The interpretation of Phil 2: 1 -11 - in proper context and theme

[JustMe]

People can 'twist' and 'turn' calling em' poem and so, but least ye 'shortsighted' perceive, there's prophecy within that 'shall come to pass'.

The same you've not read all my replies and even got to them and responding, the same fruit of yours never read and understand the Holy Bible in context yet responding and 'exposed' by your fruit.

That's what you're doing like others 'little child' yourself.

Definitely not your 'twist' & 'turn' version as 'blind guides' leading the 'blind'.

Same like Jesus mention about the disobedient Israelites, for they'll see and see but unable to see, hear and hear but unable to hear.

Same as the modern day Rabbi Tovia Singer who's another disobedient 'blind guide', who testified that Isaiah ch. 53
refers not to Jesus or the Messiah, but Israel.

Jesus Himself didn't bother to take time and disciple Nicodemus about just one subject, born again, because it would be absurd to force a blind man to see.

The same you need to receive John 3:3&5, if not you'll be unable to 'see' nor 'enter' the Kingdom of GOD, as just how your fruit show at present.

I believe there is much for you to grasp in scripture. With that in mind, perhaps you could quietly review some posts when you have more time, to better understand what God is truly conveying here, including its context and importance. Isn't that the main purpose of reading scripture?

Those who accuse others of distorting scripture, as you also do, when you cannot point to a single example, have already lost both the argument and the intent of the discussion. I hope to engage in scripture discussions with someone who has greater maturity and insight.

Lastly, your posts here and in a few other places are chaotic and, to say the least, lack meaning.

 

[JustMe]

Romans 9:
5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Apostle Paul himself declares in the spirit to the church that Jesus is 'God' blessed for ever. Amen.

Can you genuinely clarify your position here? Please take this comment of yours seriously, with the Spirit of God in mind, as I hope it/he is present for you. If not then I realize you are working under your own spirit and effort only.

I highly doubt you can explain yourself judging from your previous responses, as you seem to be at an early stage, attempting to fit a square peg into every round hole. You favor the square pegs and continue trying to fit them into various shapes. When you grow and understand that this square peg is ineffective in most situations, you may start to grasp the significant and pivotal distinction between the Son of God and His own God, who is His Father, and also mine.

 

[JustMe]

Wow, you've lit up the switchboard with other successive posts that I most probably will not get to right now.. You don't get extra credit for volume or quantity only in truth and quality..

Let me just address your initial post- one post at a time might be more prudent. I did not look at verses 10-12 as this speaks solely of the Father God as this is part of a poem to praise and glorify him and his work you know. I believe you wanted to understand the Father's view of his Son in this post.

I believe we require the perspective of a mature adult rather than that of a child. Similar to a child, individuals can easily insert irrelevant words or new ideas that disrupt the sacred words of God.

Hebrews 1 : 1-9 meaning... what does it convey?

Verses 1 and 2: God, the Father, communicated through the prophets before Yeshua's existence and creation. Since Yeshua's existence, conception, birth, and role as the Messiah, God's anointed one, He speaks to humanity only through His Son.

God also created the ages, including those yet to come, through, for, and because of His Son, and, I might add, the church.

Verses 3 and 4: Today, the Son of God is the focal point of His Father's glory and attention because He reflects His Father’s form or image, possessing His logos and Spirit. This allows the Son, as His Father’s personal agent, to uphold and sustain all things related to Himself, the church, and creation, now and in the future. Throughout all ages, He keeps the new creation active and progressing. He embodies the power of God and wields it for the benefit of believing humanity, for God, both in heaven and on earth.

Indeed, the Son of God surpasses what any angel can do, having received a far greater name and role as the true Son of God, Savior of humanity, and sustainer of the new creation.

Verse 5: The Father, on a designated and planned day, conceived a human Son and called Him His own Son, unlike the creation of angels in their time.

Verse 6: When Yeshua was finally born, He brought His angels to worship Him as His true Son, for His own adoration and glory.

Verses 7 and 8: Angels, as God’s agents, perform temporary and limited roles and tasks. However, the Son of God, as His agent, is far superior and carries out grander works—the actual work of God to accomplish His grand plan through His logos or mind for the restoration of all creation.

Because of the Son’s supreme and ongoing work throughout the ages of the developing Kingdom, especially in restoring creation and humanity, God the Father has given His own throne of power to share with His Son.

Verse 9: It all truly began when the Son of God was anointed by His Father to possess His logos and Spirit on that pivotal and glorious day on earth witnessed by John the Baptist. Yeshua was chosen as the Messiah above all His fellow countrymen. Amen.

@Fred J and we can link Hebrews 1:9 with John 1:14, the entire verse of John 1:14 a and 14b. They, Paul? and John, speak to the same subject that the logos of Almighty God (only) became (as/into, transformed/embedded into) a human person we call Yeshua or Jesus at his anointing, as a willing and mature man. And then, immediately after that moment in time, we began to see the glory of his Father through and revealed by his Son's glory (as also linked and spoken of in Heb 1:3 and 4)

In fact Phil 2:6.."being in the form or image of God" also links to Heb 1: 3, 4, 9 and John 1:14

This is about what occurred as Yeshua's anointing, becoming the Messiah. It was not just a sign-off or the recognition of approval by the Son of God to perform God's work. Yeshua became a completely new man. He became transformed.

The logos and Spirit of the Father became a 'new' man, and entered, embedded into Yeshua, the Son of God; and transformed him into the image/form/mosaic of God his Father, and thus also in the 'likeness' of men. He was surely not a mere man at this point in time.


It's great to see scripture link together, as its builds the sacred bonds that tie the word of God together, as it should.

 

[JustMe]

For those having a difficult time understanding some (parts of) verses in Hebrews Chapter 1:

Here are some notes that are valuable to retain and open up occasionally to restabilize the mind that desires to wander off into fantasy at times.

Verse 2:

The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.”

This verse is definitely not speaking of the original Genesis creation. It is given for the Son of God by his God for the ages he especially now occupies today.

Verse 8:

There is much information suggesting that Yeshua is NOT God with his throne in heaven.

Believers in the Trinity render Hebrews 1:8 this way: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Thus, they feel that Yeshua is shown to be the same as Almighty God. Why is this not correct?

Look at some of the counter claims.

But first, note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this Psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Yeshua was Almighty God. Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that אלוהים [‘Elo·himʹ, “God”] in the original can be addressed to the king. Thus, on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”

There is good evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever” or “God is your throne forever.”

If we look at some who are said to be respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.

Oxford professor and famed trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule reluctantly admits that Heb. 1:8 may conceivably be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

Noted trinitarian NT scholar Dr. William Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.”

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” or “God is thy throne” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 339.

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided honest alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the noted trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ....’”

Quoted From Ps. 45

In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8 itself, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides these alternate
readings: “Or your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God.’”

The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”

The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”

The Message has: "Your throne is God's throne, ever and always.”

The Good News Bible (GNB), Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last
forever and ever.” - ABS, 1976.

The Good News Translation (GNT): “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and
ever.” – ABS, 1992.

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”

The NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:
“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 in the NIV Study Bible. [Also see footnote in the NAB, St. Joseph ed.]

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by one of the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is even in the NWT, makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!

As if we will LITERALLY see two thrones in heaven. Not happening - the term is an idiom. The throne represents the sole power, influence and the domain of God Almighty and never shall be of his Son. His Son though is given to sharing in this center of HIS power, ONLY as he, his Son is highly exalted above all men and angels.

 

[Fred J]

I believe there is much for you to grasp in scripture. With that in mind, perhaps you could quietly review some posts when you have more time, to better understand what God is truly conveying here, including its context and importance. Isn't that the main purpose of reading scripture?

Those who accuse others of distorting scripture, as you also do, when you cannot point to a single example, have already lost both the argument and the intent of the discussion. I hope to engage in scripture discussions with someone who has greater maturity and insight.

Lastly, your posts here and in a few other places are chaotic and, to say the least, lack meaning.

All the 'garbage' above, apparently reflects you, sorry to tell you the truth.

 

[Fred J]

Can you genuinely clarify your position here? Please take this comment of yours seriously, with the Spirit of God in mind, as I hope it/he is present for you. If not then I realize you are working under your own spirit and effort only.

I highly doubt you can explain yourself judging from your previous responses, as you seem to be at an early stage, attempting to fit a square peg into every round hole. You favor the square pegs and continue trying to fit them into various shapes. When you grow and understand that this square peg is ineffective in most situations, you may start to grasp the significant and pivotal distinction between the Son of God and His own God, who is His Father, and also mine.

Looks like you're 'tripping' and 'losing it', get a grip of your self, either you agree or disagree, don't go off 'ranting'.

 

[Fred J]

Romans 9:
5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Apostle Paul himself declares in the spirit to the church that Jesus is 'God' blessed for ever. Amen.

Dear readers,

Please witness for yourselves why the reply above and others, Jesus is indeed God, 'fumes' JustMe?

And also witness his response back to me, and it's not easy to keep my calm composure when challenge with irrelevant response.

i did my duty posting scripture and explaining Jesus is indeed God, why JustMe is opposed and fuming?

Looks like one need John 3:3&5, anyone can help, thank you?

 

[Stumpmaster]

I think you are overreacting to this issue by using phrases like "No Bible version inserts 'mental' in Philippians 2:6." You seem to have missed the main point or argument here. Take a moment to calm down and focus on understanding the text’s meaning instead of jumping on what might seem like a humorous moment. Please show a bit more maturity.

This version, the NEV Bible, is an interpretive translation that seeks to convey meaning in scripture rather than strictly adhering to a precise Greek text translation that might obscure the message. Its purpose is to highlight that Yeshua’s mind was aligned with his Father’s in purpose and determination, supporting the plan for our salvation. The overall message of Philippians, as Paul presents it, is for us to adopt the mindset of the Messiah, right? This mindset includes humility, servanthood, and obedience, as Yeshua exemplified in his life.

I wouldn’t bother comparing other translations to disprove this interpretation because it aligns with Paul’s theme in the text. If you miss this, then the real issue is your failure to grasp the truth in the verse you singled out for criticism, overlooking the essential meaning. Don’t you want to understand scripture better instead of remaining closed off and holding onto a cryptic view that only fuels controversy and speculation?

Additionally, the term ‘morphe’ here does not mean inner essence or nature. That extreme interpretation makes the passage very difficult to understand, if not impossible. It seems you’re comfortable with a flawed translation that maintains deliberate ambiguity, just so you can claim without solid evidence that this word supports Yeshua being a god-man once again. Meanwhile, you avoid confronting the truth that Yeshua is truly the Son of God and the Messiah, which is significant in itself.

Gaslighting in your response noted.

 

[ProDeo]

Dear readers,

Please witness for yourselves why the reply above and others, Jesus is indeed God, 'fumes' JustMe?

And also witness his response back to me, and it's not easy to keep my calm composure when challenge with irrelevant response.

i did my duty posting scripture and explaining Jesus is indeed God, why JustMe is opposed and fuming?

Looks like one need John 3:3&5, anyone can help, thank you?

He is impossible, I gave up.

 

[JustMe]

W

He is impossible, I gave up.

Well apparently I'm doing something right, and I predicted the outcome I'm now getting, as no surprise.

Would you like me to investigate and do more Bible Study of scripture, of your choice, say with a new thread. or not?

How about covering all the so-called "I am' statements. I reckon I will get the same response after I'm done with that one as well.

I do love Bible study, don't you? The truth in scripture is everything.

 

[ProDeo]

W

Well apparently I'm doing something right, and I predicted the outcome I'm now getting, as no surprise.

Would you like me to investigate and do more Bible Study of scripture, of your choice, say with a new thread. or not?

How about covering all the so-called "I am' statements. I reckon I will get the same response after I'm done with that one as well.

I do love Bible study, don't you? The truth in scripture is everything.

I am pretty sure we agree more than disagree on other topics but on the topic of (for example) the preexistence of Christ you are biased to the core. When offered 3-4 Scripture passages that 100% speak of Jesus preexistence your answer was : those are just isolated statements in order to deny Jesus preexistence. That kind of reasoning sounds as intellectual suicide for my brain.

Love.

 

[JustMe]

My answer was

I am pretty sure we agree more than disagree on other topics but on the topic of (for example) the preexistence of Christ you are biased to the core. When offered 3-4 Scripture passages that 100% speak of Jesus preexistence your answer was : those are just isolated statements in order to deny Jesus preexistence. That kind of reasoning sounds as intellectual suicide for my brain.

Love.

MY ANSWER WAS WHAT...was WHAT AGAIN! How dare you lie about what I never said and never would say.

Retract that statement and apologize....

Man, what words will you conjure up next time in an attempt discredit me. Are you that desperate to embarrass yourself.

Shame on you...

----------------------------------------------------
Regarding 'my reasoning' added later in this post, it is straightforward:

I have been engaged in this kind of Bible Study for around 30 years. I present the truth as I understand it, without bias, guided by the Spirit of God, and I do not fabricate anything when it comes to spiritual matters or God's words. What I share is what I know to be true, not based on human teachings or doctrines. I do incorporate truthful arguments that I agree with, as led by the Spirit. Naturally, I make mistakes like anyone else, but I am quick to correct them when I discover them or when others point them out.

The idea of 'isolated statements' is nonsense.

Please consider this my truth going forward. So far, I have not found any convincing evidence or persuasive words that Yeshua, the Son of God, existed before his birth, or that He is divine, a deity, or the same as His Father, who is His God—none at all! I have examined many texts, documents, and various scripture translations.

Why do you think I am so eager to share my work with others? Do you believe I do it for amusement, to distort, bias, or corrupt scripture through misapplication or deliberate misinterpretation? Certainly not; that kind of corrupt thinking is not in me. I am a believer in the Messiah and God, and I am a citizen of the Kingdom today.

I do not expect you to take any of this seriously based on your previous posts...

 

[ProDeo]

My answer was

MY ANSWER WAS WHAT...was WHAT AGAIN! How dare you lie about what I never said and never would say.

Retract that statement and apologize....

Man, what words will you conjure up next time in an attempt discredit me. Are you that desperate to embarrass yourself.

Shame on you...

The interpretation of Phil 2: 1 -11 - in proper context and theme

The Mental and heartfelt giving and loving attitude of Christ to be Our Example - one mind (Php 2:1) Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, (Php 2:2) make my joy full by being...

www.christianityboard.com

This is what you said in response on 3 quotes from the gospel of John about the preexistence of Christ.

You : And can do you really understand every one of these one-verse explanations supporting your religious views of the Son of God, and also his God?

Perhaps you forgot ?

 

[JustMe]

The interpretation of Phil 2: 1 -11 - in proper context and theme

The Mental and heartfelt giving and loving attitude of Christ to be Our Example - one mind (Php 2:1) Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, (Php 2:2) make my joy full by being...

www.christianityboard.com

This is what you said in response on 3 quotes from the gospel of John about the preexistence of Christ.

You : And can do you really understand every one of these one-verse explanations supporting your religious views of the Son of God, and also his God?

Perhaps you forgot ?

You know this is a very childish move. More embarrassment again I see...

Of course I know this quote, and what does it have to do with you lying statement below?

"When offered 3-4 Scripture passages that 100% speak of Jesus preexistence your answer was : those are just isolated statements in order to deny Jesus preexistence. That kind of reasoning sounds as intellectual suicide for my brain."


And I did said this of course:
And can do you really understand every one of these one-verse explanations supporting your religious views of the Son of God, and also his God?

If you did not understand my response the first time then read this for extra clarity:

You are ignorant of what these verses mean, because you can never explain them in truth to show Yeshua pre-existed because of your glaring and overwhelming religious bias and its interjection into scripture.


They, those verses Do NOT 100% speak of Jesus preexistence...


Look, let me try to give you way out and call it good. Explain these 3-4 verses that you are convinced say Yeshua 100% pre-existed before his birth.

Do this and I will read it carefully and examine it and give you my objective response.

If not, then I will know your cry out of being hurt is without merit and you still lied to me by fabricating words I never said or thought of ever saying.

 

[ProDeo]

They, those verses Do NOT 100% speak of Jesus preexistence...

They do, your view is a very minority one.

 

[JustMe]

Here's a handy reference to John 17:5 and its true meaning, for frequent review, especially for those who habitually drift off into the sci-fi land of preexisting and human divine beings.

John 17 : 5, (including verses 12, and 22 and others)​

It's about idioms again and more...including context...can I say more...

The prophetic perfect idiom is in play for John 17:5; 17:12; and John 17:22. When God has explicitly promised that the event will occur, the prophet or writer (in this case John) will refer to that promised event in the past tense since God has promised it - it is “as good as done.” In Greek grammar this is called "prolepsis type 1 - (the writer's perspective)" and prolepsis type 2 - ("God's promise").

Type I prolepsis is basically defined the same as Type II prolepsis in the sense of having the same function. The difference is that in Type 1 the writer is speaking of future events as though they are in the past because he already knows what takes place. In Type 2, it is God doing the prophesying, or His commissioned prophet or agent is doing it by insight from God concerning the future.

When we find phrases that relate to event or an occurrences, such as before the world was; from the foundation of the world; or before the foundation of the world; the prophetic perfect is being used. Revelation 13:8; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:5.

Example in 1 Peter...
(1Pe 1:18) Knowing you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;
(1Pe 1:19) but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot.
(1Pe 1:20) He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,
(1Pe 1:21) who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory. So that your faith and hope might be in God.

Jesus was not literally crucified before the world was. (Revelation 13:8)

When 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace “before the beginning of time,” no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were “in the mind of God,” i.e., in God’s foreknowledge. The same is true of Yeshua the Messiah. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it would come into manifestation, in his near time.

In the same way, in John 17, Yeshua did not literally have a glory with the Father before the world was. In these cases, Yeshua was in the plans and foreknowledge of YHWH and predestined for a future purpose before his literal physical existence. Wrenching John 17:5 out of context and giving it "stand alone" meaning is eisegesis, not exegesis. Read on to verse 24 for context.

The same glory Yeshua said he gave to his followers hasn't actually been received yet. Therefore the glory refers to a planned glory in advance of the resurrection of Yesh, and for his followers. This means the prophetic perfect is in use here. We have been given the same glory Yeshua asks for. He received his glory because he was resurrected. We have not been resurrected yet. Since it's the same glory, it cannot be any other glory than a predestined glory prepared in advance of Yeshua's only human existence. If people insist that Yeshua preexisted because of their interpretation of 17:5, then they must concede all of Yeshua's followers preexisted their births. That results in an absurdity.

Yeshua never had a glory with YHWH in a past existence that he is asking for in verse 5. He only existed in YHWH's mind as a plan and forethought, not as any kind of divine spirit being.

Preexistence causes conflict with the Bible. Yeshua was glorified after his resurrection. The prophetic perfect statement has been fulfilled for verse 5, but not for verse 22 which applies to his followers. We have that same glory, yet we haven't received it yet. This is proof of the writer's use of the prophetic perfect in verse 5.

YHWH planned a glory for Yeshua before the earth was made/before the first man. Yeshua's followers will receive that same glory when they are resurrected.

Turning verse 5 into a "preexistence" doctrine destroys the meaning. John 17:5 must be interpreted in a way that is biblically sound and without conflicting with other verses.

In addition: Yeshua, being sent into the world, has nothing to do with pre-existence either. The same way Yeshua was sent into the world, is the way he says he sent John the Baptist, and his followers into the world. All were born human beings/persons both Yeshua, John the Baptist and the disciples.

Foreknowledge, predestination, begotten, and born all stand as witnesses against a preexistent Yeshua.

Preexistence is theologically driven by people who bring traditional presuppositional biases to the interpretation table. For example, those who require an incarnation to make their theology work will see pre-existence in John 17:5 and a small number of other verses they take out of context which can easily be explained by the context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Taken]

Where is your evidence that God cannot be both truly human and truly God? and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Humans are From Dirt / Earth.

Simply …if God came from Dirt…
Then Who created the Dirt / Land / Earth?

God is Spirit… without a Beginning.
Humans … have a beginning.

God having the POWER TO Appear “as” a man, does NOT MAKE God a HUMAN man.

Even Angels, who ARE Spirits have the “POWER” (given them from God )…
To APPEAR “as” a “human man”…

Angels do not become human men.
Human men do not become angels.
God is not a human man.
Human men do not become God.

The Word of God Came forth out from God, Appeared AS a man to teach human men HOW TO, become MADE (by Gods Offering and Power)…
In the LIKENESS “AS” God.

And if you observe human men have the POWER to Appear as A Female human…
But they are NOT females.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[VictoryinJesus]

C'mon; nobody wants to talk about humility and self-abnegation.

I haven’t followed this thread and really don’t know what it’s about, but you post stood out to me this morning. I love 2 Corinthians 13:4-9 because they wanted proof Christ spoke in Paul.
2 Corinthians 13:4-9 …. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you…. .
[9] For we are glad, when we are weak, and you are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.

Who wants to talk about being weak so others can be made strong?
Can you imagine someone asking for proof Christ speaks in you and the answer is not I’ll be strong so that you be made weak? But upside-down possessing all things He became poor that we be made rich.

Or how much we talk about our own securing of salvation, and those that have not …

 

[JustMe]

John 3:13, 3:31, 6:38 and more

A reference in understanding certain scripture with idioms that are God and Heaven centric -the source of human activities and their existence.

It was common for the local culture during the time of Christ and even in some areas today to say that something “came from heaven” if God were its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives that we receive.

In the same way these types of idioms apply to other parts of scripture in the same way.

Yeshua was “sent from God,” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said Yeshua “comes from above is above all” and “comes from heaven is above all” (John 3:31).

John B. was saying the Yeshua is above all because he was born of God who comes from above, who comes from heaven.

And in John 3:13, Yeshua says: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (NEV)

Yeshua is “from God,” “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and presently He is in God (his Spirit and word), his Father, who is from heaven. Heaven represents the presence of God.

(Joh 6:38) For I came down from Heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.(NEV)

Yeshua says he was born from God of heaven, not to do his own will, to do His Father's will who chose/sent his on his divine mission.

Another scripture...

(Mat 21:25) The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men? And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us, why then did you not believe him?

John the Baptist was in the service of God, who is from Heaven, and the source of John's heavenly divine mission on earth.

One more...

The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus’ words in John 17. He said, “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18).

We understand perfectly what the Messiah meant when he said, “I have sent them into the world.” He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. No one thinks that we were in heaven with the Messiah and incarnated into the flesh. The Messiah said, “As you have sent me, I have sent them.” So, however we take the phrase that the Messiah sent us, that is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ or the Messiah of God.

One last one...
(Joh 8:23) And he said to them: You are from beneath. I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world.

Jesus' "from above" refers to his divine earthly conception by God ("I am from above" God of heaven conceived him) and his role as the Messiah (sent from/by) God to fulfill his Father's mission for mankind's salvation.

And his anointing was everything for success of this mission, as God possessed him with his logos and Spirit.

 

[Justified]

Humans are From Dirt / Earth.

Simply …if God came from Dirt…
Then Who created the Dirt / Land / Earth?

God is Spirit… without a Beginning.
Humans … have a beginning.

God having the POWER TO Appear “as” a man, does NOT MAKE God a HUMAN man.

Even Angels, who ARE Spirits have the “POWER” (given them from God )…
To APPEAR “as” a “human man”…

Angels do not become human men.
Human men do not become angels.
God is not a human man.
Human men do not become God.

The Word of God Came forth out from God, Appeared AS a man to teach human men HOW TO, become MADE (by Gods Offering and Power)…
In the LIKENESS “AS” God.

And if you observe human men have the POWER to Appear as A Female human…
But they are NOT females.

Glory to God,
Taken

You're awfully close to promoting the heresy of Docetism. Jesus is both truly man and truly God; he didn't merely appear to be human, he actually was fully human.