"Before Abraham Was, I AM"

[ScottA]

Correct.
The changes would be HERETICAL, DESTRUCTIVE and given by false teachers.

If you believe Christianity has changed from about 30AD and changes have been made to the New Testament writers teachings, you're going to have to list which changes and HOW they could possibly be legitimate.


Arianism was corrected.
Antinonianism was corrected.
Docetism was corrected.

CORRECTED means they were NEVER in the NT teachings.

"The New Testament writers teachings" are not incorrect or even the issue. The matter is rather one of early interpretation.

In other words, the four Gospels and Revelation were correct in quoting Jesus as saying such things as, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation", and "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place." But by those "false teachers" foretold by Peter, not seeing Jesus "soon" or "quick" return "by observation" began to believe and teach that He would not come until the distant future--which are even now the most popular believes among the church, and are still being taught unto this day.

 

[Justified]

Yeshua was the visible (outer mosaic) human form of his Father; in other words, he carried the mind of his Father. He spoke his Father's words and carried out his Father's commands and expressions. Even his human gestures and mannerisms reflected his Father. Although he was never his Father, nor identical or truly equal to him, he was his Son, the Son of God in a very unique and personal way, very different from other men and other creatures called a son of God.

From a young age, Yeshua learned about his Father and his mission. By the time he first met John the Baptist, he had become a humble man, devoted solely to serving his Father. He chose to surrender his own will and spirit to his Father—this act of emptying himself—and formally declared this commitment through his baptism. Like Isaac with his Father, Yeshua and his Father, God, became human servants willing to die unconditionally for their Fathers.

This is a very weak explanation of the passage that changes the order of what Paul says. Notice that you say "He chose to surrender his own will and spirit to his Father—this act of emptying himself." But what does the Bible say?

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

There is clearly a sequential order to what Paul states. First, the Son "was in the form of God." Second, the Son "emptied himself." And Paul tells us how he emptied himself--"by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Notice that Paul contrasts the Son being "in the form of God" with "taking the form of servant." The meaning is the same in regards to "form." So, your claim--"Yeshua was the visible (outer mosaic) human form of his Father; in other words, he carried the mind of his Father."--doesn't make sense of the context at all. We should note also that "being found in human form" was the result of him emptying himself; the Son was the one who did the emptying, not the Father.

This is perfectly consistent with John 1:1 and 1:14--the Word always was (en), meaning had always existed, in an eternal, interpersonal relationship with (pros) God and was God in nature, and then entered time and became (egeneto) flesh. It is worth noting that egeneto is also used in verse 3, translated as "were made." John contrasts that with en, used three times in verse 1 and once in verse 2, which has the idea of continuous existence. He is showing who is eternal and what is not.

That is the consistent message throughout the NT.

Regarding how point #4 relates to #1...


By Yeshua's own choice, he accepted being expendable, even to the point of death for his Father. He then naturally filled this spiritual void and his purpose with his Father's purpose. He embraced, obeyed, and imitated his Father's will in both thought and action, who is God. It was as if he truly lived as his Father's natural Son, while still being a son of man.

1. Who "was in the form of God"?

4. How did he empty himself?

In light of what I have said above, about what the passage is saying, it seems that the only reasonable answer is that the Son "emptied himself" because being God in nature, he had the power to do so. We must be careful to understand that this does not mean he ceased being God, but simply that by taking on human nature, the way he existed as God became different; that he was willing to humble himself.

And that is precisely Paul's point of the passage--Christ's humility (vv. 1-4, 8). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) becoming human, a creature that he created, so that we could be saved from the mess we got ourselves into. That is the mind we are to have towards each other.

It's not too complex...

No, and yet it is. We must read what the Bible actually states plainly.

I don't see where you answered my question: What is "the word of the Father," according to Scripture?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pistis has no implication of obedience in Greek. The Demons trust HIM to be and are afraid. You can't have it both ways.

James lays out what faith is for the Christian (James 2:14-24). He states that justificaton comes NOT from faith (pistis) only - but from out obedience to that faith, by what we DO. Paul makes the same case in 1 Cor 13:1-3.

When the young rich man asked Jesus what he must do to obtain eternal life – did Jesus answer hm by saying that he must have faith? NO – he told him that he must follow the Commandments and DO what is right by giving to the poor and follow Him (Matt. 19:16-22).

Anyway – this conversation has strayed from the original objection to my posting the Biblical truth that the Church is ONE – not many . . .

 

[JustMe]

This is a very weak explanation of the passage that changes the order of what Paul says. Notice that you say "He chose to surrender his own will and spirit to his Father—this act of emptying himself." But what does the Bible say?

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

There is clearly a sequential order to what Paul states. First, the Son "was in the form of God." Second, the Son "emptied himself." And Paul tells us how he emptied himself--"by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Notice that Paul contrasts the Son being "in the form of God" with "taking the form of servant." The meaning is the same in regards to "form." So, your claim--"Yeshua was the visible (outer mosaic) human form of his Father; in other words, he carried the mind of his Father."--doesn't make sense of the context at all. We should note also that "being found in human form" was the result of him emptying himself; the Son was the one who did the emptying, not the Father.

This is perfectly consistent with John 1:1 and 1:14--the Word always was (en), meaning had always existed, in an eternal, interpersonal relationship with (pros) God and was God in nature, and then entered time and became (egeneto) flesh. It is worth noting that egeneto is also used in verse 3, translated as "were made." John contrasts that with en, used three times in verse 1 and once in verse 2, which has the idea of continuous existence. He is showing who is eternal and what is not.

That is the consistent message throughout the NT.


1. Who "was in the form of God"?

4. How did he empty himself?

In light of what I have said above, about what the passage is saying, it seems that the only reasonable answer is that the Son "emptied himself" because being God in nature, he had the power to do so. We must be careful to understand that this does not mean he ceased being God, but simply that by taking on human nature, the way he existed as God became different; that he was willing to humble himself.

And that is precisely Paul's point of the passage--Christ's humility (vv. 1-4, 8). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) becoming human, a creature that he created, so that we could be saved from the mess we got ourselves into. That is the mind we are to have towards each other.


No, and yet it is. We must read what the Bible actually states plainly.

I don't see where you answered my question: What is "the word of the Father," according to Scripture?

I do not agree at all with your assessment in this Philippians scripture and really I see no point to re-cover it again. You see weakness in my interpretation of it, where I see the simple truth in it.

I already gave you my casual definition for the word of the Father.

If you want to, I can give you another view of the word of the Father.

How about touching your John 1:14 again, where there is an established common interpretation of it where it sits in scripture. I promise it should give you something to think about. It is maybe a novel view for you and yet it's strictly a scriptural view.

 

[Justified]

I do not agree at all with your assessment in this Philippians scripture and really I see no point to re-cover it again. You see weakness in my interpretation of it, where I see the simple truth in it.

Of course you see simple truth in it, but you are not following the flow of Paul's thought, rearranging the order of things to suit your beliefs rather than letting the text speak for itself.

I already gave you my casual definition for the word of the Father.

If you want to, I can give you another view of the word of the Father.

Then I have missed it. Can you please just state it as plainly and succinctly as possible?

How about touching your John 1:14 again, where there is an established common interpretation of it where it sits in scripture. I promise it should give you something to think about. It is maybe a novel view for you and yet it's strictly a scriptural view.

Sorry, but I don't at all understand what you're saying here.

 

[saved by grace 101]

Of course you see simple truth in it, but you are not following the flow of Paul's thought,

Just being honest here. I have discussed this subject exhaustively over the years, far too much in fact after being goaded to do so when I first joined internet debating websites. And, I always found, those opposed to my view were only prepared to debate the scriptures they brought forth.

Yesterday, I put two scriptures up in response to the reason I voted C in a question by Trust Me(Luke3:22&John3:34) Your response was, they must come into line with scripture you then brought forth, so you just wanted to discuss your scriptures and unless I missing something here, that is the way you want to continue now

So, I will put to you, what you put to me yesterday concerning Paul, if you want his train of thought, bring your verses into line with these, they go directly to the subject matter:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must REIGN UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him(Christ), it is clear that THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself WILL BE MADE SUBJECT to him who put everything under him so that God will be all in all 1Cor15:24-28

 

[Justified]

You feel the Apostles didnt do a very good job in laying out who we must believe Christ to be to inherit eternal life?

Not at all. My point is that they did, but that simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God isn't sufficient if one has an unbiblical understanding of what "Son of God" actually means.

Look at the words of one of the Apostles:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Verse 18 is John's words. John is making the claim that by Jesus "calling God his own Father" he was "making himself equal with God."

That is why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus in John 10:30:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Notice what Jesus says in verse 36--it is because he claimed to be "the Son of God" that was to "make [himself] God" (v. 33), for which the Jews were going to stone him.

This is why in John 8:58 the Jews wanted to stone him, except there he explicitly claims to have existed for eternity, which is claim to be God:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

That is why I keep saying that Jesus said a lot of things, and so did his Apostles, and it must all be taken into account or it is being taken out of context and likely to lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[saved by grace 101]

Not at all. My point is that they did, but that simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God isn't sufficient if one has an unbiblical understanding of what "Son of God" actually means.

Look at the words of one of the Apostles:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Verse 18 is John's words. John is making the claim that by Jesus "calling God his own Father" he was "making himself equal with God."

That is why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus in John 10:30:

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Notice what Jesus says in verse 36--it is because he claimed to be "the Son of God" that was to "make [himself] God" (v. 33), for which the Jews were going to stone him.

This is why in John 8:58 the Jews wanted to stone him, except there he explicitly claims to have existed for eternity, which is claim to be God:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

That is why I keep saying that Jesus said a lot of things, and so did his Apostles, and it must all be taken into account or it is being taken out of context and likely to lead to wrong conclusions.

Why have you not addressed the scripture I quoted? Why are you only interested in debating the scriptures you bring forth?

 

[Justified]

What have you heard in the churches?
If you believe Jesus is the son of God but not the one true God you will be condemned to hell?
I wouldn't want to go to a church where that got preached!
I have told two trinitarian ministers what people say on the internet in this regard. They both shook their heads and laughed. Maybe the laughter was genuine, or maybe they were a bit embarrassed because they didn't preach it themselves, who knows.
Im quite content with the type of churches I go to, evangelical mainly

I have heard it stated that one must believe in the deity of Jesus, that he is truly and fully God just as he is truly and fully man, in order to be saved.

You're also not at all addressing my argument that many different groups, all believing themselves to be Christian, have irreconcilably contradictory view of what "Son of God" means, and all think they have salvation. The Bible is clear that who Jesus is is central to salvation.

 

[Justified]

Why have you not addressed the scripture I quoted? Why are you only interested in debating the scriptures you bring forth?

I'm getting there. Somehow I missed a few posts of yours and I'm trying to find that one.

But, I put the same question to you, as you have yet to address a single verse I have given, if I remember correctly. Please, be respectful and do unto others as you would have them to unto you. It will not do to expect others to address what you post but then not do so yourself.

 

[saved by grace 101]

I have heard it stated that one must believe in the deity of Jesus, that he is truly and fully God just as he is truly and fully man, in order to be saved.

You're also not at all addressing my argument that many different groups, all believing themselves to be Christian, have irreconcilably contradictory view of what "Son of God" means, and all think they have salvation. The Bible is clear that who Jesus is is central to salvation.

So how many times have you heard it stated from the pulpit if you believe Jesus is the son of God but not the one true God you will be cast into hell?

 

[saved by grace 101]

I'm getting there. Somehow I missed a few posts of yours and I'm trying to find that one.

But, I put the same question to you, as you have yet to address a single verse I have given, if I remember correctly. Please, be respectful and do unto others as you would have them to unto you. It will not do to expect others to address what you post but then not do so yourself.

You did not address Luke3:22&John3:34 did you, so to use your words you were not respectful, you just switched to other scriptures and said those scriptures must come into line with mine

 

[saved by grace 101]

I'm getting there. Somehow I missed a few posts of yours and I'm trying to find that one.

But, I put the same question to you, as you have yet to address a single verse I have given, if I remember correctly. Please, be respectful and do unto others as you would have them to unto you. It will not do to expect others to address what you post but then not do so yourself.

And if I did address your phillipians 2 quote, you would not then address 1Cor15, you would just say I am wrong and keep veering away from what has been placed before you

 

[saved by grace 101]

I'm getting there. Somehow I missed a few posts of yours and I'm trying to find that one.

But, I put the same question to you, as you have yet to address a single verse I have given, if I remember correctly. Please, be respectful and do unto others as you would have them to unto you. It will not do to expect others to address what you post but then not do so yourself.

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!



Christ was with the father from the beginning, the biblical beginning is creation. The Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ, therefore Christ can be said to have the nature of God. Though this is true Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

He made himself nothing by willingly submitting to the father and came to this earth. He humbled himself by doing so, appearing like as a man and was obedient to death on the cross



So, will you now address 1Cor15:24-28, or will you seek to deflect away from it by insisting we keep discussing these scriptures and or others?

 

[Justified]

You did not address Luke3:22&John3:34 did you, so to use your words you were not respectful, you just switched to other scriptures and said those scriptures must come into line with mine

No, here is what happened:

I provided verses in response to you and JustMe in response to your answer 'C.' That was HERE.

You responded to that without addressing that passage with your two verses, right underneath my post.

I then responded to your post with: "Okay, but this doesn't address the passages I gave. It would be nice if you would actually engage with the passages I gave, rather than making general statements and providing verses you think proves your point." That was right at the end of post which followed immediate after your response.

So, again, if you want others to engage with the Scriptures you post, then please be respectful, and consistent, and do likewise.

Your two verses go back to what I have stated a few times: everything must be taken into consideration, otherwise things are going to be taken out of context and in an incorrect understanding is likely to result.

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in BODILY FORM like a dove. Luke3:22

What do you think Luke 3:22 shows? It simply shows that Jesus is the Son of God. John the Baptist claimed that was a sign for him to know who the Lamb of God, the Son of God, was:

Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’
Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Joh 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Notice also that John the Baptist, who was conceived prior to Jesus and born prior to Jesus, claims that Jesus "ranked before [him], because he was before [him]."

Therefore, Luke 3:22 is best understood from a Trinitarian perspective. It certainly doesn't diminish the Trinity or the deity of Jesus in any way, nor mean that Jesus became the Son or the Messiah at his baptism. The Holy Spirit descending in bodily form like a dove was a sign of who Jesus was.

For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. John3:34

And what do you think this verse shows that is relevant to the Trinity or deity of Christ or the meaning of "Son of God"?

You gave no explanation of what you think these two verses mean or why you're posting them, so I don't really know how to address them.

 

[saved by grace 101]

What do you think Luke 3:22 shows? It simply shows that Jesus is the Son of God.

So why did the Holy Spirit descend on Christ in bodily form at his baptism, what was the need?
BTW
I have now addressed your phillipians quote, I will await your response to 1Cor15:24-28

 

[Justified]

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!



Christ was with the father from the beginning, the biblical beginning is creation. The Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ, therefore Christ can be said to have the nature of God. Though this is true Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

He made himself nothing by willingly submitting to the father and came to this earth. He humbled himself by doing so, appearing like as a man and was obedient to death on the cross

When did the Holy Spirit fully reside in Christ so that "Christ can be said to have the nature of God"?

So, will you now address 1Cor15:24-28, or will you seek to deflect away from it by insisting we keep discussing these scriptures and or others?

Please settle down. I haven't seen you post anything about 1 Cor. 15, and if you have, I already stated that I seemed to have missed some of your posts.

1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

So what do you want me to address here? What do you think it is saying that is relevant to the discussion?

 

[saved by grace 101]

When did the Holy Spirit fully reside in Christ so that "Christ can be said to have the nature of God"?


Please settle down. I haven't seen you post anything about 1 Cor. 15, and if you have, I already stated that I seemed to have missed some of your posts.

1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

So what do you want me to address here? What do you think it is saying that is relevant to the discussion?

Address everything in block capitals, including, when all is defeated including the last enemy death, Christ WILL be made SUBJECT to God
Or in your language, when all is defeated, including the last enemy death, God will be made subject to God

 

[saved by grace 101]

When did the Holy Spirit fully reside in Christ so that "Christ can be said to have the nature of God"?


Please settle down. I haven't seen you post anything about 1 Cor. 15, and if you have, I already stated that I seemed to have missed some of your posts.

1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

So what do you want me to address here? What do you think it is saying that is relevant to the discussion?

Here it is again :
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must REIGN UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him(Christ), it is clear that THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself WILL BE MADE SUBJECT to him who put everything under him so that God will be all in all 1Cor15:24-28

 

[ScottA]

That is a misquote. It is not "the hope of God", it is, Colossians 1:27 WEB:

(27) to whom God was pleased to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory;​

Colossians 3:4 WEB

(4) When Christ, our life, is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory.​

Ephesians 1:17-18 WEB

(17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him;​

(18) having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,​

If you are going to call a quote a "misquote" then quote the same verse the same, perhaps you should explain what you think is amiss when the words are the same.