"Before Abraham Was, I AM"

[JustMe]

You both think that the Father took on human form, and that he did so at "his baptism"?

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
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.

How does answer "c" take those passages into account?

You are mistaken in your conclusion here. I never said, deduced or even inferred that the Father 'took on' any human form. That's going way to far..

Need to pay more attention.

Let me spell it out once more. Yeshua the man, the 2nd Adam, not born to sin as in corrupted man, still required his Father's spirit to be present within his own spirit to perform his mission successfully. It would have been impossible for Yeshua to complete his mission successfully to the Cross otherwise. Yeshua, the Son, needed his fathers' word and his enhanced. empowering spirit embedded within him to succeed. They were AS (still separate spirits) one spirit and worked and walked to the Cross together.

Now does that sound like any transformation of the Father, who is the only God. Not at all! It was the Son who was transformed from within as the man chosen by God. There is the a true description or version and definition of Yeshua's anointing - the Messiah of God.

 

[Justified]

You are mistaken in your conclusion here. I never said, deduced or even inferred that the Father 'took on' any human form. That's going way to far..

Need to pay more attention.

Fair enough; I misread that. What is "the word of the Father," according to Scripture?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Let me spell it out once more. Yeshua the man, the 2nd Adam, not born to sin as in corrupted man, still required his Father's spirit to be present within his own spirit to perform his mission successfully. It would have been impossible for Yeshua to complete his mission successfully to the Cross otherwise. Yeshua, the Son, needed his fathers' word and his enhanced. empowering spirit embedded within him to succeed. They were AS (still separate spirits) one spirit and worked and walked to the Cross together.

Now does that sound like any transformation of the Father, who is the only God. Not at all! It was the Son who was transformed from within as the man chosen by God. There is the a true description or version and definition of Yeshua's anointing - the Messiah of God.

And how does that take Phil. 2:5-8 into account?

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
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.

1. Who "was in the form of God"?
2. Who "emptied himself"?
3. What did he empty himself of?
4. How did he empty himself?
5. How does question 4 relate to question 1?

 

[JustMe]

Fair enough; I misread that. What is "the word of the Father," according to Scripture?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.


And how does that take Phil. 2:5-8 into account?

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
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.

1. Who "was in the form of God"?
2. Who "emptied himself"?
3. What did he empty himself of?
4. How did he empty himself?
5. How does question 4 relate to question 1?

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.

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.

It's not too complex...

 

[saved by grace 101]

First, Yeshua does not have to say everything that will satisfy your queries, not mine or any one else's for that matter. You have to refer to other scripture to deduce some of these facts you want to see clearly in scripture.

You can speculate all day long about what the Jews thought of Yeshua. He was clearly saying in verse 58 that he 'existed' before Abraham, as the future Son of God for his Father's purpose, and was then fulfilling it as he spoke to these Pharisees, at that moment.

You can imagine what the Pharisees thought he meant when Yeshua spoke his words of truth. They were already furious because he said he was the Son of God and the Messiah. So, Him saying he was from his Father, who existed before Abraham, and thus greater that Abraham, must have outraged them once more. I don't think they ever once thought he was God as they would have thought he was demon possessed as they already accused him of being before.

Second, adding in John 8:23 does support Yeshua's words in verse 58, although not in the way you think it does.

Verse 23 is saying clearly that Yeshua was born from his Father, by his will, who is above and not of this world, and that's why he also claimed to be the same in this regard as his Father, to contrast him from the man of the earth of corrupt will. These are idioms you know..

I dislike getting embroiled in one sided conversations, and Im not a scholar or theologian anyway, but this is how I see it.

Christ was with God in the beginning, the biblical beginning is creation. Christ is the word of God, for the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ and the word always comes through the Holy Spirit. That is how God spoke through the prophets.

Hence all things came from God, through Christ(1Cor8:6)

The word became flesh and dwelt among us. As is, the Holy Spirit was on Christ in bodily form.

If the Holy Spirit fully dwells in Christ, he always has had the form of God within him. But he emptied himself of that form when he was born of Mary, he was then born in human likeness.

But he could not start his ministry on earth, until the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form at His baptism.

So now God via the Spirit is fully in Christ.

So although Christ was in the form of God, and we can say always has been, that did not mean he considered equality with God was something to be grasped.

And this leads to an interesting point. In my view, the real difference of opinion here, is not in the essence of Christ but his title. If the father via the Spirit fully dwells in Christ, as everyone seems to agree, then it is ridiculous under such circumstances to say you cannot accept the title laid down all over the NT as to who Christ must be believed to be to be saved. Such a belief comes from scholars and theologians, who Im sure have great academic minds but are not being led in truth by the Holy Spirit.

BTW

In the above I do not claim perfect understanding, but I have never been convicted this subject should be my number one priority. In fact, until I ventured onto the internet at the tender age of fifty, I had no cause to reflect much on it, for I didn’t find people in the churches who wanted to discuss it. It seems to me to be a debate for the internet

 

[GodsGrace]

That is an incorrect statement for a huge amount of people who go to Trinitarian churches
My best guess, with over forty years experience, is roughly half the people who go to trinitarian churches solely believe Jesus to be the son of God. And I can say with confidence, well over 90% of Trinitarian churchgoers would happily accept anyone as a christian who solely terms Christ the son of God.
It is only on the internet it is so different

Jesus IS the Son of God.
Jesus IS the Son of Man.

Because some Christians do NOT understand their Christian faith
does not make null and void Christian theology.

There are members on this very Forum who claim to be Christian and
yet do not either know, or accepty, Christian theology which has been taught
from the beginning of the Christian religion.

Do you believe Jesus is not God?

 

[GodsGrace]

You may believe that if you wish

I don't believe what I wish.
I believe what is a fact.

Do YOU not believe that Christianity is 2 thousand years old?
WHEN do YOU believe some began to change accepted Christian beliefs from 2 thousand years ago?

OSAS was introduced, in its present form, about 200 years ago....a belief that grew out of Calvinism.
Jesus as only being a man was introduced about 200 years ago - a belief that was deemed not Christian in 325AD

There's more...but those are the most important.

If you believe OSAS was in the early church, please show it.
If you believe the early church did not believe Jesus is God, please show it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I simply broke it down "as it is written"..."male and female", for Eve was a part taken out of Adam. The distinction of which God has seen fit to reveal.


It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not fully a man or a "Son of man."

You know better Scott.
Please don't use "Son of man" to mean that Jesus was the son of a human being.
Son of Man is found in Daniel 7 and is referring to one who would come and that someone is Jesus.

Daniel 7:13-14
“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And came near before Him.
14 And to Him was given [a]dominion,
Glory, and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and men of every tongue
Might serve Him.
His [b]dominion is an everlasting [c]dominion
Which will not be taken away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man.

Matthew 9:6
6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He *said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”


Mark 14:62
62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

As a man, He too was "tempted", and qualified therefore to fulfill the sin debt upon all humanity, as a man. Indeed, as a Son of God Jesus could have brought salvation--but if not born a man (the Son of man) the cross would simply be theatrics, even unnecessary.

Agreed, of course, that Jesus was tempted.
But it's the sin nature that makes us sin when tempted.
Jesus never sinned.

I also agree that Jesus had to be man in order to fulfill His being the Savior of mankind.
He had to be both man and God.

I do understand your sentiments--how can think otherwise--for we revere Him. But what you say about "a sinful nature and a divine nature cannot co-exist"--does have one exception, even stated as a "mystery": "Christ in you the hope of God." Which, with further revelation, is "the first resurrection."--the "firstfruits" with Christ...or as Paul referred to us as "we who are alive and remain"--alive in God, but remaining in the world for the remainder of our natural life.

You'll have to provide scripture regarding your statements above.
There is no mystery.

GOD does NOT have the sin nature.
The sin nature is NOT an attribute of God.

It is the sin nature that CAUSES sin.


Hebrews 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things like we are, yet without sin.


Hebrews 7:26
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;


Hebrews 9:14
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through [a]the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse [b]your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


2 Corinthians 5:21
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[GodsGrace]

Biblically speaking--Christianity has changed--and was foretold to change early on...by "false teachers" teaching "destructive heresies" causing "strong delusion."

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.

And what of Paul's words regarding "correction" among the church--what correction would be necessary if Christianity never became apostate?

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

CORRECTED means they were NEVER in the NT teachings.

 

[GodsGrace]

What is taught is poison. What was taught in the 1st century aligns with the minority view, and always has been that way by design. I don't want to die out of ignorance by depending on ignorant people. You can believe if course what you want.

You can call it Adoptionism and it being heretical as if that really matters much when the truth is at stake. And do you really know its true meaning and the effect on our salvation. The Father is always greater than the Son. Read your Bible and it speaks to this point many times over. And this greatness was clearly accented by his Father, birthing his Son and then at his anointing and afterwards. How can you be so blind not to see this in scripture is beyond me.

And so you must think that Yeshua's anointing was not the miraculous transformation of his human spirit by the empowerment of his Father's word and Spirit. It caused Yeshua to be successful because of his Father's embedded word within him.

Without this word planted within Yeshua, he would have most certainly have failed his mission, as he was only still a mortal man, without superhuman strength, determination and power.

ADOPTIONISM IS HERETICAL.

The TRUTH is that Jesus is God and has always existed.

Your post is rather vague and if you care to respond, please post scripture supporting what you're stating above.

 

[saved by grace 101]

I don't believe what I wish.
I believe what is a fact.

Do YOU not believe that Christianity is 2 thousand years old?
WHEN do YOU believe some began to change accepted Christian beliefs from 2 thousand years ago?

OSAS was introduced, in its present form, about 200 years ago....a belief that grew out of Calvinism.
Jesus as only being a man was introduced about 200 years ago - a belief that was deemed not Christian in 325AD

There's more...but those are the most important.

If you believe OSAS was in the early church, please show it.
If you believe the early church did not believe Jesus is God, please show it.

If you believe that since day one every christian referred to Christ as God Himself you are very wrong

 

[JustMe]

I dislike getting embroiled in one sided conversations, and Im not a scholar or theologian anyway, but this is how I see it.

Christ was with God in the beginning, the biblical beginning is creation. Christ is the word of God, for the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ and the word always comes through the Holy Spirit. That is how God spoke through the prophets.

Hence all things came from God, through Christ(1Cor8:6)

The word became flesh and dwelt among us. As is, the Holy Spirit was on Christ in bodily form.

If the Holy Spirit fully dwells in Christ, he always has had the form of God within him. But he emptied himself of that form when he was born of Mary, he was then born in human likeness.

But he could not start his ministry on earth, until the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form at His baptism.

So now God via the Spirit is fully in Christ.

So although Christ was in the form of God, and we can say always has been, that did not mean he considered equality with God was something to be grasped.

And this leads to an interesting point. In my view, the real difference of opinion here, is not in the essence of Christ but his title. If the father via the Spirit fully dwells in Christ, as everyone seems to agree, then it is ridiculous under such circumstances to say you cannot accept the title laid down all over the NT as to who Christ must be believed to be to be saved. Such a belief comes from scholars and theologians, who Im sure have great academic minds but are not being led in truth by the Holy Spirit.

BTW

In the above I do not claim perfect understanding, but I have never been convicted this subject should be my number one priority. In fact, until I ventured onto the internet at the tender age of fifty, I had no cause to reflect much on it, for I didn’t find people in the churches who wanted to discuss it. It seems to me to be a debate for the internet

No, you don't need to get embroiled into anything. I like to know the similarities and difference in people's beliefs. That's fine.

We apparently differ in the timing of the real existence of Yeshua. I see Yeshua only pre-existing as the thought and in the plans of his Father, who is God. Not actually so-called pre-existing and doing nothing until he was on the earth. HIs natural birth is the first of his existence. Besides, it's impossible to have two different existences and be the same being throughout this process, and into the future. Well, Yeshua is a new existence as a new being at least, since his resurrection, although many with still try to say this third time, this third so-called existence is still the same being, Yeshua. He is quite different today as King.

And Yeshua became the word of God since his baptism and anointing, and not before that time. John 1:14b is there for a good reason, to show the timing in when he became the word of his Father. As it also synchs with the local context by the verses before and after this particular verse, quite well.

Yes. all things came through, and not by, Christ for creation and thus by the source, the Father, always.

And the word is the Father's expression, commands, divine form of communication, and voice that places all things into existence and this same word, eventually was transferred to his Son as you have already spoken about or at least eluded to..

 

[saved by grace 101]

Jesus IS the Son of God.
Jesus IS the Son of Man.

Because some Christians do NOT understand their Christian faith
does not make null and void Christian theology.

There are members on this very Forum who claim to be Christian and
yet do not either know, or accepty, Christian theology which has been taught
from the beginning of the Christian religion.

Do you believe Jesus is not God?

I believe the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ, yet the Father is greater than he and the one true God. Christ's title is the Son of God
Let's look at this, you believe the Holy Spirit is God Himself. Therefore, we believe the same as to the essence of Christ, the Father fully dwells in him via the spirit. So where do we disagree? As to the title of Christ. What title must you give Christ to be saved? How many scriptures do you want? Now in the circumstances as we only disagree as to the title of Christ, I have to say, for anyone to make a big thing of it, shows their god is their theological mindset, nothing to do with Holy Spirit discernment

 

[GodsGrace]

If you believe that since day one every christian referred to Christ as God Himself you are very wrong

You're going to have to prove what you state.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ, yet the Father is greater than he and the one true God. Christ's title is the Son of God
Let's look at this, you believe the Holy Spirit is God Himself. Therefore, we believe the same as to the essence of Christ, the Father fully dwells in him via the spirit. So where do we disagree? As to the title of Christ. What title must you give Christ to be saved? How many scriptures do you want? Now in the circumstances as we only disagree as to the title of Christ, I have to say, for anyone to make a big thing of it, shows their god is their theological mindset, nothing to do with Holy Spirit discernment

I'm afraid you're going to have to use scripture.
Again,,personal statements and opinions are irrelevant when it comes to theology.

 

[saved by grace 101]

No, you don't need to get embroiled into anything. I like to know the similarities and difference in people's beliefs. That's fine.

We apparently differ in the timing of the real existence of Yeshua. I see Yeshua only pre-existing as the thought and in the plans of his Father, who is God. Not actually so-called pre-existing and doing nothing until he was on the earth. HIs natural birth is the first of his existence. Besides, it's impossible to have two different existences and be the same being throughout this process, and into the future. Well, Yeshua is a new existence as a new being at least, since his resurrection, although many with still try to say this third time, this third so-called existence is still the same being, Yeshua. He is quite different today as King.

And Yeshua became the word of God since his baptism and anointing, and not before that time. John 1:14b is there for a good reason, to show the timing in when he became the word of his Father. As it also synchs with the local context by the verses before and after this particular verse, quite well.

Yes. all things came through, and not by, Christ for creation and thus by the source, the Father, always.

And the word is the Father's expression, commands, divine form of communication, and voice that places all things into existence and this same word, eventually was transferred to his Son as you have already spoken about or at least eluded to..

How can everything have come through Christ if he did not exist before he was born of Mary? Unless I am misunderstanding you.
Paul said the spiritual rock that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness was Christ(1Cor10:4) you wouldn't take that literally?

 

[JustMe]

ADOPTIONISM IS HERETICAL.

The TRUTH is that Jesus is God and has always existed.

Your post is rather vague and if you care to respond, please post scripture supporting what you're stating above.

Rave on, as usual, and capitalizing words does not make them any more truthful than keeping them all lowercased. And please be careful not to add words into your post, as my words, like the definition of adoptionism that I've not yet really defined yet; so you can then do your typical routine of building up a false argument - your modus operandi.

 

[saved by grace 101]

I'm afraid you're going to have to use scripture.
Again,,personal statements and opinions are irrelevant when it comes to theology.

JUST AS you are in me and I am in you may they(believers) also be in us John20:21
How can we be in Father and Son? Only through the Holy Spirit
JUST AS....

 

[GodsGrace]

JUST AS you are in me and I am in you may they(believers) also be in us John20:21
How can we be in Father and Son? Only through the Holy Spirit
JUST AS....

I thought you were speaking about the Trinity.
Apparently we're not speaking about the same topic.

 

[GodsGrace]

Rave on, as usual, and capitalizing words does not make them any more truthful than keeping them all lowercased. And please be careful not to add words into your post, as my words, like the definition of adoptionism that I've not yet really defined yet; so you can then do your typical routine of building up a false argument - your modus operandi.

Let's try again:

ADOPTIONISM IS HERETICAL.

God said THIS IS MY SON....
Not
NOW THIS IS MY SON


Matthew 3:17
17 and behold, there was a voice out of the heavens saying, “This is [a]My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”


And caps are used for a specific reason...
because the internet generation does not know the reason, is not my responsibility.

 

[saved by grace 101]

I thought you were speaking about the Trinity.
Apparently we're not speaking about the same topic.

I was saying the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ. You told me I would have to use scripture. I did. So, as I believe the Holy Spirit fully resides in Christ, and you believe the Holy Spirit is God Himself, we agree as to the essence of Christ. Only disagreement is his title. Now here's the thing, only a head theologist relying on their academic mind to learn, would then have a problem here. Anyone with Holy Spirit discernment would not.
But as someone said on another website:
Some believe in a Trinity of Father, Son and the bible