The context in 17 clearly shows Jesus is being glorified for the work he accomplished, that how he glorified God and that’s why God will glorify him. It’s also throughout the gospel of John. No where does it ever say Jesus is being restored the glory he had and temporarily gave up.
John 17:5 "
And now,
O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
John 17:5 says exactly what you are repudiating.
The phrase “before the foundation of the world” is the key phrase that lets us know it’s a foreordained glory. This is how it’s used in scriptures elsewhere for Jesus like in John 17:24, 1 Pet. 1:20 and Rev. 13:8 but also of believers like in Eph. 1:4.
So you're indiscrimately alleging that all references to the foundation of the word are references to predestination. In John 17 at least, the Greek verb tenses don't agree with you. Thus in John 17:5, the imperfect tense is used, which is inappropriate for anything predestined (usually aorist tense but sometimes perfect if a state is being referred to).
I concede the aorist is used in 7:24, but the aorist isn't conclusive of predestination. Indeed Jesus himself says nothing about predestination apart from by reference to what is written in scripture. In John 17 he seems to be speaking personally of himself.
Just like Adam was created sinless, Jesus was created sinless. Unlike Adam though Jesus actually obeyed God and rema
All men are created sinless.
Not sure what’s hard to understand that Jesus was perfectly obedient as scriptures clearly teach.
How can a mere man be sinless, as "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23?
If anyone says he wasn’t sinless then they don’t read their Bibles. I can’t speak for others but I take sin extremely serious.
The majority of trinitarians will damn you for not believing their view, I’ve been “damned” by countless trinitarians once I stopped believing like they do, even by family members.
There are different kinds of Trinitarians. There are:
(1) the hyper-Trinitarians, who communize God into God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, where God is reduced to a substance or attribute, or the divine nature so called. There are very common and have been around since Anathasius.
(2) moderate or discriminating trinitarians, who accept a divine hierarchy, with God the Father at it's top. They also accept the Word and Spirit are of God and Jesus as of and from God (
1Co 1:30,
Jhn 8:42) (which is what I am). They may or may not think of themselves as Trinitarians, and are clearly differentiated from the hyper-Trinitarian set above, as they conceive God properly denotes the Father, albeit the admit the full divinity of the Word and Holy Spirit.
(3) Arians, which strictly are derived from (1) because they equally conceive a God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but not in the same way as hyper-Trinitarians.
(4) Oneness or Sabellians, which again are strictly are derived from (1) because they equally conceive a God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but not in the same way as hyper-Trinitarians.
Then there are the people who are outside scripture altogether. These, as far as I am concerned, are
not Christians.
(5) Unitarians or adoptionists: those who see Jesus as having no divine origination, except in predestination, and being a de jure adopted son of God at some point after his conception.
(6) You.
You cut between (2) and (5) to introduce a sixth category where Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but had no prior existence in heaven. I don't really grasp where you find support for that contention, and it is anomalous, for if God really could produce sinless men just by using his Holy Spirit to impregnate women, then why didn't he make it a regular rule to eradicate sin from the world? The only explanation is because Jesus did have a prior existence in heaven with God (John 1:1b), and there was only one in heaven which fulfilled his criteria.
By your theory, Jesus has no prior existence, so whatever it was that happened to Mary didn't pass on any life, but acted on Mary to induce prokaryotic fission. But how then did Jesus become born male?
Once again, I’m am not a soccinian, I’m simply a Christian who believes the word of God.
That's your definition. A Soccinian is a name given today who denies Jesus has any prior existence in heaven, and I believe you fall into this category.
The RCC is the one who has killed countless men for heresy though thankfully that practice is gone.
You don't have to subscribe to unitarianism to rebut the hyper-Trinitarianism of the RCC and its many daughter churches. There is a middle way (i.e. (2) above), which you don't seem to want to entertain. I see unitarianism as an extremist protest movement against the RCC. But it goes too far. It rebuts things in heaven that it has no knowledge of and no right to rebut, because they are clearly stated in scripture.
Every man has his own opinion so I could care less what they think. God will judge me through one man alone, Jesus, not anyone else
Unitarianism doesn’t have an ounce of gnosticism.
It's inherently adoptionist. God adopting a man as his son, whereas John 1:10 "He was in the world, an
d though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11
He came to that which was his own,"
You're missing an entire theology of why Jesus is the monogenes son of God. Even if he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, what difference could that make if he had no prior existence? So he must have been adopted. Gnosticism in the early days of the church postulated two alternative theories, one involving adoptionism, and one involving Jesus not being a real man at all (docetism).
Trinitarianism and oneness arose from gnostic roots. What man declares heretical meaningless to me. Don’t forget that the same people who declared many things heretical also declares you view as heretical.
I'm not disputing hyper-Trinitarianism arose from gnostic roots.
That’s not what it says. You’re reading your presuppositions into the text.
Jhn 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me
with thine own self
It might not be Greek paganism exactly but it’s from greek roots.
Greek religion has always had multiple gods.
If one acknowledges that the Word and Spirit are of God, and subordinate to God, and one with God, then there remains one God with a complex life form, but that is acceptable for God. Men cannot limit God.
Again, your reading your theology into it. Does any verse ever say the spirit of Christ entered a human body?
I'm asking you how Peter could defer to the Spirit of Christ before Christ was born, if Christ had no prior existence?
You're evading the issue with another question.
Typical evasion and subterfuge.
No, that’s what you do, not them.
The apostles were already dealing with Greek philosophy infiltrating the church in their time and unfortunately when they were gone it started taking over the gentile churches. This is when Jesus became a god
Jesus is a de facto god (John 10:34) because he titled "Lord" by all the apostles. If you can't accept it you're no Christian.
θεος can and does apply to others though rare. But yes, the Father is θεος 99.98% of the time
Not "ό Θεός."
If I come with something new then you’d just argue that no one ever said or believed it before hence it can’t be true.
I've no time for theological protest movements. Such is the reason for all heresies, which I despise.
You've got to prove that unitarianism has some rational basis. You've yet to. A majority of unitarians are not "Christians" in any plausible sense. And this is what you deny:
Jhn 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man
ascend up where he was before?
The word beginning means ruler as well. That’s where we get the word monarch one (μόνος) ruler (αρχή).
It's not the only word for ruler. It is a specific term that connotes rulership derived from origination. Monarchs derive their authority from hereditary considerations in the same way.
He’s the ruler of all creation both old and new not the creator of them.
No, that’s your false interpretation. When he says ‘I am’ he is declaring to be the Messiah as we see in John 4 and Matt. 26 to name a few
Again you're evading the question. That's why Trinitarians will disown you. If you accept "I AM" means "I eternally exist" then that's just dishonest.
So you repudiate his claim to equality of existence with God. And that is why you will be excommunciated by all persons of categories (1) and (2) I listed above.