God walks into His Temple.

Mere man, glorified man, exalted man, pick any adjective you want, your Jesus is a man.
So l will ask you again.
If Jesus was a man who died on a cross, how can a man [who just died] sustain the universe, by the power of His {Jesus] word? How does a man sustain the universe when he is dead and buried for 3 days?
Hint, only God can sustain the universe. Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience.
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
It is not talking about Jesus when he was dead for three days. God's power has been given to Jesus, the Son of God, a man now glorified. The fact that this power was given to him proves that he did not previously possess this power, and hence he was not God the Son.
Matthew 28:18 (KJV): And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Jn 5:17But Jesus answered them, My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
You ignore all of what Jesus states:
John 5:19,26–27,30 (KJV): 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

If he was God the Son he would not be dependent upon God the Father. as he would already have the power and authority.
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Read all of John 10:30-36 where he rejects and answers their charge and claims that he is the Son of God, not God the Son.
Jn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to [a]our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”
Yes, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Son.
Funny, asking me to provide X, when you know that X is not mentioned in the Bible. Call it what you want, incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination, its not the main point.
I am not sure what you consider to be the main point of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, but let me explain what I consider these passages are teaching. They teach that Jesus is a man, and his father in the conception / birth process was God the Father and his mother was Mary.
Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
To repeat this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Christ before and during his ministry. Jesus is not claiming or grasping at equality with God. "God" here is external to Jesus. It does not say God the Son did not consider it robbery to be equal with God the Father, which is how you are reading this.
Philippians 2:5–8 (NASB95): 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:5–8 (ESV): 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


The thoughts of Jesus are in contrast to Adam and Eve who grasped at equality with God:
Genesis 3:4–5 (ASV 1901): 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:5 (NASB95): “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The flow of thought is from considering his exalted status being born the greatest prince that ever lived, the Son of God and then considering his frail humanity and weakness and the same with his contemporaries who would perish without salvation. Instead of acting like Absalom, he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death on a cross, a submission of his will to God's will. This makes sense as our example, but the supposed incarnation is not a specific example to us.
Bad logic, 'the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, proves that the Trinity does not exist'.
Why does it specifically say to the glory of God the Father.
Again, keeping the topic in insolation by narrowing it down to several verses that partially address the topic in your favor, is poor scholarship. The above verses address how Mary will become pregnant, [that is the topic]. And you use it to argue that Jesus did not exist before Mary becoming pregnant when there is tremendous evidence of Jesus did exist before Mary's pregnancy.
I will hold to the simple and clear teaching of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35. I will consider the many other passages individually, and have a different perspective on most of the passages that are misconstrued in support of the Trinity.
Antithesis = a figure of speech in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of, or strongly contrasted with, each other, such as “hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins”.
Despite your references I do not consider that flesh and spirit are in antithesis in Romans 1:1-4.
"was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" Physical
"and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness" Divine
Jesus' birth was as a result of the Divine intervention. His Spirit of holiness was also the result of God's intervention in the conception / birth and the Divine instruction of Jesus. Thus again, there is no antithesis, but these items both prove that Jesus is the Son of God.
Now to God. Is it "I am who I am" =eternal existence, or "I am who I Become" = gives more the sense that the outcome is the product of God.
I endorse "I will be/become what/who I will be/become". Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".
Its neither implicit or explicit.
I suggest Psalm 8:5 is a considerable and clear summary of Genesis 1:26-27.
Notice what God said, "Us make..." " Our image", " Our likeness". If God was speaking to the angles then God would have created man in the image of God and angles, whether or not it was God alone or with the angels. Vs.27 states that God created man in His image and likeness alone. Whoever "Us" is, is the one that man was made in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.
There is a principle that states that what one does through others he does by himself. Julius Caesar said "I came, I saw, I conquered" an English translation of the Latin veni, vidi, vici. We also say a particular architect built a famous building. One of my ancestors was a stone mason building St Paul's Cathedral. Yahweh made/created Adam and Eve.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
LOL, first off Jesus never broke the Sabbath and which should have been obvious to you by now being the Sabbath Law was written to free men up one day of the week from their secular jobs and work in order that they might worship and serve God instead and this is what Jesus and his disciples were doing on the Sabbath, they were worshiping and serving God and not their jobs and secular work.

Therefore both accusations were false and there wasn't a bit of truth in either of them.

Then later, Jesus finally went on to reveal unto them that they were getting these false ideas and accusations against Jesus from their real Father the Devil and who he made sure to mention was a liar and murderer from the very beginning and that no truth was in him.


John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”





Sorry but Jesus' own words in his prayer of John 17:11 and 20-23, reveals that they were reading what they wanted to hear into his words from their real Father the Devil and not what he really said and meant by it at all.


LOL, once again, your folly is in the fact that you seem to neglect the fact that in John 8:42-47 he exposed them as those who were listening to and believing the lies of their real Father the Devil and therefore I will remind you of that fact again and again.

Where would the Jews have gotten this false idea that Jesus calling himself God's Son meant that he was claiming equality with God?


For they wouldn't have gotten it from their God inspired OT scripture where both David and Solomon were also called God's Son and where not once is it ever revealed that being called God's Son meant that the one being called God's Son is God's equal or God himself.

Again, Jesus' words in John 8:42-47 reveal where they got this false idea and it was from their Father the Devil who Jesus told them was a liar from the beginning and the Father of Lies also.


And I have already proven that being called God's Son was not a blasphemy in accordance with the OT, for both David and Solomon were called God's Son and there is no evidence whatsoever of it ever meaning that the one called by this was equal unto God or God himself, it simply is nonexistent.

LOL, in John 5:22 Jesus receives that Judgment from God himself and it is only as the Judge appointed by God himself that Jesus tells us we are to honor him as we do God the Father and not as being God himself like you falsely twist this passage to be saying.


This just reveals even more of your own ignorance about these things, for in Daniel 7:13-14 Jesus receives that dominion from the Ancient of Days to bring that judgment on the beast and his Kingdom and God doesn't need to receive dominion and judgment from another, for he by default already has it and from everlasting to everlasting also.

You better believe I am sure about it, for Jesus said it.


How ignorant, for Jesus says it right in John 14:10 and there are at least two other places in the NT where he says that every word he spoke was from the Father and not from himself and he made this statement in regards to the immediate context of his words in John 14:8-10 especially also.
Neither David nor Solomon were EVER called or claimed to be THE SON of God.
ONLY Jesus did. And you EVADED dealing with John 5:18 and 10:30.
 
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
It is not talking about Jesus when he was dead for three days. God's power has been given to Jesus, the Son of God, a man now glorified. The fact that this power was given to him proves that he did not previously possess this power, and hence he was not God the Son.
Matthew 28:18 (KJV): And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

You ignore all of what Jesus states:
John 5:19,26–27,30 (KJV): 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

If he was God the Son he would not be dependent upon God the Father. as he would already have the power and authority.

Read all of John 10:30-36 where he rejects and answers their charge and claims that he is the Son of God, not God the Son.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Son.

I am not sure what you consider to be the main point of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, but let me explain what I consider these passages are teaching. They teach that Jesus is a man, and his father in the conception / birth process was God the Father and his mother was Mary.

To repeat this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Christ before and during his ministry. Jesus is not claiming or grasping at equality with God. "God" here is external to Jesus. It does not say God the Son did not consider it robbery to be equal with God the Father, which is how you are reading this.
Philippians 2:5–8 (NASB95): 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:5–8 (ESV): 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


The thoughts of Jesus are in contrast to Adam and Eve who grasped at equality with God:
Genesis 3:4–5 (ASV 1901): 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:5 (NASB95): “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The flow of thought is from considering his exalted status being born the greatest prince that ever lived, the Son of God and then considering his frail humanity and weakness and the same with his contemporaries who would perish without salvation. Instead of acting like Absalom, he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death on a cross, a submission of his will to God's will. This makes sense as our example, but the supposed incarnation is not a specific example to us.

Why does it specifically say to the glory of God the Father.

I will hold to the simple and clear teaching of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35. I will consider the many other passages individually, and have a different perspective on most of the passages that are misconstrued in support of the Trinity.

Despite your references I do not consider that flesh and spirit are in antithesis in Romans 1:1-4.

Jesus' birth was as a result of the Divine intervention. His Spirit of holiness was also the result of God's intervention in the conception / birth and the Divine instruction of Jesus. Thus again, there is no antithesis, but these items both prove that Jesus is the Son of God.

I endorse "I will be/become what/who I will be/become". Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".

I suggest Psalm 8:5 is a considerable and clear summary of Genesis 1:26-27.

There is a principle that states that what one does through others he does by himself. Julius Caesar said "I came, I saw, I conquered" an English translation of the Latin veni, vidi, vici. We also say a particular architect built a famous building. One of my ancestors was a stone mason building St Paul's Cathedral. Yahweh made/created Adam and Eve.

Kind regards
Trevor
IOW the US and OUR CANNOT possibly refer to angels.
 
Greetings again johnny guitar,
you EVADED dealing with John 10:30.
It is obvious that Jesus rejects and answers their false accusation in John 10:30-36. Jesus is THE Son of God, not God the Son.
IOW the US and OUR CANNOT possibly refer to angels.
I will ignore your one line on Genesis 1:26 as you do not address Psalm 8:5 in your statement. Psalm 8 dismisses the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
It is not talking about Jesus when he was dead for three days. God's power has been given to Jesus, the Son of God, a man now glorified.
I'm not sure this addresses his question. Jesus identifies with "the Word" rather than his own persona. He isn't saying that the man standing before these crowds is "the way, the truth and the life", but rather that the way, the truth, and the life is who he really is. This is his true identity. It is not a man who sustains the universe, but the word which entered fully into creation as well in the form of the man Jesus.
The fact that this power was given to him proves that he did not previously possess this power, and hence he was not God the Son.
Non Sequitur. The fact that a father does not pass his inheritance onto his son until he is older does not in any way lead to the conclusion that he isn't a human being.
 
Greetings shnarkle,
Jesus identifies with "the Word" rather than his own persona. He isn't saying that the man standing before these crowds is "the way, the truth and the life", but rather that the way, the truth, and the life is who he really is.
I appreciate your response, but I am not sure if you are supporting Towerwatchman's Trinitarian perspective on this or a different view. Yes, Jesus is the embodiment of the Word in John 1:14 and he is the way, the truth and the life John 14:6. Not sure what you are claiming in your comment about inheritance. Signing off- after 11pm Australian EST.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings shnarkle,

I appreciate your response, but I am not sure if you are supporting Towerwatchman's Trinitarian perspective on this or a different view.
My response is not in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. It's an observation.
Yes, Jesus is the embodiment of the Word in John 1:14
Agreed.
and he is the way, the truth and the life John 14:6.
Not really. The way, the truth and the life is the word which became the man Jesus who begins his ministry with "deny yourself". Presumably Jesus followed his own advice, and this seems to be the case throughout the gospel narratives. The most notable illustration is in the earliest gospel narrative asking his readers to peer into an empty tomb. There is nothing. Nobody there. A perfect illustration of self denial!
Not sure what you are claiming in your comment about inheritance.
I'm pointing out a Non Sequitur. We wouldn't conclude that just because a son isn't born with the power to run his father's business that the day he does proves that he isn't a human being. It doesn't follow that he isn't a human being. Likewise, this transfer of power doesn't disprove that Jesus isn't God.

I'm not saying that Jesus is God. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy.
 
Greetings again shnarkle,
My response is not in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. It's an observation.
Either you believe it or not, and I do not accept that Hebrews 1 is teaching the Trinity as it starts with God having spoken partially through prophets, now has spoken in a Son. There is One God here, Yahweh God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Not really. The way, the truth and the life is the word which became the man Jesus who begins his ministry with "deny yourself". Presumably Jesus followed his own advice, and this seems to be the case throughout the gospel narratives.
I find your explanation obscure. I am not much good at English or explanation, but way, truth, life are qualities that are in some way embodied in Jesus. In the word "way", we need to follow him as he leads the way of life even unto salvation, in the word "truth", he always speaks what is true and right (and other aspects), and "life" ultimately is everlasting life, but also every aspect of what a believer should absorb. Yes Jesus needed to deny himself because he was a human, and needed to suppress the lusts of the flesh and overcome them with his understanding and meditation on the Word of God, for example his quotation of Deuteronomy three times in his trials in the wilderness.
I'm pointing out a Non Sequitur. We wouldn't conclude that just because a son isn't born with the power to run his father's business that the day he does proves that he isn't a human being. It doesn't follow that he isn't a human being. Likewise, this transfer of power doesn't disprove that Jesus isn't God.
I'm not saying that Jesus is God. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy.
Your reasoning is on a different level to me. If you already own something and already exercise control over something, then you cannot say that one day you will inherit it. Abraham and Christ were promised the land for an inheritance, and Abraham has not received it as yet, but I am not sure if you claim that Jesus as God always owned the land when it says that in the future from when the promise was given he was to inherit the Land Genesis 13:14-15, Acts 7:4-5, Galatians 3:16, 26-29. We say that God the Father is Lord of heaven and earth, but we do not say that one day God the Father will inherit the heaven and earth, as he already owns it and is supreme over all.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again johnny guitar,

It is obvious that Jesus rejects and answers their false accusation in John 10:30-36. Jesus is THE Son of God, not God the Son.

I will ignore your one line on Genesis 1:26 as you do not address Psalm 8:5 in your statement. Psalm 8 dismisses the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor
Jesus did NOT reject any false accusation, since the Jews were totally correct in understanding what Jesus was claiming, to be The DIVINE SON of God. The Father and Son are ONE.
Man was made in the image of God, NOT God and angels.
 
Greetings again johnny guitar,
Jesus did NOT reject any false accusation, since the Jews were totally correct in understanding what Jesus was claiming, to be The DIVINE SON of God.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.
The Father and Son are ONE.
Refer John 10:30 "I and my Father" equals John 10:36 "I said, I am the Son of God". Also refer
John 17:20-23 (KJV): 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Man was made in the image of God, NOT God and angels.
Refer Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again shnarkle,

Either you believe it or not,
False. I do not ascribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, at least not as it is commonly known. However, the creed states, "one in being with the father" which makes perfect sense to me. I don't necessarily find this to be an integral feature of the Trinity, but it does lend itself to a trinitarian perspective which I've alluded to already.
and I do not accept that Hebrews 1 is teaching the Trinity as it starts with God having spoken partially through prophets, now has spoken in a Son. There is One God here, Yahweh God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Agreed.
I find your explanation obscure. I am not much good at English or explanation, but way, truth, life are qualities that are in some way embodied in Jesus.
It is important to keep in mind the distinction between the contents and the container. Christ's identity is the way, the truth and the life. This may be identified with the man named Jesus, but again identification is NOT identity.

em·bod·y
[əmˈbädē]

VERB

  1. be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling):
    "a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill"
    synonyms:
    personify · incorporate · 
    [more]
    • provide (a spirit) with a physical form:
In the word "way", we need to follow him as he leads the way of life even unto salvation, in the word "truth", he always speaks what is true and right (and other aspects), and "life" ultimately is everlasting life, but also every aspect of what a believer should absorb.
You're ignoring what the text explicitly states, which is that he IS the way, the truth and the life. He is not the examples of how this plays out throughout his life.
Yes Jesus needed to deny himself because he was a human, and needed to suppress the lusts of the flesh and overcome them with his understanding and meditation on the Word of God, for example his quotation of Deuteronomy three times in his trials in the wilderness.
You're conflating things that need to be denied versus denying the self itself. When the selfsame identification with the body is denied itself, the problem is cut off at the root. From then on, there is no need to address the object of one's lust as there is no one left to lust. This is not only a pervasive idea with Christ, but Paul as well, e.g. 'dying daily".
Your reasoning is on a different level to me. If you already own something and already exercise control over something, then you cannot say that one day you will inherit it.
Legally speaking, this is exactly how it can be presented and has been for thousands of years. The examples I gave are common so I don't know what level you're referring to.
Abraham and Christ were promised the land for an inheritance, and Abraham has not received it as yet, but I am not sure if you claim that Jesus as God...
Strawman argument. I'm not claiming that Jesus is God. You don't seem to be comprehending my posts, and what is incredibly amazing is that I'm actually going out of my way to clarify my position so you wouldn't be inclined to make these gross errors in reading comprehension, e.g. "I'm not saying that Jesus is God. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy." post #127

Please make an honest attempt to read what I'm actually posting instead of addressing arguments I'm not making in the first place.
 
Greetings again johnny guitar,

John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

Refer John 10:30 "I and my Father" equals John 10:36 "I said, I am the Son of God". Also refer
John 17:20-23 (KJV): 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Refer Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5.

Kind regards
Trevor
In the Bible and among the Jews The Son of God=God.
And John 17 has NOTHING to do with John 10.
Psalm 8:5 does NOT say angels helped God create man.
 
Greetings again shnarkle and johnny guitar,
It is important to keep in mind the distinction between the contents and the container.

In the Bible and among the Jews The Son of God=God. And John 17 has NOTHING to do with John 10. Psalm 8:5 does NOT say angels helped God create man.
I appreciate your responses, but not willing to go much further as I have stated my position that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, a human who did not exist before his conception/birth, and he is also the son of Mary through whom he inherited the fallen nature of Adam which he overcame through love of God his Father and the Word of God and his humble submission to God's will.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again shnarkle and johnny guitar,



I appreciate your responses, but not willing to go much further as I have stated my position that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, a human who did not exist before his conception/birth,
Makes sense.
and he is also the son of Mary through whom he inherited the fallen nature of Adam which he overcame through love of God his Father and the Word of God and his humble submission to God's will.
by the power of the holy spirit. I would also add that the man who objectively existed to this fallen world didn't identify with his personage. We can see this in comments such as: "Before Abraham was, I am", "Apart from me, you can do nothing", "I am the way, the truth and the life", "and the word became flesh...etc."

These all point to something beyond the human being named Jesus. They point to the word which is the one true way to eternal life because the way is eternal life. It is only the personification of the truth that has a beginning and end.
Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again shnarkle,
I would also add that the man who objectively existed to this fallen world didn't identify with his personage. We can see this in comments such as: "Before Abraham was, I am", "Apart from me, you can do nothing", "I am the way, the truth and the life", "and the word became flesh...etc." These all point to something beyond the human being named Jesus.
I view at least two of these "Before Abraham was, I am", "and the word became flesh" differently to the Trinitarian view of these and most probably different to what you are suggesting. I am not sure of your real assessment of Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again shnarkle,

I view at least two of these "Before Abraham was, I am", "and the word became flesh" differently to the Trinitarian view of these
What are you specifically referring to here?
and most probably different to what you are suggesting. I am not sure of your real assessment of Jesus.
What is the cause of your uncertainty? Why do you think this is a valid reason?
Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again shnarkle,
What are you specifically referring to here?
We can see this in comments such as: "Before Abraham was, I am"
I have discussed this verse at length elsewhere, but I consider that this should be translated "Before Abraham was, I am he", the same as John 4:25-26, 8:24, 8:28 and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ and on each of these four occurrences Jesus is claiming to be the Christ. I also believe that the Trinitarian claim that he is quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14 is incorrect as Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be" as per Tyndale, RV and RSV margins and AB Davidson. Refer my thread the Yahweh Name.
"and the word became flesh...etc."
I believe that "the Word" in John 1:1 is a personification of God's written, spoken word and the thoughts behind this word, a personification similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the creation. The way this "word" became flesh is detailed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where God the Father by means of the power of the Holy Spirit became the father of a new human Jesus, and Mary was his mother, and was further completed in the growth of the wisdom of Jesus as per Luke 2:40,52 so that when Jesus was revealed he was "full of grace and truth", that is, a full revelation of the character of God, "the Word". Your "etc." most probably represents the few other verses that are misconstrued by Trinitarians and some of these can be considered in the many other Trinitarian threads.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:
Greetings again shnarkle,


I have discussed this verse at length elsewhere, but I consider that this should be translated "Before Abraham was, I am he", the same as John 4:25-26, 8:24, 8:28 and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ and on each of these four occurrences Jesus is claiming to be the Christ.
Good points! I recall those arguments and find them to be quite compelling.
I also believe that the Trinitarian claim that he is quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14 is incorrect as Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be" as per Tyndale, RV and RSV margins and AB Davidson. Refer my thread the Yahweh Name.
While I'm not a Trinitarian, I do find this insight of yours to be much more in line with the Trinitarian view than yours due to the fact that what will be according to God, the father is manifest in Christ the Son.
I believe that "the Word" in John 1:1 is a personification of God's written, spoken word and the thoughts behind this word, a personification similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the creation.
Metaphor would probably be more accurate.
The way this "word" became flesh is detailed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where God the Father by means of the power of the Holy Spirit became the father of a new human Jesus, and Mary was his mother, and was further completed in the growth of the wisdom of Jesus as per Luke 2:40,52 so that when Jesus was revealed he was "full of grace and truth", that is, a full revelation of the character of God, "the Word".
This would be a more accurate example of personification. However, when we read that he was in every way a human being just like everyone else, I tend to see this applying to his conception as well while the power of the holy spirit is what enables him to remain obedient to the only real father one who is born of the spirit can have.
 
Greetings again shnarkle,
While I'm not a Trinitarian, I do find this insight of yours to be much more in line with the Trinitarian view than yours due to the fact that what will be according to God, the father is manifest in Christ the Son.
First part is obscure or ambiguous. I most probably agree with the second part.
Metaphor would probably be more accurate. ...... This would be a more accurate example of personification.
I am not sure what it is actually called, but I consider that in John 1:1 "The Word" is a quality of God, not a person, similar to "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8. Two passages that I consider prepare the way for the language of John 1 in addition to Proverbs 8 are:
Psalm 33:6–9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

However, when we read that he was in every way a human being just like everyone else
Agree, he is not a God-man with two natures Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14.
I tend to see this applying to his conception as well while the power of the holy spirit is what enables him to remain obedient to the only real father one who is born of the spirit can have.
I possibly do not agree as this is obscure to me.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
It is not talking about Jesus when he was dead for three days. God's power has been given to Jesus, the Son of God, a man now glorified. The fact that this power was given to him proves that he did not previously possess this power, and hence he was not God the Son.
Let's read the passage again.
Heb 1:3... and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
It states that Jesus was sustaining the universe when He {Jesus} purged our sins.
Question: When did Jesus purge our sins?
1Pe 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose [a]stripes you were healed.
Now follow the logic: If Jesus was sustaining the universe when He purged our sins, [at His crucifixion and death], and the universe continued to exist and function for the next three days and nights; how did Jesus, who is just a man, sustain and uphold the universe when He [Jesus} was dead and buried?
Matthew 28:18 (KJV): And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Power translates from

ἐξουσία
• possession ⇔ authority — the act of having and controlling property.
• right ⇔ authority — a privilege (of a social or legal nature) reserved exclusively to a particular person or group.
• ruler ⇔ authority — a person who exercises (administrative) control over others.
• domain ⇔ authority — a domain understood by the authority necessary to exercise such dominion
Thompson, J., ed. (2020). Lists of Words and Concepts. Faithlife.

Jesus was referring to authority, vs supernatural ability.

You ignore all of what Jesus states:
John 5:19,26–27,30 (KJV): 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
You might have a point if the text read "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what "The Father authorizes"...
What you are doing is nothing new, you are holding verses in isolation, when one holds verses in isolation one can spin the verse to fit one's argument. You have to include the setting in your conclusion.

The Son does nothing apart from or in rivalry of the Father, that His actions are not independent or in opposition to, but that they work in harmony with each other.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
The Son’s ability to give life is coupled with His right to judge mankind (cf. v. 27). The Father has placed this eschatological prerogative in Jesus’ hands. Up to vs. 21 it has been affirmed that the Son does nothing apart from or in rivalry of the Father. The Father here waives His right to judgment in favor of the Son. Place close attention, “has granted the Son to have life in Himself” does not equate to “has given the Son life.”vs26. Just as the Father has the authority to judge and therefore grant eternal life, this authority was given to Jesus.

If he was God the Son he would not be dependent upon God the Father. as he would already have the power and authority.
You are reading into the passage what it does not say.
Read all of John 10:30-36 where he rejects and answers their charge and claims that he is the Son of God, not God the Son.
Let's read the passage again.
John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."

Notice its not a rejection but questioning.

Let's continue
If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and [f]believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

Notice, Jesus never denied being God or argued that the accusation was wrong, but cited His miracles as proof of His deity and eternal oneness with the Father.

I am not sure what you consider to be the main point of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, but let me explain what I consider these passages are teaching. They teach that Jesus is a man, and his father in the conception / birth process was God the Father and his mother was Mary.
Where does is say God the Father?
Mt 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Father/Son is relational. Hierarchy does not make one individual greater or less or God than the other. both equal in attributes, both different in hierarchy, and both God.

To repeat this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Christ before and during his ministry.
Let's be clear, its the disposition of Jesus' mind before and after His birth. What is key is that Jesus 'considered' before He was an embryo in Mary's womb. How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception.
Jesus is not claiming or grasping at equality with God. "God" here is external to Jesus.
As to what Jesus was considering, you have to pay close attention to Paul's choice of words.

Equality translates from
Equal = 2470 ἴσος [isos /ee•sos/] adj. Probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT 3:343; TDNTA 370; GK 2698; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “equal” four times, “agree together + 2258” twice, “as much” once, and “like” once. 1 equal, in quantity or quality.

Paul is stating that Jesus' equal in quality and quantity with God.

Grasp or robbery translated from “harpagmos”. It is a noun and not a verb, referring to equality as something already possessed by Jesus, but He did not choose to use it.

The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

It does not say God the Son did not consider it robbery to be equal with God the Father, which is how you are reading this.
It does not have to. One can come to a logical conclusion from what Paul wrote.
Why does it specifically say to the glory of God the Father.
This is a universal confession or statement of faith that honors God.
The following should explain.
Jn 5:3 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Notice what Paul writes honoring the Son.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

Then Paul honors the Father.
to the glory of God the Father.

I endorse "I will be/become what/who I will be/become". Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".
You have a contradiction. Your deity cannot be god, because he will become a different what or who he wants to become. If your deity cannot be immutable, an attribute of God your deity is not god.
 
Back
Top