Who really created the Son of God?

[GodsGrace]

Don't twist Paul's writings to fit your own paradigm.

2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted Heb 2:17–18.

Paul knew the Son of Man who became the Son of God with Power - he went from Sin's flesh to the first to partake in Divine Nature according to the promises which are all yes in him.

Christ was held captive himself until he crucified the flesh and led those also captive into himself.

Only man to ascend!
Only man to pass through the veil which is his rent flesh and now those who understand the victory have an anchor for their hope!
Only man to inherit a position higher than the angels having not held that state before!

One day you will be confronted with these truths dak!

One day YOU will be confronted with the truth.
And it's not what you post on these Forums.

And you think HEBREWS supports the view that Jesus is not God?

You posted 2:17-18

And then you eisegeted it.

The SON OF MAN
is
The SON OF GOD
is
GOD

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you for your kind words. It's very simply this: both you and Wrangler showed an interest in Adoptionism so I was prompted to hang out here in this thread for a while because there are indeed differences in types of Adoptionism. For example, I am not an Arian, (or at least not what they painted him to be after he was poisoned). I do indeed believe in a version of the "eternal Son doctrine", it's just that I do not believe the one and only-kind Son to be a man born into this world naturally, that is, physically. This isn't my own: even Paul teaches this, (and taught me this), in Ephesians 4:8-15. In this particular case all one needs to do is be prayerful, with an open heart, and study both the Ephesians passage and the background material Paul provides from the Psalm, realizing that Paul, of course, was not a cherry picker like modern mainstreamers who fancy themselves to be scripture exegetes. When those who penned the scriptures inserted quotes from other scripture passages, they intended the passage context for the text that was quoted or referred to, and are not stripping the quote from its context, (which actually contains the logos-understanding).

How about posting Ephesians 4:8-15 and explaining it.

And isn't this cherry picking??

Could you describe cherry picking for us po' folk?

And please do cherry pick Ephesians 4:8-15 and give us YOUR personal version of what it all means.
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Been busy this pm....

You have consistently replied in an instructional and edifying way, very well done. Thank you

I have come to realize that trying to correct clear mistakes in some of these posts is becoming pointless. The individuals behind these posts seem to have closed minds, firmly fixed in their Orthodox beliefs, with a rigid and institutionalized perspective on concepts like word, memra, logos, wisdom, the Father, and his chosen and 'adopted' Son.

These same individuals accuse me of creating my own path in interpreting scripture, opposing their cherished 'church' wisdom and mistaken theological ideas. Naturally, I do have my own path,

Yes sir.
You certainly do have your own path.
Give it a name but don't call it Christianity.

And, maybe, YOU have the closed mind.
Closed to what the church has believed from the very beginning.

Also, maybe you mean orthodox and NOT Orthodox.

Perhaps you could learn the difference.

OR
Maybe you did mean Orhodox, although I don't believe we have Orthodox posting on here - or maybe we do.

IF so,,,,I do wish they'd speak up and defend the christian religion.

guided by the spirit of the Son and the Father within me. I usually begin when they inspire me, and it is both wonderful and humbling when that occurs. I do not depend on the flawed wisdom and knowledge of humans,

Isn't that too bad JustMe since it is HUMANS that:
FOLLOWED JESUS
TAUGHT ABOUT HIM
WROTE ABOUT HIM
DECIDED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
CREATED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Yes sir.
MEN did all that.
But you don't like what MEN taught...
you'd rather start your own religion.
Which is fine.
Just don't call it Christianity.

which is inherently prone to deception and misguidance. The real problem lies in the lack of spiritual guidance and possession among many of these posters.

Anyway, I'm glad you are providing information that is both interesting and illuminating to me.

Try the bible instead.

I thought you didn't trust men??

 

[GodsGrace]

Not pride, confidence in what I have prayerfully studied.


So, because what I say disagrees with you, it’s not helpful and “motivating insight”?


That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong.


Again, pride. You’re assuming that you have or had no biases or preconceived ideas, or can simply set them aside; it’s only those who disagree with your position that have them, or do not set then aside.


Again, pride. You’re implying that those who disagree with your position don’t know more than you, or those with whom you agree.


Of course, but just make sure you’re not making assumptions about those things regarding those who disagree with your position.


Those are some of the reasons, yes.

Yes Justified,,,
THIS is how it is.

Those that teach heresy seem to believe they're very spiritual because, gosh, they know something we poor _Christians don't seem to be able to grasp.

They, and only they, know the truth.
Which truth?

The truth that was discovered some 200 years ago....
why believe what the church has taught from the beginning?
People back then were so ignorant..what did they know?

They only spent over 3 years with Jesus and then tried to teach what He taught and what they knew about Him.
Yeah. Musta been all wrong so now, since about 200 years ago, we need to correct what those po' confused Apostles thought about the person they followed around for years.

Yeah. Feeling a bit frustrated today...so no scripture will be offered.
Just statements.
Chritianity has already been established peeps.

YOU who teach heresy,,,,will not be changing it as long as Christians (such as Justified and myself and others) are on these forums.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yeshua is the real Son of God, conceived and born of a woman. Yeshua is a full-fledged God that sits on a throne to the right of His Father Yahweh in Heaven.

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Sitting At The Right Hand Of The Father?

Bible verses about Jesus Sitting At The Right Hand Of The Father

www.openbible.info

and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Matthew 3:17 and You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And....Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. John 20:17

 

[dak]

Don't twist Paul's writings to fit your own paradigm.

2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted Heb 2:17–18.

Paul knew the Son of Man who became the Son of God with Power - he went from Sin's flesh to the first to partake in Divine Nature according to the promises which are all yes in him.

Christ was held captive himself until he crucified the flesh and led those also captive into himself.

Only man to ascend!
Only man to pass through the veil which is his rent flesh and now those who understand the victory have an anchor for their hope!
Only man to inherit a position higher than the angels having not held that state before!

One day you will be confronted with these truths dak!

How about posting Ephesians 4:8-15 and explaining it.

And isn't this cherry picking??

Could you describe cherry picking for us po' folk?

And please do cherry pick Ephesians 4:8-15 and give us YOUR personal version of what it all means.
Thanks.

Ephesians 4:7-13
7 But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of the Χ̅Ρ.
8 Wherefore he says, "When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." [Psa 68:18]
9 Now this, "He ascended", what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
11 And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers,
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of the Χ̅Ρ,
13 until we all attain unto the unity of the faith-belief, and of the knowledge of the Son of Elohim, unto a fully-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Χ̅Ρ:

Paul exegetes the passage he quotes and I do not need to exegete Paul here, (as should be obvious), but what does the remainder of Paul's quote say in the full verse, in the portion which he did not quote from in the same verse?

Psalm 68:18
עלית למרום שבית שבי לקחת מתנות באדם ואף סוררים לשכן יה אלהים׃

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men, [Eph 4:8] but wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim might tabernacle there [therein].

Paul therefore, by his exegesis of the first half of the verse, inextricably links the Χ̅Ρ to Yah Elohim. Therefore I would strongly suggest a prayerful deep-dive study into the context and background context of the Eph 4 passage quoted above.

The Father has no need to descend or ascend because the heavens and the heaven of the heavens cannot contain Him, (Deut 10:14, 1Kgs 8:27, 2Chr 2:6, 6:18), and if one could ascend into the heavens, He is already there, and if one could descend into Sheol, He is already there, (see Psa 139:7-12). To descend and-or ascend, even from the highest heavens to the lowest inward parts of the earth and back up again, is by default an anthropomorphism: but the Father is not any kind of anthropomorphic figure. However the Word, even the Torah scroll, is indeed likened to a king dressed in purple or red robes and crown, and thus, an anthropomorphic figure spoken of many times in the Psalms, particularly those of king David.

Moreover the OG LXX contains blessed twice, instead of only once as found in the M/T at the beginning of the next verse, essentially at the break between verses eighteen and nineteen the word for blessed appears twice, divided at the break, and thus those who rendered the LXX were reading in the Hebrew text, "Yah Elohim the Blessed", (κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος). Do I need to exegete the importance of this to either of you? You should both already know what this means and its impact in the Gospel accounts, writings of the apostles, etc.

Psalm 68:18-19 OG LXX
18 ανεβης εις υψος ηχμαλωτευσας αιχμαλωσιαν ελαβες δοματα εν ανθρωπω και γαρ απειθουντες του κατασκηνωσαι κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος
19 ευλογητος κυριος ημεραν καθ ημεραν κατευοδωσει ημιν ο θεος των σωτηριων ημων διαψαλμα

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men [Eph 4:8] and wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim the Blessed might tabernacle there [or therein].

Translation note: I do not read אף as H637 yea in the Hebrew text here, but as H639 wrath, and thus I place it here in my LXX reading also, though it is a departure from the Greek text above.

The two most critical nomina sacra, Iota-Eta + Chi-Rho (Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ).

Ι̅Η = Yah Elohim
Χ̅Ρ = Chrestos (Good, Gracious, (Tob in Hebrew))
Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ = Yah Elohim the Gracious

And the Meshiah-Anointed One confirms this:

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come to me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I shall give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls:
30 for my yoke is chrestos, and my burden is light.

Taste and see that Yah is Chrestos, (Good, Gracious).

So if the Anointed One is Elohim Almighty then why would he even have any need of a yoke? And his yoke is chrestos? Understand that yokes were specially fitted for each animal, ox or bull, and thus no two yokes were the same because not all bulls and oxen have the same exact bodies: if the yoke was a bad fit it would be painful to its wearer, and the ox or bull might not even be willing to work if the pain was too much. Understand that this is the terminology of farm working animals, not the Almighty YHWH.

So who or what is this yoke of the Meshiah-Anointed One? From his immersion his yoke is clearly Ruach Elohim from Gen 1:2, the Spirit of the Father, the one-and-only, one-of-a-kind Son of the Father: Yah Elohim the Good, the Gracious, the Chrestos, (Χ̅Ρ).

But as for the Meshiah, the Christos, the Anointed One, the Chosen One, his name is also Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, but rightly divided it is not understood in the same manner, for example, obviously Χ̅Ρ stands for Christos in his case, rather than Chrestos: these two nomina sacra are the same, which are written throughout in all of the most ancient Uncial texts of the Greek N/T, but rightly divided they do not mean the same entity, person, or however you wish to describe them.

Moreover the Dove is also mentioned right before Psalm 68:18 in verse thirteen. The things I have previously stated herein are not my own doctrine but rather things which I have been taught and have learned from the Father in His Word, His Son.

 

[Wrangler]

The church, me included, used a lot of critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia, plenty of debates, disputations, discussions and polemics.

The only reason you have to make this claim is precisely because there is no trinitarian verse* in the Bible. One does not have to reason through that man was created on Day 6. One only need accept what Scripture explicitly teaches about what day man was created. See how much easier that is?

Let me ask you this, given your pedigree of outstanding critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia. Could it be that the Bible mentions in every Epistle "God the Father" and never "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" because the Father is the only true God, as Jesus, himself says in John 17:3?




* To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

 

[GodsGrace]

Ephesians 4:7-13
7 But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of the Χ̅Ρ.
8 Wherefore he says, "When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." [Psa 68:18]
9 Now this, "He ascended", what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
11 And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers,
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of the Χ̅Ρ,
13 until we all attain unto the unity of the faith-belief, and of the knowledge of the Son of Elohim, unto a fully-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Χ̅Ρ:

Paul exegetes the passage he quotes and I do not need to exegete Paul here, (as should be obvious), but what does the remainder of Paul's quote say in the full verse, in the portion which he did not quote from in the same verse?

Psalm 68:18
עלית למרום שבית שבי לקחת מתנות באדם ואף סוררים לשכן יה אלהים׃

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men, [Eph 4:8] but wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim might tabernacle there [therein].

Paul therefore, by his exegesis of the first half of the verse, inextricably links the Χ̅Ρ to Yah Elohim. Therefore I would strongly suggest a prayerful deep-dive study into the context and background context of the Eph 4 passage quoted above.

The Father has no need to descend or ascend because the heavens and the heaven of the heavens cannot contain Him, (Deut 10:14, 1Kgs 8:27, 2Chr 2:6, 6:18), and if one could ascend into the heavens, He is already there, and if one could descend into Sheol, He is already there, (see Psa 139:7-12). To descend and-or ascend, even from the highest heavens to the lowest inward parts of the earth and back up again, is by default an anthropomorphism: but the Father is not any kind of anthropomorphic figure. However the Word, even the Torah scroll, is indeed likened to a king dressed in purple or red robes and crown, and thus, an anthropomorphic figure spoken of many times in the Psalms, particularly those of king David.

Moreover the OG LXX contains blessed twice, instead of only once as found in the M/T at the beginning of the next verse, essentially at the break between verses eighteen and nineteen the word for blessed appears twice, divided at the break, and thus those who rendered the LXX were reading in the Hebrew text, "Yah Elohim the Blessed", (κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος). Do I need to exegete the importance of this to either of you? You should both already know what this means and its impact in the Gospel accounts, writings of the apostles, etc.

Psalm 68:18-19 OG LXX
18 ανεβης εις υψος ηχμαλωτευσας αιχμαλωσιαν ελαβες δοματα εν ανθρωπω και γαρ απειθουντες του κατασκηνωσαι κυριος ο θεος ευλογητος
19 ευλογητος κυριος ημεραν καθ ημεραν κατευοδωσει ημιν ο θεος των σωτηριων ημων διαψαλμα

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive, You have brought gifts among men [Eph 4:8] and wrath to the rebellious, that Yah Elohim the Blessed might tabernacle there [or therein].

Translation note: I do not read אף as H637 yea in the Hebrew text here, but as H639 wrath, and thus I place it here in my LXX reading also, though it is a departure from the Greek text above.

The two most critical nomina sacra, Iota-Eta + Chi-Rho (Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ).

Ι̅Η = Yah Elohim
Χ̅Ρ = Chrestos (Good, Gracious, (Tob in Hebrew))
Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ = Yah Elohim the Gracious

And the Meshiah-Anointed One confirms this:

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come to me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I shall give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls:
30 for my yoke is chrestos, and my burden is light.

Taste and see that Yah is Chrestos, (Good, Gracious).

So if the Anointed One is Elohim Almighty then why would he even have any need of a yoke? And his yoke is chrestos? Understand that yokes were specially fitted for each animal, ox or bull, and thus no two yokes were the same because not all bulls and oxen have the same exact bodies: if the yoke was a bad fit it would be painful to its wearer, and the ox or bull might not even be willing to work if the pain was too much. Understand that this is the terminology of farm working animals, not the Almighty YHWH.

So who or what is this yoke of the Meshiah-Anointed One? From his immersion his yoke is clearly Ruach Elohim from Gen 1:2, the Spirit of the Father, the one-and-only, one-of-a-kind Son of the Father: Yah Elohim the Good, the Gracious, the Chrestos, (Χ̅Ρ).

But as for the Meshiah, the Christos, the Anointed One, the Chosen One, his name is also Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, but rightly divided it is not understood in the same manner, for example, obviously Χ̅Ρ stands for Christos in his case, rather than Chrestos: these two nomina sacra are the same, which are written throughout in all of the most ancient Uncial texts of the Greek N/T, but rightly divided they do not mean the same entity, person, or however you wish to describe them.

Moreover the Dove is also mentioned right before Psalm 68:18 in verse thirteen. The things I have previously stated herein are not my own doctrine but rather things which I have been taught and have learned from the Father in His Word, His Son.

Nice word salad and in different languages.
Surely you must know Hebrew and Greek.
And those who know Hebrew and Greek will apparently agree with you...no doubt.

Maybe you could try again...
You know, make believe you're speaking to a five year old.

This is what I asked for :
EXEGESIS of Ephesians 4:7-13

I'll do it for you since you're too higly educated to do this...
as soon as I get back.

You musta learned from Auntie Jane.

OR
Maybe I'll take the time necessary to reply to your word salad.

Like why would §God need a yoke.

I mean REALLY dak.
Are ya serious?

Surely you must know what Jesus is referring to?
Maybe the YOKE the pharisees had put on the Jews?
Maybe HIS yoke is easier due to the NC?

Later.

 

[GodsGrace]

The only reason you have to make this claim is precisely because there is no trinitarian verse* in the Bible. One does not have to reason through that man was created on Day 6. One only need accept what Scripture explicitly teaches about what day man was created. See how much easier that is?

Let me ask you this, given your pedigree of outstanding critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia. Could it be that the Bible mentions in every Epistle "God the Father" and never "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" because the Father is the only true God, as Jesus, himself says in John 17:3?




* To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

It's such a darn shame that the bible was not written the way YOU would have liked it to be written.

You see Wrangler....the writers of the NT NEVER thought someone, you know - looking down the corridors of time - would EVER think that some guy would teach that JESUS IS NOT GOD...

Oh, had they only known, they might have written the NT the way YOU would have liked.

But heresy was not on the mind of the NT writers...

The heretics came after.

And the church did CRUSH them...

but, alas, here they are AGAIN...
and they will be crushed AGAIN.

 

[HealthyShape]

The only reason you have to make this claim is precisely because there is no trinitarian verse* in the Bible. One does not have to reason through that man was created on Day 6. One only need accept what Scripture explicitly teaches about what day man was created. See how much easier that is?

Let me ask you this, given your pedigree of outstanding critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia. Could it be that the Bible mentions in every Epistle "God the Father" and never "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" because the Father is the only true God, as Jesus, himself says in John 17:3?




* To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

Instead of speculating what you think the New Testament means, read the first church writings and you will see.

There are plenty of explicit verses in the New Testament saying that Jesus is God. If you ignore them till now, you will ignore them also after I will repeat them, so there is no point in doing that.

 

[dak]

Nice word salad and in different languages.
Surely you must know Hebrew and Greek.
And those who know Hebrew and Greek will apparently agree with you...no doubt.

Maybe you could try again...
You know, make believe you're speaking to a five year old.

This is what I asked for :
EXEGESIS of Ephesians 4:7-13

I'll do it for you since you're too higly educated to do this...
as soon as I get back.

You musta learned from Auntie Jane.

OR
Maybe I'll take the time necessary to reply to your word salad.

Like why would §God need a yoke.

I mean REALLY dak.
Are ya serious?

Surely you must know what Jesus is referring to?
Maybe the YOKE the pharisees had put on the Jews?
Maybe HIS yoke is easier due to the NC?

Later.

His yoke also speaks of another famous passage statement Trinitarians love to (mis)quote.

Isaiah 6:9 YLT
6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 6:9 LSV
6 For a Child has been born to us, || A Son has been given to us, || And the dominion is on His shoulder, || And He calls His Name || Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, || Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

The Hebrew word for shoulder here, (shekem), actually means the spur of a hill or the back of the neck between the shoulders, the place of burdens, and the place where the yoke rests on an ox or bull, etc. The Princely Power of the Dominion-Government is the one and only-kind Son of Elohim: the Word of the Father, the Testimony of the Father, and the Witness of the Father.

Isaiah 6:9
6 For a child has been born unto us, a son has been given unto us, and the princely power (of the dominion) is upon His neck: and he calls His name, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty El, my Father's Witness/Testimony, (אבי עד), the Prince of Peace.

 

[Wrangler]

It's such a darn shame that the bible was not written the way YOU would have liked it to be written.

Serious projection there GG. the Bible is not written the way trinitarians would have liked it to be written.

LOL On the contrary. Jeremiah 15:16, Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O LORD, God of hosts.

 

[Wrangler]

Instead of speculating what you think the New Testament means

Trinitarians are the ones who speculate - and worse. Extreme eisegesis at every ambiguous verse. It doesn't surprise me that you once again refuse to answer my simple questions.

One does not have to reason through that man was created on Day 6. One only need accept what Scripture explicitly teaches about what day man was created. See how much easier that is?

Let me ask you this, given your pedigree of outstanding critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia. Could it be that the Bible mentions in every Epistle "God the Father" and never "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" because the Father is the only true God, as Jesus, himself says in John 17:3?

read the first church writings and you will see.

Why do you give less weight to the Apostolic writers?

 

[HealthyShape]

Trinitarians are the ones who speculate - and worse. Extreme eisegesis at every ambiguous verse. It doesn't surprise me that you once again refuse to answer my simple questions.








Why do you give less weight to the Apostolic writers?

That the trinitarian terminology was not as developed in the first century as it was in the fourth century, is a known fact, you do not need to ask or try me about that. Yes, the first church commonly referred to Father as God and to Jesus as Lord and to the Holy Spirit as Spirit. But all three persons were already identified as God and Jesus as the Son, in the New Testament and in the first church.

That you have no "God the Son" or "the Trinity" term used in the New Testament does not change anything factual about Jesus - He is both God and the Son, He was begotten and not created. These facts are not in ambiguous verses, but in explicit, literal verses.

 

[NayborBear]

(whew!....reading through 9 pages,and growing. and probably continue to grow!..............but such a read!!)

There are those of the "closed, fleshly, man(mind)set", that believe, and I truly do believe these ones' do believe in the concept and/or idea of eternity. But, as yet, have not much knowledge, nor dealings with that which is required to be included, or selected into as is explained in 1 Peter 2:5 "the Holy Priesthood!"
Q: Which is what class? (I say this like some of these other teachers: Like Just Me, or dak)
A: The Order of Melchizedek!

I read where a question was asked by a poster as to where Jesus was before He was born of woman?
Example: Where is that new carpet you can afford to, but, as yet, the old carpet is not yet soiled enough to replace?
A: It's an idea, or plan that is not yet the proper time in implementing! Right? Because you know that eventually, at a time yet to be determined, or appointed by you, that you're going to replace that carpet.
And yes?
It's as simple as that, boys and girls!

I don't mean to come off sounding so condescending! But? Because of vanity? Y'all making it so much more complicated than it really is!
It's because it's simple? Does no wise mean it's easy! And, that's where Revelation 12:9 rears its ugly head!

 

[Wrangler]

I read where a question was asked by a poster as to where Jesus was before He was born of woman?
Example: Where is that new carpet you can afford to, but, as yet, the old carpet is not yet soiled enough to replace?
A: It's an idea, or plan that is not yet the proper time in implementing! Right? Because you know that eventually, at a time yet to be determined, or appointed by you, that you're going to replace that carpet.
And yes?
It's as simple as that, boys and girls!

This idea is something @Matthias subscribes to and got me to buy into as well. There is a term for it. Perhaps he can remind us what the term is?

Anyway, the concept behind this word is that like your carpet example, God's plan is unfolding and certain things exist only in his mind while other things are physically or materially manifest. It's kind of like a debate I had with a friend decades ago. Does Rumpelstiltskin exist? Yes, he exists as a fictional character - a product only of the mind. His existence is not a metaphysical reality but a fictional reality. The same with God's plans and ideas including his plan of salvation before his Spirit conceived his son in a 1st century Jewish woman.

I do like the dual sense of conceive: idea and beginning of life, including the beginning of the life of a 1st century Jewish carpenter named Jesus that we've read so much about.

 

[HealthyShape]

(whew!....reading through 9 pages,and growing. and probably continue to grow!..............but such a read!!)

There are those of the "closed, fleshly, man(mind)set", that believe, and I truly do believe these ones' do believe in the concept and/or idea of eternity. But, as yet, have not much knowledge, nor dealings with that which is required to be included, or selected into as is explained in 1 Peter 2:5 "the Holy Priesthood!"
Q: Which is what class? (I say this like some of these other teachers: Like Just Me, or dak)
A: The Order of Melchizedek!

I read where a question was asked by a poster as to where Jesus was before He was born of woman?
Example: Where is that new carpet you can afford to, but, as yet, the old carpet is not yet soiled enough to replace?
A: It's an idea, or plan that is not yet the proper time in implementing! Right? Because you know that eventually, at a time yet to be determined, or appointed by you, that you're going to replace that carpet.
And yes?
It's as simple as that, boys and girls!

I don't mean to come off sounding so condescending! But? Because of vanity? Y'all making it so much more complicated than it really is!
It's because it's simple? Does no wise mean it's easy! And, that's where Revelation 12:9 rears its ugly head!

Your post is terribly unreadable, but if you try to say that Jesus existed before His birth "as a plan", then it is heresy, not Christianity.

 

[Wrangler]

But all three persons were already identified as God

Yet, not one verse actually says what you claim.

 

[Wrangler]

to say that Jesus existed before His birth "as a plan", then it is heresy, not Christianity.

Heresy is like a quality standard. It either conforms to the standard or not. In the case of religion, "orthodoxy" is the standard and "heterodoxy" is the heresy. These terms are relative to majority and minority views, not absolute right and wrong. Isn't religious freedom a wonderful God-given liberty?

 

[HealthyShape]

Yet, not one verse actually says what you claim.

Just because you are lazy to put three verses together?