Search results

On John 17:5, I recommend to readers the writing of H.H. Wendt. I’ll look it up and post it for the reader’s convenience.

He’s dead. He believed what you believe in so far as the two of you both believe in literal preexistence. He’s showing us in his analysis that what you and he believe is not what they believed. “The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) in 1:16, 20 suggests that...

I agree with the trinitarian scholar on this point, totally and completely! Because he agrees with me? No. Because he’s telling us accurately and precisely what Luke (and Matthew) actually wrote. The scholar himself still believes in literal preexistence. He couldn’t be a trinitarian if he...

Ideal preexistence. Brown is demonstrating in his commentary that literal preexistence isn’t what Matthew and Luke had in mind. Literal preexistence is unknown to them. No literal preexistence = no trinitarian.

I invite you to read his book. He’s one of the top trinitarian scholars of the 20th century and his book is the most thorough study of the topic of which I’m aware. “In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was...

Not for Luke, is the trinitarian scholar’s point.

But if no longer human then some kind of non-human. An ethereal “spirit” person?

“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the NT, three are in Luke / Acts. It involves a certain causality; and Lyonett, ‘L’ Annonciation,’ 61:6, points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s...

McGrath says some things about the Trinity which capture my attention. For example, “The doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This...

That’s right. He will when he returns.

You’ve inspired me to acquire another book - “Christian Theology: An Introduction” written by Alister McGrath. Have you by any chance read it?

Nor can a horse become a horse-man, or you a man-horse.

Among human persons, yes. He saw the Father’s back parts. A human person is now sitting next to the Father in heaven. He surely has seen the Father too.

Seeing the Father’s back parts is seeing the Father. “Face to face” is an idiom. As you point out, no human can see the Father’s face, at least not as long as we are mortal, and live. I believe all of God’s sons and daughters will see our God and Father’s face once we are changed from mortal to...

That’s why I’m continuing to comment on it; providing support from trinitarian concessions. I’ve said all along that it’s serious and that it matters.

Thanks. I know what you believe, having believed it once myself.

“… the Trinitarian sense should not be here applied to the term Son of God. The notion of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is quite foreign to the context.” (Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, p. 91) The “Trinitarian sense,” acknowledges /...

Ideal preexistence. Jesus was begotten and conceived. I don’t deny any scripture. We obviously aren’t united.

We aren’t united in faith. If we were united in faith you wouldn’t be saying that. Scripture shows me that he was.

I’m showing you that you aren’t thinking the way believing Jews think. You’ve also said that it doesn’t matter and you believe we’re united.