Defending the Trinity

[justaname]

Your inference here is also noted Old Jack.

What in affect you are saying is because one bares a divine title this must make them God? Am I right to assume this as your inference here?

A Unitarians position is that Christ is a divinely appointed representative of God and bears God's titles just like the example of the angel of God did in OT times.

If you disagree with this then please explain to us how being given a divine title immediately makes them God.

Purity


Justaname,

Read this with me; God cannot be a sacrifice for sin or a King in David's line...do you comprehend?

Purity read scripture with me...

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and cdwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

You have an incorrect understanding of scripture. Your indoctrination into your cult has blinded your eyes to the plain reading of scripture.

I will continue to pray for you.

 

[Purity]

14 And the Word became flesh, and cdwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Yes we have established the Word (Logos) became flesh but what you havnt explained is how. You say incarnation...I ( and the Aposltes) say he become it by his obedience and through his death.

Rom 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant7 of David with reference to the flesh,8 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power9 according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1. His Son (Father promised)
2. Descendant of David (Check)
3. After the flesh of David (check)
4. Was appointed "The Son of God" (check)
5. How? By the resurrection from the dead

Now I produce Scriptural evidence how about you show me yours?

 

[shturt678]

This still sits with you.



Old Jack?

Thank you for your response again!

Darn that old age and mileage, ie, memory lapse, however regarding "titles," the relation of the "Father" and of the "Son" = "Jesus," this was called the aeterna filii Dei generatio long ago from Jn.1:14 .

The title "Son of man" was coined by Jesus Himself of course and He never stated: "I am the Son of man." He derived this title from Dan.7:13-14 of course. Because His glorious enthronement refers to His human nature, this as joined to the divine (Lk.5:24), Jesus is speaking as the Son, begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolute singular relation.

Old Jack,

My 'title' is 'lowest paygrade'

 

[nothead]

This still sits with you.



Old Jack?

Thank you for your response again!

Darn that old age and mileage, ie, memory lapse, however regarding "titles," the relation of the "Father" and of the "Son" = "Jesus," this was called the aeterna filii Dei generatio long ago from Jn.1:14 .

The title "Son of man" was coined by Jesus Himself of course and He never stated: "I am the Son of man." He derived this title from Dan.7:13-14 of course. Because His glorious enthronement refers to His human nature, this as joined to the divine (Lk.5:24), Jesus is speaking as the Son, begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolute singular relation.

Old Jack,

My 'title' is 'lowest paygrade'

Most references to "Son of Man" are to a human like being, i.e. a human bean I mean being.

All the Daniel passage says is LIKE unto a son of man, i.e. a being LIKENED unto a human being. Daniel Boyarin makes something out of nothing here. And many imitate him.

The capital "S" is clue to the conspiracy. The term just meant a human who is a son of another human.

 

[Purity]

Son, begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolute singular relation.

Old Jack,

Old Jack, you say "begotten from eternity by the Father" so what you are saying is the title's Father and Son have no meaning at all to you, certainly you could not define them as they are presented in the Bible...you believe the Son is the same age as the Father - yeah you didn't think about this one did you now?

Acts 13:33, ‘that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.”
Hebrews 1:5, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son! Today I have fathered you’? And in another place he says, ‘I will (future tense) be his father and he will be my son.’”
Hebrews 5:5, “So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God, who said to him, ‘You are my Son! Today I have fathered you’”

You have some explaining to do Old Jack.

 

[JoJoRoss]

Always did like those Californians,

Old transplanted Washingtononian to Hawaii Jack

Haha maybe we should paddle out sometime Hawaii Jack? B)

 

[justaname]

Yes we have established the Word (Logos) became flesh but what you havnt explained is how. You say incarnation...I ( and the Aposltes) say he become it by his obedience and through his death.

Rom 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant7 of David with reference to the flesh,8 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power9 according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1. His Son (Father promised)
2. Descendant of David (Check)
3. After the flesh of David (check)
4. Was appointed "The Son of God" (check)
5. How? By the resurrection from the dead

Now I produce Scriptural evidence how about you show me yours?

Interesting you believe the apostles taught heresy...

Before Abraham was born, I Am.

Question, why would Jesus have to wait to be appointed Son when He referred to His Father as being in heaven?

 

[Purity]

Interesting you believe the apostles taught heresy...

Before Abraham was born, I Am.

Question, why would Jesus have to wait to be appointed Son when He referred to His Father as being in heaven?

Yes from his birth he was the Son of God..remember this "Holy thing" however his mortal life was a probation encompassed with temptation and many trials...His eternal Sonship was realised upon the cross.

Surely this is known to you justaname?

Rom 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant7 of David with reference to the flesh,8 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power9 according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

His Sonship was according to three things.

1. Appointed Sonship (not preexistant or eternal Sonship)
2. It was according to the HS which is the Divine mind expressed in Power
3. By the resurrection

Which one would you like to remove?

 

[justaname]

Here is a bit of scholarship on the subject in Romans. It does not suggest what you think.

Jesus is the true Israel, but he is also the preexistent Son whom God sent into the world (Rom. 8:3). In other words, the term “Son” works at more than one level; it designates Jesus as the true Israel and as the Son who existed before his incarnation. The placement of the words τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ before the two participles suggests that the one who became the seed of David and was appointed God’s Son in power at the resurrection was already the Son before these events (Cranfield 1975: 58; Wilckens 1978: 64–65). The one who existed eternally as the Son was appointed the Son of God in power as the Son of David. The new dimension was not his sonship but his heavenly installation as God’s Son by virtue of his Davidic sonship. In other words, the Son reigned with the Father from all eternity, but as a result of his incarnation and atoning work he was appointed to be the Son of God as one who was now both God and man. We do not have the precision here of the later christological formulas in the history of the church, but verses like these were the raw materials from which later Christology was developed.

 

[Purity]

Here is a bit of scholarship on the subject in Romans. It does not suggest what you think.

Jesus is the true Israel, but he is also the preexistent Son whom God sent into the world (Rom. 8:3). In other words, the term “Son” works at more than one level; it designates Jesus as the true Israel and as the Son who existed before his incarnation. The placement of the words τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ before the two participles suggests that the one who became the seed of David and was appointed God’s Son in power at the resurrection was already the Son before these events (Cranfield 1975: 58; Wilckens 1978: 64–65). The one who existed eternally as the Son was appointed the Son of God in power as the Son of David. The new dimension was not his sonship but his heavenly installation as God’s Son by virtue of his Davidic sonship. In other words, the Son reigned with the Father from all eternity, but as a result of his incarnation and atoning work he was appointed to be the Son of God as one who was now both God and man. We do not have the precision here of the later christological formulas in the history of the church, but verses like these were the raw materials from which later Christology was developed.

You should hang your head in shame and repent:

Firstly for turning to scholarship for your understanding
Secondly for not turning to your Lord in Heaven who has asked you to read His Word and pray to him for understanding uninfluenced by ECF's.

James 1:1,2,3

Purity

By the way for those Trinitarians reading this can you believe this writer has used Rom 8:3 to teach incarnation - even a Trinitarian theologian would hang them out to dry.

 

[justaname]

You should hang your head in shame and repent:

Firstly for turning to scholarship for your understanding
Secondly for not turning to your Lord in Heaven who has asked you to read His Word and pray to him for understanding uninfluenced by ECF's.

James 1:1,2,3

Purity

lol!

 

[Purity]

lol!

You are laughing in ignorance.

You have just posted another's work who believes not only did God become man, but He made Himself a sin offering by living in sins flesh and deing on the cross.

God cannot look upon Sin
God cannot die
God cannot be tempted

But your god can!

 

[justaname]

God does look...

Genesis 6:5
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Speaking to the humanity of Jesus...

Acts 2:24
24 “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

And then in the desert...

Psalm 106:14
14 But craved intensely in the wilderness,
And tempted God in the desert.


Let me assert one thing here you continually refuse...Jesus has two natures, divine and human.

It is rather apparent you are not intent on seeking truth, you are intent on asserting your point of view. This I consider divisive as this is a professed Christian forum upholding sound doctrine. I respect you, but I don't respect your heresy. I will continue to pray for you, but I am no longer continuing this unfruitful discussion.

 

[shturt678]

Haha maybe we should paddle out sometime Hawaii Jack? B)

Thank you folks for responding, and little nervous about those 16 foot long blue hungrey critters lurking under the water, and my white skin.

Have to pull my Hawaiian trump card: Nicene Creed: "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man." Likewise the Creed of athanasius against the Arians: "God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two but one Christ; One, not by conversion or the Godman into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ."

Old Jack, holding the winning hand - amen!

 

[Purity]

Let me assert one thing here you continually refuse...Jesus has two natures, divine and human.

Scripture please.


God cannot look upon Sin
God cannot die
God cannot be tempted

But your god can!

 

[nothead]

Haha maybe we should paddle out sometime Hawaii Jack? B)

Thank you folks for responding, and little nervous about those 16 foot long blue hungrey critters lurking under the water, and my white skin.

Have to pull my Hawaiian trump card: Nicene Creed: "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man." Likewise the Creed of athanasius against the Arians: "God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two but one Christ; One, not by conversion or the Godman into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ."

Old Jack, holding the winning hand - amen!

Reasons why Niceane Creed sucks rocks:

1) the perpetrator Constantine was not even a baptised Christian
2) the purpose for was a relative political harmony in order for his regime to stand
3) a vote was imposed compare to Jerusalem Council NO VOTE
4) only 300 out of 1800 bishops attended, and after the first wave of speeches only 5 were 'Arianish'
5) the vote did not even reflect majority opinion since it was overturned along with it's conclusion several times in the next decades
6) it was likely Constantine already knew the outcome of such a vote since he himself was a player of political maneuvers...pretending to be
a bystander when he was the instigator, besides his own hours long speech indicated his personal belief that Jesus was another God.

In other words, the Nicene Council had no God-given authority.

One addendum which includes my personal opinion about the NIcene Creed in case you don't already know it.

Arius had force the issue with his own philosophical considerations. Both parties were relying by now upon Greek philosophical methods, words and combinations of these (philosophy) to opinion either Athanasian (later known as) or Arianish beliefs.

But the solution was that Hebrew terms and thought should have carried the day, as the Jerusalem Council was and was concluded from.

OT principles, OT thought and OT mind. NOT Greek thought which by now dominates our religion. For instance the OUSIA of God was considered by the Nicene Creed to be shared by Jesus (homoousia). But no one knew then or knows now WHAT this is in ANY capacity. So then how do they know Jesus shares it? All verses which might imply can be explained pentecostally by a shared SPIRIT.

And they made the SHARED SPIRIT a shared essence, substance or BEING. Smooth move Greek hipsters. I hear the hippies from Greece are the sexiest.
And best looking, naked.

Hint: No Jew ever conjectured about the OUSIA of God. Not unless he was a son of Philo the Jew at least.

 

[shturt678]

Reasons why Niceane Creed sucks rocks:

1) the perpetrator Constantine was not even a baptised Christian
2) the purpose for was a relative political harmony in order for his regime to stand
3) a vote was imposed compare to Jerusalem Council NO VOTE
4) only 300 out of 1800 bishops attended, and after the first wave of speeches only 5 were 'Arianish'
5) the vote did not even reflect majority opinion since it was overturned along with it's conclusion several times in the next decades
6) it was likely Constantine already knew the outcome of such a vote since he himself was a player of political maneuvers...pretending to be
a bystander when he was the instigator, besides his own hours long speech indicated his personal belief that Jesus was another God.

In other words, the Nicene Council had no God-given authority.

One addendum which includes my personal opinion about the NIcene Creed in case you don't already know it.

Arius had force the issue with his own philosophical considerations. Both parties were relying by now upon Greek philosophical methods, words and combinations of these (philosophy) to opinion either Athanasian (later known as) or Arianish beliefs.

But the solution was that Hebrew terms and thought should have carried the day, as the Jerusalem Council was and was concluded from.

OT principles, OT thought and OT mind. NOT Greek thought which by now dominates our religion. For instance the OUSIA of God was considered by the Nicene Creed to be shared by Jesus (homoousia). But no one knew then or knows now WHAT this is in ANY capacity. So then how do they know Jesus shares it? All verses which might imply can be explained pentecostally by a shared SPIRIT.

And they made the SHARED SPIRIT a shared essence, substance or BEING. Smooth move Greek hipsters. I hear the hippies from Greece are the sexiest.
And best looking, naked.

Hint: No Jew ever conjectured about the OUSIA of God. Not unless he was a son of Philo the Jew at least.

The Nicene Creed was derived from the contextual interpretations of Scriptures is obvious ergo a yardstick for one's faith. Note well only for openers, Lk.22:70, "...art thou teh Son of God?..." Contexrt, context my friends. "The Son," the Sanhedrists say, not "a son" among many. They do not for a moment affirm that God has no such Son, that God is not three Persons, but only one person. THE JEWS ARE NOW UNITARIANS, BUT IN JESUS' TIME THE JEWS WERE NOT UNITARIANS.

The issue between them and Jesus is never the claim that no Son and no Spirit exist, that Jesus believes fables when he speaks of the Father, the Son, the Spirit. Now you're catching on.

The issue is always as it's so decisively worded there at this supreme moment: "Thou, art thou this Son?"

That this man Jesus, this bruised, beaten, captive, helpless man who is now in their power, the he should be this Son, very God in human form, is to these Jews a thing that is at once incredible and blasphemous in the highest degree.

Old Jack, has a degree in Bible Thumping 24/7 yet still of a lower paygrade?

Old Jack, you say "begotten from eternity by the Father" so what you are saying is the title's Father and Son have no meaning at all to you, certainly you could not define them as they are presented in the Bible...you believe the Son is the same age as the Father - yeah you didn't think about this one did you now?

Acts 13:33, ‘that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.”
Hebrews 1:5, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son! Today I have fathered you’? And in another place he says, ‘I will (future tense) be his father and he will be my son.’”
Hebrews 5:5, “So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God, who said to him, ‘You are my Son! Today I have fathered you’”

You have some explaining to do Old Jack.

Thank you for your response ergo followed by a terse explanation.

Acts13:33, "My Son art thou; I today have begotten thee." Ie, a walk in the park, ie, the ol' Ps.2:7 routine. This is typical 'figurative language' regarding YHWH's placing this everlasting King on His throne. The inauguration of a King who rules forever on an everlasting throne in an eternal kingdom is for YHWH the begetting of a Son, a King who rules eternally like YHWH Himself. That prophecy was fulfilled. Paul says, when God raised up Jesus as Savior. The statement about Jesus, like that of the psalm is general; hence Paul follows it with a further elaboration, and we must read the whole EXPLANATION together in order to get the force.

My point; The passage occurring in the psalm does not speak of the generatio aeterna, not of the inner Trinitarian relation of the two Persons,k not of eternity but of time.

Old Jack, time is money?

 

[Purity]

That prophecy was fulfilled. Paul says, when God raised up Jesus as Savior. The statement about Jesus, like that of the psalm is general; hence Paul follows it with a further elaboration, and we must read the whole EXPLANATION together in order to get the force.[/b]

My point; The passage occurring in the psalm does not speak of the generatio aeterna, not of the inner Trinitarian relation of the two Persons,k not of eternity but of time.

Old Jack, time is money?

Glad I am not paying for this woeful exposition

You cannot prophesy and promise of a future person whose very identity is born out of people who are not yet in existence - can you appreciate the riculous position you have placed yourself in? You are all tied up in knots and now you leave me no choice but unravel this birds nest.

1. Why would Paul refer to "Today" God has fathered Jesus if He has eternally been his father.
2. Luke, Paul and all the Apostles understood a single day when God became a Father to Jesus. You know when that day was but clearly I perceive dishonesty on your part. I can think of no other reason why you would be so hesitant to deny this as fact other than defence of dogmas.
3. You cannot define that which is commonly understood around the entire planet; Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”
4. David not once acknowledges the Son being in existence at that time when he was promised - rather, You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” but not thee Son which was promised (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26–27).
5. If the Fathering of a Child was not today but as you believe God and Jesus are the same age (eternal) why would God also promise his Son an inheritance "I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property" If all things are already Gods? That's an oxymoron.

The biggest problem you have in your exegesis is defining what the Apostles meant by today (without Trinitarian dogmas)

6. If the psalmist was writing of a future Son, which Paul would apply in Heb 1:5 to Christ when he was glorified to be made a high priest; so "today"must therefore = resurrection, not birth. Cp also Heb 5:5; Rom 1:3-4; Isa 55:3; Act 13:33-34.

If this can be proven to you convincingly (and you accept this as truth) your Trinitarian doctrine is thwarted.

However, deny its truth you make the resurrection utterly useless, without meaning. If Christ was not "today" born a spiritual Son (then you cannot be born anew! Col 1:18)- if the Word did not become Flesh and become full of grace and truth and die on the cross later to be clothed with immortality by His Father then you must believe in a sham - a mascaraed of the greatest pretence ever demonstrated in mankind's history. Jesus was not begotten and God did not become a Father.

I cannot imagine the weight and burden of proof which currently sits upon your shoulders. To wrestle against such common logic and reason must be extremely hurtful to your faith. No depth Old Jack - you are sailing in shallow waters and come aground.

Purity

Sometime later.....

Sorry I should further support Jesus Sonship occurred when he became a High Priest - the astute will know this was not during his earthly ministration. Not a Levite you see! After a different order you see.

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)

Father (made) - - - > Today - - - > (a) Son
Christ (glorified not) - - ->(become) High Priest - - - - > (between God and man) God

Wow!

Nothead - The author quotes two OT passages to prove Jesus' Sonship and High Priest status was upon resurrection. (this is a big exegetical problem for the trinaterian)

Psalm 2:7 & Psalm 110:1

Jesus is the Son of God by divine decree and therefore the one who has been raised to the right hand of God. He is thus at the same time the one appointed by God to be a priest forever in the lineage of Melchizedek. As the author will explain later (Heb 7), Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (Gen 14:18). Jesus is also king and priest, and thus corresponds to Melchizedek. There is for our author a vital connection between the unique sonship of Jesus and his role as high priest (cp Heb 1:2-3). He can be the ideal high priest in the last analysis only because of his identity as the Son (see Heb 7:28). Only as the Son can he perform the definitive atoning work that the author will describe in later chapters.

Can you see how Trinitarian dogmas destroy the teaching of Paul in Hebrews? He was already a Son and High Priest regardless of his obedience and death - it simply was a façade to accommodate an angry God.

The Trinitarian is so far away from divine truth its a painful thing to behold.

P.s Can you see the problem of a pre-existent Christ (red text?)

Also, why would the author state that Christ has been made perfect forever?

Heb 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Issues:

1. What was Jesus' imperfection?
2. Why say forever if they understood Jesus pre-existed?
3. Why this word appointed all the time if Jesus is God?
4. What was Jesus/God's weakness
5. You must believe God is weak like moral men?
6. From what point did Jesus live forever? Before he was born? Or from his resurrection?

Imagine being a Trinitarian :blink: O the confusion.

Justaname,

No doubt you are thinking "how could an imperfect Jesus (who is God) be made a perfect Jesus (who is God)?

What did Paul understand about Jesus which you do not?

Well the notion of having "been made perfect" is again best understood as the state of having accomplished God's saving purposes (cp Heb 5:9) His life and sonship is alone on this basis and therefore Jesus could not have pre-existed. He was raised to God's right hand on the basis of never being there before as Son and High Priest.

If you say "no" then Pauls arguments and teachings fall over and become pointless!

You the Christian would simply say "So what Paul we know he is God it doesn't matter that he became this or that!"

You are lost in holding onto the Trinity.

 

[justaname]

Glad I am not paying for this woeful exposition

You cannot prophesy and promise of a future person whose very identity is born out of people who are not yet in existence - can you appreciate the riculous position you have placed yourself in? You are all tied up in knots and now you leave me no choice but unravel this birds nest.

1. Why would Paul refer to "Today" God has fathered Jesus if He has eternally been his father.
2. Luke, Paul and all the Apostles understood a single day when God became a Father to Jesus. You know when that day was but clearly I perceive dishonesty on your part. I can think of no other reason why you would be so hesitant to deny this as fact other than defence of dogmas.
3. You cannot define that which is commonly understood around the entire planet; Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”
4. David not once acknowledges the Son being in existence at that time when he was promised - rather, You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” but not thee Son which was promised (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26–27).
5. If the Fathering of a Child was not today but as you believe God and Jesus are the same age (eternal) why would God also promise his Son an inheritance "I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property" If all things are already Gods? That's an oxymoron.

The biggest problem you have in your exegesis is defining what the Apostles meant by today (without Trinitarian dogmas)

6. If the psalmist was writing of a future Son, which Paul would apply in Heb 1:5 to Christ when he was glorified to be made a high priest; so "today"must therefore = resurrection, not birth. Cp also Heb 5:5; Rom 1:3-4; Isa 55:3; Act 13:33-34.

If this can be proven to you convincingly (and you accept this as truth) your Trinitarian doctrine is thwarted.

However, deny its truth you make the resurrection utterly useless, without meaning. If Christ was not "today" born a spiritual Son (then you cannot be born anew! Col 1:18)- if the Word did not become Flesh and become full of grace and truth and die on the cross later to be clothed with immortality by His Father then you must believe in a sham - a mascaraed of the greatest pretence ever demonstrated in mankind's history. Jesus was not begotten and God did not become a Father.

I cannot imagine the weight and burden of proof which currently sits upon your shoulders. To wrestle against such common logic and reason must be extremely hurtful to your faith. No depth Old Jack - you are sailing in shallow waters and come aground.

Purity

Sometime later.....

Sorry I should further support Jesus Sonship occurred when he became a High Priest - the astute will know this was not during his earthly ministration. Not a Levite you see! After a different order you see.

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)

Father (made) - - - > Today - - - > (a) Son
Christ (glorified not) - - ->(become) High Priest - - - - > (between God and man) God

Wow!

Nothead - The author quotes two OT passages to prove Jesus' Sonship and High Priest status was upon resurrection. (this is a big exegetical problem for the trinaterian)

Psalm 2:7 & Psalm 110:1

Jesus is the Son of God by divine decree and therefore the one who has been raised to the right hand of God. He is thus at the same time the one appointed by God to be a priest forever in the lineage of Melchizedek. As the author will explain later (Heb 7), Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (Gen 14:18). Jesus is also king and priest, and thus corresponds to Melchizedek. There is for our author a vital connection between the unique sonship of Jesus and his role as high priest (cp Heb 1:2-3). He can be the ideal high priest in the last analysis only because of his identity as the Son (see Heb 7:28). Only as the Son can he perform the definitive atoning work that the author will describe in later chapters.

Can you see how Trinitarian dogmas destroy the teaching of Paul in Hebrews? He was already a Son and High Priest regardless of his obedience and death - it simply was a façade to accommodate an angry God.

The Trinitarian is so far away from divine truth its a painful thing to behold.

P.s Can you see the problem of a pre-existent Christ (red text?)

Also, why would the author state that Christ has been made perfect forever?

Heb 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Issues:

1. What was Jesus' imperfection?
2. Why say forever if they understood Jesus pre-existed?
3. Why this word appointed all the time if Jesus is God?
4. What was Jesus/God's weakness
5. You must believe God is weak like moral men?
6. From what point did Jesus live forever? Before he was born? Or from his resurrection?

Imagine being a Trinitarian :blink: O the confusion.

Justaname,

No doubt you are thinking "how could an imperfect Jesus (who is God) be made a perfect Jesus (who is God)?

What did Paul understand about Jesus which you do not?

Well the notion of having "been made perfect" is again best understood as the state of having accomplished God's saving purposes (cp Heb 5:9) His life and sonship is alone on this basis and therefore Jesus could not have pre-existed. He was raised to God's right hand on the basis of never being there before as Son and High Priest.

If you say "no" then Pauls arguments and teachings fall over and become pointless!

You the Christian would simply say "So what Paul we know he is God it doesn't matter that he became this or that!"

You are lost in holding onto the Trinity.

You are confused...

The weakness is speaking of the previous high priests.

I have a complete understanding as Jesus was fully man as well as fully God.

Your theology is flawed as it only looks to the aspect of the humanity of Jesus. You explain nothing Trinitarian theology does not already comprehend.

We admit Jesus learned, was made complete (perfect), and all the rest of the aspects of His humanity. For us it is not an either God worldview or man worldview when looking at the person of Christ as it is for you, it is both God and man.

 

[Purity]

You are confused...

The weakness is speaking of the previous high priests.

You did it again Justaname!
For though Jesus was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him (who was weak), but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.2 Corinthians 13:4

Have you noticed almost every time you post you are misrepresenting the Word of God? Does this concern you at all? A little fearful consideration of your foundation and how shaky it appears to be right now.

Lets look at Heb 8:3 shall we?

What did Jesus "offer" that God Himself could never offer?

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one (man=Jesus) too had to have something to offer.