QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[StanJ]

So you quote a section which demonstrates Jesus the Son of David coming to his own people Israel as a bother, yes, and as a King, yes, and as their Messiah, yes but not as their God!

I quoted a section that explained who the flesh was that the WORD/GOD became. I guess being blind to the truth of God also makes you blind to what the scripture clearly states.

More creed language introduced "incarnate"...you keep this up and you will be converting your fellow Trinitarians to Monotheism. The Word created Jesus Christ (fullstop) John 1:14

God is one God, and Trinitarians have no problem with understanding that. We have faith in what God's Word tells us, AND we have the Holy Spirit, Himself God, in residence. Two things you lack.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John does NOT say 'created' it says "BECAME". That is what incarnate means.

Wormwood tried that on with me and where is he? His tail is between his legs because he couldn't prove a nature context from Phil 1 and now you come at me with Rom 10:17?
The Word of Christ Stan come from the mind not ones nature - you are not serious about using Rom 10:17 to prove hypostatic nature? surely not!
Note: The Greek term here is ῥῆμα (rhēma), which often (but not exclusively) focuses on the spoken word.

Sadly, Wormwood succeeded long before you realized it. Correction, you haven't yet realized it.
Rom 10:17 depicts what it takes to accept what Heb 1:3 says. Of course as usual you aren't able to connect the dots.
It states the word about Christ. Please try to focus.
That is what Paul was doing and talking about. The spoken word about Christ. Again your problem with context rears it's ugly head again.

 

[nothead]

I quoted a section that explained who the flesh was that the WORD/GOD became. I guess being blind to the truth of God also makes you blind to what the scripture clearly states.

God is one God, and Trinitarians have no problem with understanding that. We have faith in what God's Word tells us, AND we have the Holy Spirit, Himself God, in residence. Two things you lack.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John does NOT say 'created' it says "BECAME". That is what incarnate means.

Sadly, Wormwood succeeded long before you realized it. Correction, you haven't yet realized it.
Rom 10:17 depicts what it takes to accept what Heb 1:3 says. Of course as usual you aren't able to connect the dots.
It states the word about Christ. Please try to focus.
That is what Paul was doing and talking about. The spoken word about Christ. Again your problem with context rears it's ugly head again.

The word is ginomai. And Strong fudges a goodly fudge in terping I mean defining it. "Having been made" or "become manifest" implies no Maker...but a quick scan reveals the very first USES in Mathew imply explicitly a MAKER every time.

And the Word was made flesh is the true terp, and the MAKER is YHWH Elohim MADE the Christ.

Your welcome. No charge. Donations may be asked of in the future.

 

[StanJ]

And its true - faith come by hearing and whether you hear that Word from God or His Son its the same Word - I could hear the Word from Paul and know they are from God and the Lord Jesus Christ Acts 16:32-34 - this had absolutely nothing to do with nature.

Context to Roman 10:17

“How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.” i.e an intelligible message from ones mouth!

Lame Stan - I hope your next post offers some meat.

You have not dealt with the context of Jesus' Words in John 8:54.

Funny you should bring up Acts 16:32-34 and NOT see it's truth. In context, here's the story...
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Your inability to see that believing in Jesus and God was the same thing here shows just how blinded you have become to the truth of the Good News.
If you don't understand what I write and have written, then you will be waiting for a long, long time. Don't hold your breath in that case.
Finished.

Cannot be because Jesus holistically and exhaustively the WORD means he cannot HAVE the WORD of God in his mouth since he IS THE WORD. Sir. Plain common sense.

Which seems to allude you, as there is two different Greek words for what you are trying to equivocate on.
Logos and rhema don't mean the same thing in English despite using the same word. I suggest you learn what connotations are.

The word is ginomai. And Strong fudges a goodly fudge in terping I mean defining it. "Having been made" or "become manifest" implies no Maker...but a quick scan reveals the very first USES in Mathew imply explicitly a MAKER every time.

And the Word was made flesh is the true terp, and the MAKER is YHWH Elohim MADE the Christ.

Evasive and dismissive al in one sentence. Try being a lot clearer and pointed so I know what the heck you are talking about.
Your need to be a smart alec only serves to demonstrate you really don't know much.

 

[nothead]

Funny you should bring up Acts 16:32-34 and NOT see it's truth. In context, here's the story...
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Your inability to see that believing in Jesus and God was the same thing here shows just how blinded you have become to the truth of the Good News.
If you don't understand what I write and have written, then you will be waiting for a long, long time. Don't hold your breath in that case.
Finished.

Which seems to allude you, as there is two different Greek words for what you are trying to equivocate on.
Logos and rhema don't mean the same thing in English despite using the same word. I suggest you learn what connotations are.

Evasive and dismissive al in one sentence. Try being a lot clearer and pointed so I know what the heck you are talking about.
Your need to be a smart alec only serves to demonstrate you really don't know much.

I am DEAD serious or you would not know how DEAD I AM. 'Cmon, now....what was it you could not get? GINOMAI is the exact word used for MADE in the verse. We go to the Koine since it MIGHT be more accurate, the way they used it?

Hello?

And the word means "having been MADE," implying in my view a MAKER. The English don't tell us this, since MANIFEST or BECAME could just mean it becum.

WITH NO MAKER. IF maker, THEN who is the maker? I say the Father. You might say the Son made himself flesh. I say you wrong. Any more questions? I have de ansah.

Don't WORRY brother, I got you back.

Which seems to allude you, as there is two different Greek words for what you are trying to equivocate on.
Logos and rhema don't mean the same thing in English despite using the same word. I suggest you learn what connotations are.

That's ELUDE homegrown, not ALLUDE. And who is trying to define RHEMA? I ain't. Where do you find RHEMA in Jn 1?

 

[Nomad]

And the word means "having been MADE," implying in my view a MAKER. The English don't tell us this, since MANIFEST or BECAME could just mean it becum.

This is incorrect. "Having been made" would indicate the perfect tense of "ginomai." That's not what we find in John 1:14. We find "egeneto" which is the 2 aorist or middle deponent form of "ginomai" meaning "was made" or "became." Either way, your argument falls flat.

Scripture is clear that Mary became pregnant when the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her indicating his role in the incarnation of the Word. The participation of one or more of the members of the Trinity in facilitating the incarnation in no way contradicts the fact stated in John 1:1 that, "the word was God" and in John 1:14, "and the word was made flesh."

 

[nothead]

This is incorrect. "Having been made" would indicate the perfect tense of "ginomai." That's not what we find in John 1:14. We find "egeneto" which is the 2 aorist or middle deponent form of "ginomai" meaning "was made" or "became." Either way, your argument falls flat.

Scripture is clear that Mary became pregnant when the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her indicating his role in the incarnation of the Word. The participation of one or more of the members of the Trinity in facilitating the incarnation in no way contradicts the facts stated in John 1:1 that, "the word was God" and in John 1:14, "and the word was made flesh."

I'll GIVE you the first part of your argument as possibly good. Remember we are open to the possibilities, yes Nomad? Lesson number one for Nomad, but nothead must own up to his own lessons...

But my theology ain't beholden to me being right here. What should be evident to you is that the WORD or DABAR is the 13 times thing which MAKES our Creation, no not our Creation we own, rather the creation we reside in...

And as such when it spoke LIGHT from YHWH Elohim there light was, and OCEANS and then the waters were...and then v 14 "JESUS" and there he was.. and then this WORD was on the lips of John the Baptist, but if it WAS GOD, then it could not have been and WAS JESUS it couldn't have been, and so do you see how very ODD and IMPLAUSIBLE your scenario is?

Get with the scene, jellybean. Or some groovy thing we used to say on dope.

John the Baptist had the Word but could not have if the Word was Christ, amen.

Actually the LIGHT (spiritual) was the direct metaphor for Christ here, not the WORD.

 

[Madad21]

This is true. But it's like this on every message board. Insults and bad behavior begin to fly when error is exposed. I'm used to it. lol

We cant expose error where there is no perceived error, this has been the theological battle raging since before the Nicene Creed was established.
Arius still went on, even Constantines best efforts had little impact and he imposed death penalties on anyone still harbouring any shred of his teachings.

We cant teach each other anything, All we can do is go around and around with the same old arguments.

I use these boards to ask myself questions and strengthen my beliefs, if what I believe is right I know the Spirit will guide my understanding and lead me in the right direction, because aren't our prayers that we should seek and find?

If that prayer is asked in honesty, who is the Holy One going to deceive? God said he looks at a mans heart, whats your heart look like when you argue these forums?

The problem is, everyone thinks they have the answers and there is nothing else to learn like a bunch of old Pharisees arguing with Jesus. All willing to spite him but none willing to listen.

If your belief is true then it will withstand trial, but if there is question then the eigo (Satan) needs to be put aside and the question honestly addressed, if we do not do this there is not a heart of seeking amongst us.

Peace




argued since the church fathers.

 

[Purity]

Thank you for being civil!

Its all subjective - correct....and that's the point isn't it? Do we introduce external thoughts to the subject which is at hand. Let me explain.

Context again: John 8:56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed152 to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”153

Translators comment:

152 greatly overjoyed.
153 What is the meaning of Jesus’ statement that the patriarch Abraham “saw” his day and rejoiced? The use of past tenses would seem to refer to something that occurred during the patriarch’s lifetime.

What is subjective?

1. I could say to you "Abraham saw Jesus in the future as some vision from God"
2. I could say Abraham was transported into Jesus' time to see his day
3. I could say Abraham experienced certain circumstance in his life which revealed to him that a sacrifice would be provided for by God in that day. Gen 22:13–15

The question we must ask is in what way could Jesus say:

8:57 Then the Judeans154 replied,155 “You are not yet fifty years old!156 Have157 you seen Abraham?” 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,158 before Abraham came into existence,159 I am!”160

Are you inferring upon Jesus thoughts which were not his intention?
In what way could Jesus claimed he pre-existed before Abraham? (in Yahwehs purpose?)
What Scripture would teach us of Christ before Abraham? Gen 3:15 (seed of the woman)

You see if you were honest I suggest from points 1-3 above you would chose number 3? Yahweh walked with Abraham and Abraham walked with his God - God allowed Abraham to experience a promised Son as a Father sees it - correct?

We know that "Abraham saw Jesus day", ie in vision, prophecy, etc. Thus Christ existed in Abraham's day, in prospect and purpose....this is the context to which Jesus is speaking.

Christ establishes here in John 8 preeminence, not preexistence.

Abraham saw the day of Christ, marked out from the world's beginnings (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8). As the son and heir, Jesus' power and authority preceded that of Abraham.

So in terms of saying all is subjective we need to determine with honesty the subject.

In this text I see no place for pre-existence; the Judeans unreasonably inferred Jesus was teaching "he was God" but rather his life and purpose was greater with pre-eminence prescribe by his Heavenly Father, which they, the people were not willing to except.

In the end he proved the people did not have the prophetic vision to "see" the Son of God as he stood before them (As Abraham had done by faith) - rather wanting to make him something he was not they took up stones to kill him.

The irony here of course some 2000 years Christians desire to make him something he is not and thereby also miss the promised Son of David.

P.

Mazda

I believe this sits with you as a correct approach to John 8:56,57,58

A true post like is can be easily lost in a jungle of error

P.

Funny you should bring up Acts 16:32-34 and NOT see it's truth. In context, here's the story...
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Your inability to see that believing in Jesus and God was the same thing here shows just how blinded you have become to the truth of the Good News.
If you don't understand what I write and have written, then you will be waiting for a long, long time. Don't hold your breath in that case.
Finished.

Which seems to allude you, as there is two different Greek words for what you are trying to equivocate on.
Logos and rhema don't mean the same thing in English despite using the same word. I suggest you learn what connotations are.

Evasive and dismissive al in one sentence. Try being a lot clearer and pointed so I know what the heck you are talking about.
Your need to be a smart alec only serves to demonstrate you really don't know much.

Oddly you provided nothing at all which supports your Triad god.
Interest is waning...

John does NOT say 'created' it says "BECAME". That is what incarnate means.

God is! He doesn't become, made, newly created, begotten, born....God is Stan! He is beyond a beginning and an end!

 

[StanJ]

I am DEAD serious or you would not know how DEAD I AM. 'Cmon, now....what was it you could not get? GINOMAI is the exact word used for MADE in the verse. We go to the Koine since it MIGHT be more accurate, the way they used it?
And the word means "having been MADE," implying in my view a MAKER. The English don't tell us this, since MANIFEST or BECAME could just mean it becum.
WITH NO MAKER. IF maker, THEN who is the maker? I say the Father. You might say the Son made himself flesh. I say you wrong. Any more questions? I have de ansah.
That's ELUDE homegrown, not ALLUDE. And who is trying to define RHEMA? I ain't. Where do you find RHEMA in Jn 1?

Blah blah blah blah blah. That's what I saw. If you want to refer to a word used in scripture then quote the actual scripture reference.
Ginomai has five different connotations, depending on the context. Like most people that eisegete scripture, you fail to see the proper context of most scripture and try to elude the real meaning.

As far as my vocabulary is concerned I suggest you learn the difference between the two words I used, as well as the two words the NT uses for word.

 

[Purity]

Scripture is clear that Mary became pregnant when the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her indicating his role in the incarnation of the Word. The participation of one or more of the members of the Trinity in facilitating the incarnation in no way contradicts the fact stated in John 1:1 that, "the word was God" and in John 1:14, "and the word was made flesh."

Ah Nomad, its been awhile! Still see you are trying to force that abhorrent incarnation doctrine upon the Word. John 1:14 is your Achilles heel, if only its wasn't there in plain black text for all to see. Johns "New Creation" Gen 1:1 cmp to John 1:1 is flying like an eagle so high above you it leaves you lost in a sea of Greek but I was pleased in your admission that Jesus "was made" or "became." by the Word of God, after all, everything which is made is by the Logos of God, right...O except God Himself.

P.

 

[Madad21]

Mazda

I believe this sits with you as a correct approach to John 8:56,57,58

A true post like is can be easily lost in a jungle of error

No problem, I did see it, Im still looking at it, thanks for you patience bud.

 

[Nomad]

Blah blah blah blah blah. That's what I saw. If you want to refer to a word used in scripture then quote the actual scripture reference.
Ginomai has five different connotations, depending on the context. Like most people that eisegete scripture, you fail to see the proper context of most scripture and try to elude the real meaning.

As far as my vocabulary is concerned I suggest you learn the difference between the two words I used, as well as the two words the NT uses for word.

I agree. This is sad. Those who promulgate error will never allow for any Greek or Hebrew word to have a semantic range. They usually cling to the meaning that seems to support their argument and context is irrelevant to them.

Ah Nomad, its been awhile! Still see you are trying to force that abhorrent incarnation doctrine upon the Word. John 1:14 is your Achilles heel, if only its wasn't there in plain black text for all to see. Johns "New Creation" Gen 1:1 cmp to John 1:1 is flying like an eagle so high above you it leaves you lost in a sea of Greek but I was pleased in your admission that Jesus "was made" or "became." by the Word of God, after all, everything which is made is by the Logos of God, right...O except God Himself.

P.

Of course Christ's humanity was created. I haven't admitted anything unorthodox here. If you think that I have, you're confused.

 

[nothead]

I agree. This is sad. Those who promulgate error will never allow for any Greek or Hebrew word to have a semantic range. They usually cling to the meaning that seems to support their argument and context is irrelevant to them.


Of course Christ's humanity was created. I haven't admitted anything unorthodox here. If you think that I have, you're confused.

Christ's humanity is created by WHOM...

WHOOM? Jesus? Jesus creates his own humanity? Is this the way the Story goes? Not in no gospel I know...

Jesus never creates NOTHING from NOTHING. Never ever nothing from nothing.

Anything from nothing. Nothing from anything. Made a fig tree wither....

 

[Purity]

Of course Christ's humanity was created. I haven't admitted anything unorthodox here. If you think that I have, you're confused.

Tut tut - firstborn from the dead Nomad - First spiritual creation from the dead!

Rom 8:29 because those whom he (Yahweh) foreknew (Jesus included) he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus), that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Is God your brother or sister?

You are funny Nomad - I always found your reasoning humorous.

To all:

FIRSTBORN is "Prototokos": from "proto" (first) and "tikto" (to bear). May mean earliest as to time, or preeminent as to position. Christ is the "firstborn" from the dead (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5) -- in the sense of realizing all that resurrection was intended to achieve -- and the "firstborn" of the new creation (Col 1:15).

 

[nothead]

You are funny Nomad - I always found your reasoning humorous.

Kinda dry.

 

[Nomad]

"Firstborn" when applied to Christ denotes his "preeminence." Colossians 1:18 makes this abundantly clear.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead so your forced meaning of "prototokos" is shown to be false.

 

[nothead]

"Firstborn" when applied to Christ denotes his "preeminence." Colossians 1:18 makes this abundantly clear.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead so your forced meaning of "prototokos" is shown to be false.

In that case he just repeats the same thing twice: He is the beginning, the preeminant from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

That's possible. That's possible.

But not probable. But not probable.

 

[Purity]

Kinda dry.

Yes at times - but Nomad is an interesting specimen Nothead - he's been around the block a few times; here is what he will do. He starts out with a little "egeneto" then a bit of "ginomai" and all of a sudden you are in this little boat with him, amidst a stormy sea of Greek (which he loves!) and not once will you ever seen him actually deal with the context - he's a jot and tittle man!

The reality is what he will make of "ho logos sarx egeneto" is to infer ONE who left his heavenly splendour to descend into an infinitely lesser life though ask him to provide these psychological explanations or devotional reflections from the Word, and you will get Phil and Col references, which as we known have already been explained and expounded clearly for all to see.

His Christology will not be based on Pauls "Last Adam" and "New Creation" teaching,but yes you guessed it, CREEDS - though he's not keen to go down that path either - its a denial thing he has going on!

Otherwise if you like to play Greek its a good game.

P.

"Firstborn" when applied to Christ denotes his "preeminence." Colossians 1:18 makes this abundantly clear.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead so your forced meaning of "prototokos" is shown to be false.

Convenient.

So your God is your brother is He?

 

[RANDOR]

Lets hope Floyd the interpretation has not been lost and his words have not fallen to the ground. I always hope that a quiet reader on the Word is in the back ground treasuring up the gems which are hidden in Christ Jesus. Col 2:3

Here I am.............with broom and bucket sweeping up Purity's interpretated scriptures........I really should be getting paid for this

 

[Nomad]

In that case he just repeats the same thing twice: He is the beginning, the preeminant from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

That's possible. That's possible.

But not probable. But not probable.

Actually Nothead Paul says it 4 times. Observe:

Col 1:18

1. And he is the head of the body, the church.

2. He is the beginning,

3. the firstborn from the dead,

4. that in everything he might be preeminent.

So you're right it's possible, possible, possible, possible.