A Form of godliness

[Wrangler]

Before God became a Man.

Scripture does not say anything like this.

 

[Rich R]

God who is Jesus in the Flesh, was made of the Seed of God.

Gen 3:15,

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
​

Given everything God said about seed in Genesis 1, Eve would have been clear that the promised seed would come via a human seed. Seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as the parent. Adam and Eve were humans so they were expecting the redeemer to be another human. Same with David and the others that are mentioned as bearing the Messiah in the future. Human seed produces another human, not a god.

There are a few other verses that say whose seed would bring the Messiah. None mention the seed of God.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Gen 3:15,

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
​

Given everything God said about seed in Genesis 1, Eve would have been clear that the promised seed would come via a human seed. Seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as the parent. Adam and Eve were humans so they were expecting the redeemer to be another human. Same with David and the others that are mentioned as bearing the Messiah in the future. Human seed produces another human, not a god.

There are a few other verses that say whose seed would bring the Messiah. None mention the seed of God.

The verse you quoted is speaking to the serpent...God addressed the serpent, Eve and then Adam...
Genesis 3 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹⁴ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
¹⁵ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
¹⁶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
¹⁷ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
¹⁸ Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
¹⁹ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[Heart2Soul]

So it says the serpents seed and the woman's seed will have enmity towards the serpent.
Jesus teaches in a parable the sowing of seed...some on rocks, some on thorny ground and some on fertile ground.
So seed in His teaching refers to the Truth of God's Word....
Seed can be and is both physical and spiritual.

 

[Behold]

Scripture does not say anything like this.

John 1.

"the WORD" was God.

A.) The WORD made FLESH.... = God in a Body... "Jesus". John 1:14


See it yet?
Just believe your Bible.

 

[Behold]

Gen 3:15,

Given everything God said about seed in Genesis 1, Eve would have been clear that the promised seed would come via a human seed.​

You are misapply God's Foreknowledge as if Eve has it.
She was just a woman, not a Prophet, not an Apostle.....

Eve didnt write Genesis.
(Just so you know). RichR.​

 

[marks]

You changed reference point from harmonizing to discounting.

No, what I'm saying is, correct understanding of the Bible will hold all it's sayings true, and all will be in harmony with the others.

If you have to discount the meaning of a saying of Scripture in order to have harmony with other passages, I think that needs rethinking.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Appeal to Majority.

Yep, the majority of the Biblical manuscripts. That body of manuscripts in over 99.5% agreement, with the vast majority of variants in simple spelling differences and other equally insignificant variations. No teaching is affected by these varients.

Other manuscript groups have nothing even resembling that body of evidence, and the only real claim to fame being the age of the text.

Surprising, in a time when copies of the Bible were rare, expensive, there were a few manuscripts that were set aside, in one case actually consigned to the recycling bin, but not used. I ask myself why? Where they inspected and rejected?

But yes, I'll go with that, an appeal to majority of Biblical evidence.

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

Three is three and one is one.

Sure. You will get no argument from me regarding this statement in and of itself. But, Rich, one can consist of three, and three can be together as one. There can be no argument against that, Rich, except due to obstinance.

It took some 300 years to come up with that idea.

No, about 300 years passed before a council was convened to settle ~ or at least officially try to settle ~ the dispute concerning the matter. :)

Paul had no idea about God being an "essence." Essence is a thing. It is not a person. Paul thought God was more personal than a thing.

Nobody is saying that, Rich. As with Wrangler, you are engaging in abject (willful) ignorance and demagoguery with this kind of statement. Not to call you out as being "ignorant" or actually a "demagogue," but that's what you are doing. No, they are of the same essence ~ not woodenly "an essence"... that's a ridiculous thing to even say ~ One in the Other and the Other in the One (and the Holy Spirit is enjoined in this, of course).

Hey, we (Christians, anyway) are together the Bride of Christ, right? Yes, so, are we to think there is there only one person on the face of this planet? Or, well, one believing person, one Christian? Well no, of course not, there are a lot of us, past and present, right? So how is that, that we are all in Christ, and of each other? Because we are...

Or, again, my wife and I are one flesh; God has joined us together, and we cannot be separated. But are we not still two human beings? Of course we are. But how is it that spiritually, we are one? Because we are...

I've never met a Unitarian who didn't believe John's stated purpose in writing his gospel.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
​

Every Unitarian I know believes the Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah (Christ) whom God sent to redeem mankind from the devil's pawnshop.

All trinitarians would affirm this and thus would, Rich, most wholeheartedly agree with unitarians here. But ~ and I still have yet to receive any kind of attempt at rebuttal or explanation of this from any unitarian on this forum ~ Jesus, the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) Whom God sent to redeem mankind from the devil's pawnshop, as you said, is also the Son of Man. Perhaps you can explain what Christ Jesus meant when He called Himself the Son of Man; surely you have some (interesting, I'm sure... :)) idea...

It's the trinity doctrine, or that Jesus is God, that flies in the face of this simple clearly stated reason for John's gospel.

Absolutely not. I get that's what unitarians want to think (or convince themselves of, possibly), but it does no such thing. You can certainly characterize (mischaracterize) it however you want, but, not only do you remake God's Word to be something it is not (what you want it to be), but you remake what trinitarians believe into something other than what it is (what you want it to be).

I'm afraid it's those who hold to Jesus being God that deny who he is.

Absolutely not. We acknowledge Who He says He is. See above. The silence from where you stand is deafening. What you say here is as backwards as can be.

God came from the seed of David?

When He was made flesh and dwelt among us, yes. :) When, as Paul says, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, and was born in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6-7). Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of (which is to say preeminent over) all creation. For by Him all things (not "all things except Himself, as you might have it) were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities ~ all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:15-20).

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Wrangler]

You will get no argument from me regarding this statement in and of itself. But, Rich, one can consist of three, and three can be together as one. There can be no argument against that, Rich, except due to obstinance.

The other exception is realizing you are AGAIN changing the reference point from IS to merely can be, which changes ACTUAL to mere POTENTIAL.

And it must be pointed out in the name of potential that one can ONLY consist of one, and three can ONLY be together as three.

Potential CAN go either way, not really advancing the cause of trinitarianism, not even in theory.

 

[Wrangler]

That body of manuscripts in over 99.5% agreement

Really? Where do you come up with that number?

 

[PinSeeker]

I don’t have to think it.

Well, you don't have to think anything... :) But you do... :)

Scripture explains that’s what happens.

Scripture explains ~ over and over and over again in different ways ~ that, as Job says, God's purposes cannot be thwarted. God does not somehow change His purposes to conform with our desires, but rather precisely the opposite (regarding Christians, anyway; others He gives up to their own foolish desires and passions, as Paul says in Romans 1) ~ by changing the heart, which drives the will.

Why else would anyone pray, if not to influence our Creator?

Ah, well, a couple of things here:

1. As Paul says, we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words, and He who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God (Romans 8:26-27). So, Wrangler, God, by His Holy Spirit, teaches us how to pray, what to pray for ~ how to pray in accordance with the will of the Father.

2. And read again what Jesus teaches concerning prayer in Matthew 6 and Luke 11. The Father knows what we need before we even ask Him (Matthew 6:8).

3. Even Jesus's prayer offers us a model of what ours should always be: "...not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39), and "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).​

Prayer is like evangelism in this respect, that what God is going to do, He is going to do, but He does give us the great privilege of participating in it, participating in His will.

...you are AGAIN changing the reference point from IS to merely can be, which changes ACTUAL to mere POTENTIAL.

Not at all. It can be, as in it is possible, and so ~ regarding the triune Jehovah ~ it is, as in... well, it is. :)

Potential CAN go either way...

Well, sure; as the late Bobby Bowden (former Florida State football coach) said, "Potential just means you ain't done nuthin' yet." :) But... total non sequitur.

Grace and peace to you, Wrangler.

 

[marks]

Really? Where do you come up with that number?

Various sources through the years. Regardless of the exact number, whether 99.9% as some have even indicated, or 99.5%, compare this to other manuscript families. Of course, there are only a few of these "older is better" ones. Are you aware of their degree of agreement between them? If not, it's something very revealing to learn.

Are you familiar with the Majority Manuscript? And how it compares the the Received Text, and to the Critical Text?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Not at all. It can be, as in it is possible, and so ~ regarding the triune Jehovah ~ it is, as in... well, it is.

You did not just equate POTENTIAL with ACTUAL.

 

[Rich R]

The verse you quoted is speaking to the serpent...God addressed the serpent, Eve and then Adam...
Genesis 3 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹⁴ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
¹⁵ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
¹⁶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
¹⁷ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
¹⁸ Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
¹⁹ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Good point. Thanks!

 

[Rich R]

You are misapply God's Foreknowledge as if Eve has it.
She was just a woman, not a Prophet, not an Apostle.....

Eve didnt write Genesis.
(Just so you know). RichR.​

I think you may have misunderstood me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

Genesis 1 makes it clear that the seed of something, plant or animal, always produces offspring with the same nature as the parent. An apple seed will produce another apple tree. It won't produce an orange tree. A cat's offspring will always be another cat, not a dog or goat.

God told the devil that the redeemer would come from human seed. God told Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and others the same thing, that the redeemer would come from their seed. Since all of them were human, they correctly believed and expected the Messiah to be human.

 

[Rich R]

Nobody is saying that, Rich. As with Wrangler, you are engaging in abject (willful) ignorance and demagoguery with this kind of statement. Not to call you out as being "ignorant" or actually a "demagogue," but that's what you are doing. No, they are of the same essence ~ not woodenly "an essence"... that's a ridiculous thing to even say ~ One in the Other and the Other in the One (and the Holy Spirit is enjoined in this, of course)

An essence, the essence, same essence, whatever. The fact is there is nowhere in the scriptures that mentions oosia (essence) in the scriptures. But you can find it used in Plato's writings as well as other Greek philosophers. It'd be strange indeed if God had to rely on Greek philosophical ideas to define Himself and Jesus!

"Ousia (/ˈuːziə, ˈuːsiə, ˈuːʒə, ˈuːʃə/; Ancient Greek: οὐσία) is an important philosophical and theological term, originally used in ancient Greek philosophy, then later in Christian theology. It was used by various ancient Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, as a primary designation for philosophical concepts of essence or substance. In contemporary philosophy, it is analogous to English concepts of being and ontic. In Christian theology, the concept of θεία ουσία (divine essence) is one of the most important doctrinal concepts, central to the development of trinitarian doctrine."

Ousia - Wikipedia​

Take away Plato and we have no trinity!

Hey, we (Christians, anyway) are together the Bride of Christ, right? Yes, so, are we to think there is there only one person on the face of this planet? Or, well, one believing person, one Christian? Well no, of course not, there are a lot of us, past and present, right? So how is that, that we are all in Christ, and of each other?

Actually we are the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, et.al.). Israel is the bride (Rev 21:2). In any case, I'm not sure of the point you are making here.

Or, again, my wife and I are one flesh; God has joined us together, and we cannot be separated. But are we not still two human beings? Of course we are. But how is it that spiritually, we are one? Because we are...

All I know is that when my wife and I get up in the morning, there are two lumps in the bed. Maybe a figure of speech in saying the two shall be one? But let's say that you and your wife are actually one person...actually I wouldn't know where to go from there! :)

All trinitarians would affirm this and thus would, Rich, most wholeheartedly agree with unitarians here. But ~ and I still have yet to receive any kind of attempt at rebuttal or explanation of this from any unitarian on this forum ~ Jesus, the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) Whom God sent to redeem mankind from the devil's pawnshop, as you said, is also the Son of Man. Perhaps you can explain what Christ Jesus meant when He called Himself the Son of Man; surely you have some (interesting, I'm sure... :)) idea...

You want an interesting explanation? OK, how about this:

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

Whoever the son of man is, it's not God.

When He was made flesh and dwelt among us, yes. :) When, as Paul says, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, and was born in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6-7).

God is a servant? Verse 7 says Jesus was in the form of a servant. The word "likeness" in verse 7 is the same Greek word as "form" in verse 6. Also I might point out that Jesus appeared in "another form" to some of his disciples after his resurrection (Mark 16:12), thereby making him someone else other than God, at least temporarily. If "form" means identification or essential nature, then God sure changed around a lot. I guess Jesus wasn't God for a while in Mark? Better find out what "form" really means means. Also I might point out that if you are correct, then, given Phil 2:5, we should all think we are God. If Jesus thought he was actually God, then we, having the same mind as him, should also think we are God? There is no shortage of information on what the early church understood "form" to mean. It meant the outward appearance and nothing more than that.

You might also want to research that word "robbery." The basic meaning of the Greek word actually means, "something to be grasped." Adam was created in the image of God, as was Jesus. Adam thought he'd seize that opportunity to become God. Jesus, faced with the same temptation, didn't seize that opportunity. God is spirit (John 4:24). That is a clue to what it means to be in His image.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of (which is to say preeminent over) all creation. For by Him all things (not "all things except Himself, as you might have it) were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities ~ all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:15-20).

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

And the Roman coin the Pharisees showed Jesus is actually Caesar since it had Caesar's image? Jesus is absolutely all of the things you just quoted. What is missing though is any statement that he was God. An image of something is not the thing itself. The only way you can see your own eyes is in the image of the mirror, but those eyes in the mirror are not actually your eyes. Hope not anyway! :)

You might check out the meaning of a few small but important words, "in," "from," and "through." The corresponding Greek words are, "en," "ek," and "dia."

Also notice that the "beginning" Col 1:18 is relative to the resurrection. It is usually wrongly implied that the "beginning" in this verse refers to Genesis. It is instead talking about the new creation of Christ in us (verse 27). Jesus is the first born from among dead (some 4,000 years after genesis 1) and thus began the building or the beginning of the church of the body which is the new creation mentioned in verse 16. Verse 17 just says that Jesus is the one who started the church, not the cosmos.

Col 1:18,

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
​

 

[PinSeeker]

You did not just equate POTENTIAL with ACTUAL.

No, I didn't. Only you brought up "potential," as if it had anything to do with anything I said... :) I've said many times before, it is what it is. :)

Grace and peace to you, Wrangler.

 

[PinSeeker]

The fact is there is nowhere in the scriptures that mentions oosia (essence) in the scriptures.

But the fact is that Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. Likewise, the Spirit enjoys the same this perfect, complete union with the Father and the Son. Thus, the triune nature of God, their sharing of this one intrinsic nature, this indispensable quality that determines Their character ~ this is the very definition of one's essence. So regardless of the use or non-use of the term, it is what it is.

Just like But you can find it used in Plato's writings as well as other Greek philosophers.

Sure, and likewise, people who deny the veracity of the Bible use the fact that a great flood is found in the mythologies of many widely dispersed (in both time and location) people groups. But the fact that it is found in so many mythologies of many widely dispersed (in both time and location) people groups is indicative of a real event, the flood of Noah. So to what you say here in and of itself, yes, I agree, and I would actually posit that it goes beyond just Greek philosophers. The point being, yet again, you unwittingly argue against yourself, Rich. But

Actually we are the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, et.al.). Israel is the bride (Rev 21:2).

Yes, and who is Israel, Rich? You might want to take a look at what Paul says in Romans 11:25-26 before answering that question... :) Yes, so, ergo, Israel, Christ's Church, the body of Christ, God's Israel... all the same body of people. As Paul says very shortly after, "We, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another" (Romans 12:5).

In any case, I'm not sure of the point you are making here.

Ah, I'm pretty sure you do, you're just playing dumb. At least, I hope you are, because... it is what it is. :)

Maybe a figure of speech...

No... :)

But let's say that you and your wife are actually one person...

Why would you do that, Rich? Surely not because I suggested such, because I did not. But we are one flesh, just as Paul says, quoting God in Genesis 2.

You want an interesting explanation?

Ah yes, "interesting." :) Okay, shoot. Wait! Don't pull out your shotgun! :) See what I did there? :)

OK, how about this:

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

Whoever the son of man is, it's not God.

Ah, "interesting." :) Let's look at it again, this time without any... tampering... :) ...

ESV: "God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
NWT: "God is not a mere man who tells lies, nor a son of man who changes his mind."​

Of course, we know that Jesus does not change (as the Father does not). No, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). And further, what is being said here in Numbers 23 is a far cry from what Jesus is saying by calling Himself the (not "a," but the) Son of Man. He is making a direct reference to Daniel's prophecy, specifically Daniel 7, where Daniel writes:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came One like a son of man, and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)​

The immediate connection we make from that is to Isaiah, and to the writer of Hebrews, and to John's Revelation, respectively:

"For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 9:6-7)​

"But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.' And, 'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe You will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end." (Hebrews 1:8-12)​

"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever." (Revelation 14:15)​

God is a servant?

Great question! I could say more than this, of course, but I will just point out what Jesus Himself said in Mark 10:41-45, "Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Verse 7 says Jesus was in the form of a servant.

Right, right, born in the likeness of man, which is properly connected with how God, through Moses, speaks of "a son of man" in Numbers 23. :)

I think you've said before, Rich, that you're not a Jehovah's Witness, but your talking points are exactly the same. No thanks.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Wrangler]

No, I didn't. Only you brought up "potential," as if it had anything to do with anything I said

Well, it sure seemed like you equated unequal things.