood Theology and for what I know about Christology. Let's try to see what he's up to.

So without further adieu, let's dive in - 

From Job Bautista's personal wall for his Followers
calling me up thinking it can't be answered.

This was actually my response from his concerns that opened up asking me as to why Christ called his Father a God.

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Job Bautista ano bang problema Dyan kung tawagin ni Kristo Dios Ang kanyang Ama. Di ba pwede? 

This was the title of his post and to think I'm not sure what's he's up to, let's just see what his scriptural references was all about. 

SAGUTIN NATIN SI Jerry Nuñez Bustillo ;

Ang problema ? Magiging dalawa na ang Diyos mo ? Lalabas na anti Cristo kayo dahil si Cristo hindi nag turo na naparito siya ay maging Diyos narin na may laman. Ibig sabihin na Diyos ang inyong pagkakilala sa kanya kay Cristo na isang tao , magiging Anti Cristo kayo.

2 Juan 1:7 Dahil malinaw ang sinabi ni Cristo na siya ay may laman at buto.

I assume what he meant in 2 John 1:7 that to those who confess not that Jesus Christ didn't come in flesh is anti-christ. Okay, so how was this even relevant the first question that you opened up? And does 2 John context say anything that Christ is not God, or does it says about there should be one since the Christ clearly stated that the Father is the One true God, so basically if we claim that Christ is also a God does it go against to his word in declaring the Father as "One True God"? Ok so what about we go directly to the context of 2 John to see what it was all about? 

Here's what it is. In 2 John 1:7, we read, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." This verse warns about individuals who deny the fundamental truth of Jesus Christ's incarnation—His coming to Earth in physical form. The Apostle John emphasizes the importance of acknowledging Jesus Christ's literal, physical coming to the world, as this is a central doctrine of Christianity. Deceivers, who deny this truth, pose a threat to the faith of believers and are labeled as antichrists because they oppose Christ and His teachings.

In the context of Latter-day Saint beliefs, acknowledging Jesus Christ's divine mission, His atonement, and His resurrection, is fundamental. We believe in the physical reality of Jesus Christ—that He lived, died, and was resurrected, providing a way for us to overcome both physical and spiritual death.

So does this says anything about just One God and Christ is not? No, it doesn't

What was it all about? Simply it was all about Christ nature during his incarnation as the Son of God who came on flesh (John 1:14). And every saints should understand his Atonement or the supposed mission or purpose of his physical state as to why he should and must come. And during this epistle as it was address to the saints, possibly in Ephesus or neighboring places where he served his ministry seems a new theology for them.

To sum up, the context has nothing to do of what Job Bautista think was the concern all about Christ not God doctrine. So it's clear that Job Bautista quoted irrelevant to the issue.

Moving on, Job Bautista keeps on quoting something that might be in favor of their Doctrine. Let get to it - 

Luke 24:39 . Ang Diyos nilinaw na sinabi niya na ang kalagayan nito ay isang Espiritu .

Does it says anything about the Father as Spirit or does Christ simply mean the embodied Spirit or none-resurrected being that without flesh and Bone?

Luke 24:39, after His resurrection, Christ appears to His disciples and reassures them that He is not a spirit, but has a physical body. The verse states, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." This statement is significant for several reasons, but crucially, it does not suggest that the spirit is the Father. Instead, Jesus is making a clear distinction between His resurrected, tangible body (with flesh and bones) and a disembodied spirit, to prove to His disciples that He has indeed risen and is not merely a ghost or vision.

Jesus's emphasis on His physical resurrection body serves multiple purposes. It validates the reality of His resurrection, it teaches about the nature of resurrected bodies, and it underscores the physical reality of the afterlife promised to all who follow Him. The notion of the spirit, in this context, is to contrast against His resurrected, corporeal state to reassure His followers.

The understanding within Latter-day Saint theology also holds that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate, distinct beings with perfected, glorified bodies of flesh and bones, as stated in Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:22, which says, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also." The Holy Ghost, however, is a personage of Spirit, which enables Him to dwell in us.

Thus, Luke 24:39 is not about equating the spirit with the Father, but about reinforcing the truth of Jesus's physical resurrection and the nature of resurrected bodies.

To sum up, Christ simply introduces his resurrected state to the people who believes on him. This appearance and proclamation that he is not a spirit basically teaches us that everyone will be resurrected like him with our immortal body and we were become as he is. His resurrected body as he made his proclamation that he was no longer as spirit as it were before he rise up (1 Peter 3:19 Christ went to Spirit in Prison before his resurrection). So it is clear that Christ Physical appearance and declaration simply mean his immortal state as a result of the Atonement. He has now a difference Godly body as the scripture stated -

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. - Colossians 2:9

Juan 4:24 ibig sabihin nito hindi siya nakikita .

And this is the supporting verse thinking that it has something to do about Christ declaration during his appearance. Let's take a closer look.

If you are to take John 4:24 literally as what it has said, then you have to take everything on it literally. Let me give you an idea Job Bautista, from the words in John 4:24 says that "God is a spirit", then it was follow by "they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". So my question to you Job Bautista - 

• Did you lock your body in your closet, so your spirit can go out to worship God in your Chapel? How did you do that?
• How did you worship God in spirit and in truth while wearing your physical body? 

That's basically literally right? And I'm pretty sure there were a lot of Christians died after reading it. 🤣 Kidding aside! Here's another thing. In the old testament there's a saying like this - 

For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. Psalm 84:11

Do you take it literally Job Bautista? Of course not, right? So, what's the point actually did John 4:24 pretty simple. Here what it was all about. John 4:24, Jesus teaches an essential principle about worship: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." This verse is part of a broader conversation between Jesus and a Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar. Their discussion, which starts with a simple request for water, evolves into a deep theological conversation about the nature of worship and the identity of the Messiah.

Here, Jesus is pointing out that true worship doesn't depend on the physical location (like the temple in Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim, which the Samaritans considered sacred) but on the worshipers' hearts and sincerity. Worshiping in "spirit and truth" means that our worship must be sincere, coming from our innermost beings (spirit), guided and informed by the truth of the gospel. This teaching underscores that God seeks a personal, authentic relationship with His followers, beyond mere outward rituals or adherence to tradition.

This teaching is very relevant in Latter-day Saint beliefs, emphasizing personal conversion, the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and a genuine, living faith in Jesus Christ. It illustrates how worship extends beyond Sunday services into everyday living, showing love, serving others, and living according to the truths revealed through modern prophets and scripture.

And for the record, the Greek text of John 4:24 doesn't actually sounds as the English we do know now. The Greek language does not use the word "a" in English. In Greek, the equivalent word for "a" is "ένα" (ena), which is used as an indefinite article similar to "a" in English. Greek has its own unique alphabet and linguistic structure, so direct translations of English words like "A or a" may not always apply.

So basically You are saying "God is Spirit" (Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός) which makes it more general and most likely they understood during their times as the embodied Spirit like the ones they used to described in the Old Testament. (see Exodus 33:11, Number 14:14, Deuteronomy 5:4) those examples could be God Himself appears or might be Angels or something else as what you might think. And yet they understood it as Spirits.

In my own Opinions, since we know and understand that God can do All Things. Then why are we limiting God's capability by your doctrine that doesn't even makes sense. If your God can do everything either Possible or Impossible, then why can't he make himself appear to someone if necessary. So to me Job Bautista, I would rather relay my understanding to the nature and Divinity of God as Omnipotent, Omniscience and infinite capabilities. So stop doing that hocus-focus doctrine of yours.

1 Tim. 1:17 o hindi nakikita ang Diyos .

And here's another one which makes Job Bautista think as the eternal nature of God. Little did he know that Paul's epistle to Timothy was all about Christ. Let's try to elaborate it here - 

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul's letter to Timothy was his own testimony of Christ as his savior that he was save through his Mercy and Made himself (Christ) an example of him in performing his Mission. Paul clear state Christ Divinity on verse 17, in which Job Bautista thinks that was all about God and his Nature which is invisible. I could simply agree his understanding without knowing or understanding the text prior to it.

And in case it doesn't sound convincing, we can go ahead an continue reading Paul's letter Timothy 6:13-16 to understand Paul's statement, and he says this -

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Take note on the underlined words. Does it means something Job Bautista? Do you think Paul's epistle to Timothy has something to do about Christ Divinity? It does, and it perfectly explains. You missed that part because of your cherry-picked ideas without knowing the entire context. And that's how you fail the scriptures.

Subalit dinaya kayo ng diablo . Rev. 12:9

You can judge me using that verse if you do understand the scripture well. So far those scriptural reference you'd made doesn't makes any sense and it only defines that you poorly misunderstood it's context. So stop pretending you know something while obviously you don't.

kaya noong maalis na ng diablo ang liwanag sa inyong puso . Lucas 8:12, Col.. 2:8

These Scripture were just add-ons but it seems to me this has nothing to do with the topic rather your directly judging me as deceived by a false teachers. Do that after you made a rebuttal on this one. I could simply return it back while doing this article, but that won't be necessary. I'll be waiting your response after this.

sa pamamagitan ng bulaang propeta na nagdaya sa inyo . 2 Pedro 2:1-3

The context of 2 Peter 2:1-3, the Apostle Peter is warning the early Christian believers about the dangers of false teachers who would arise among them, misleading many with their destructive heresies. This passage is part of Peter's larger effort to encourage Christians to remain steadfast in their faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ, despite facing false teachings and persecution.

Here's a bit of breakdown:

• Verse 1 talks about the false prophets and teachers who introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. This indicates the severity of their betrayal and deception, as they turn away from the very core of Christian faith.
• Verse 2 mentions how many will follow their depraved conduct and that because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be maligned. This highlights the impact of false teachings on both individuals and the collective perception of Christianity.
• Verse 3 warns that these teachers will exploit believers with fabricated stories, driven by greed. Peter foretells that their judgment, long hanging over them, will not delay.

In essence, Peter is cautioning believers against complacency and urging them to be vigilant in holding onto their faith and discerning truth from falsehood, especially in the face of teachers who may appear within their own communities with the intent to lead them astray.

It's a call for careful examination of the teachings we accept, ensuring they align with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles. It reminds us of the importance of grounding our faith in the scriptures and the teachings of true prophets and apostles. So again, this has nothing to do of the topic rather than your own add-ons to tell someone is false but assuming you'd given your criticism. Unfortunately, this defines perfectly of your ideology and philosophy. So basically it's your words against yours.

kaya hindi kataka taka na kayo rin ay nadaya ng diablo . Nagtuturo ng maling aral na napaloob sa aklat ng Mormon . Na kayo ayon sa aklat ninyo ay naging anak ng diablo nagiging katulad kayo niya ayon sa 2 Nephi 9:8-9

Without knowing the actual context of 2 Nephi 9:8-9 just only fails your critical thinking. I already made my response on this one and still you keep quoting it without understanding the context. Check it below to see the response you fail to understand.

• Response 1 - Job Bautista: Context of 2 Nephi 9:8
• Response 2 - Second Response to Job Bautista of the subject of 2 Nephi 9:8-9

This simply means you don't know how to understand the scriptures and you're bad about it. I would simply suggest to have a life rather than spending too much time criticizing someone that you don't even know what's going on. You're making yourself dumbest among the dumb.