God walks into His Temple.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

Why did the Sanhedrin go berserk, tearing their robes, screaming, slapping Him, and shouting blasphemy when He said He was The Son of God???You have yet to provide a valid explanation

Your problem is that you substitute God the Son, in your mind at least, for the correct description "The Son of God" John 20:30-31.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[johnny guitar]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

Your problem is that you substitute God the Son, in your mind at least, for the correct description "The Son of God" John 20:30-31.

Kind regards
Trevor

IOW the Jews knew He was making claims to Divinity. John 19:7
He is The Divine Son of God who BECAME a Man, and NEVER the obverse.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

IOW the Jews knew He was making claims to Divinity. John 19:7

John 19:7 (KJV): The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
No, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

He is The Divine Son of God who BECAME a Man, and NEVER the obverse.

It is interesting that you add "Divine" to the status "The Son of God" by saying "The Divine Son of God". You are either ignoring the significance of the status "The Son of God" and/or trying in some way include the concept of God the Son. Jesus became the Son of God, a human, when God the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit participated in the conception/birth of Jesus. He was also a human, the son of Mary his mother. Mary did not give birth to God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Towerwatchman]

Some people might view this as saying that the person or persona is equal to God which isn't what you've presented at all.

What you've posted is accurate, but too many people don't understand that God is not equivalent to Himself, or the persona that is presented to the world. God is the origin of his own person or persona.

When we say "himself" we are necessarily referring to his self, and what is his is not who he is. Grammatically speaking, it's the difference between the Verb to Be and the Genitive of Possession. They cannot be equivalent.

However, there may be one exception if we look at being as an attribute rather than who one is. If being or existence is what belongs to God rather than who God is, then they are somewhat equivalent. The verb to be then becomes equivalent to the genitive of possession. It's a grammatical problem, but not a logical or mathematical problem.

If we see that God is the origin of being rather than being itself, there is no problem anymore. Paul affirms this to be the case in 1 Corinthians 8:6

• Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is, what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
• Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
  • God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,
  • Essence and existence are identical in God.
• Nature - is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation.
  • Love is a marker of God’s essence.
  • God’s nature is love.
• Being- signifies the substance of X, what makes X individual.
  • “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,
    • holy
    • omnipresent
    • omniscient
    • immutable
    • omnipotent

As to mathematical. The following is from CS Lewis. [ Not word for word.]

In a one-dimensional plane, there exist only straight lines. You can draw them up-down, right-left, back forth. Each line is a singularity.

Now move up in complexity to a two-dimensional plane. In a two-dimensional plane, the lines formed in a one-dimensional world can be combined in ways that could not be conceived in a one-dimensional world, to form squares for example. Now we have height and width. In a one-dimensional plane, four lines equal four singularities, but in a two-dimensional plane, four lines equal one singularity = one square.

In a three-dimensional plane, we have height, width, and depth. Now we can combine things from a one and two-dimensional plane in ways they couldn’t conceive for example cubes. In a one-dimensional plane, we have 12 lines equal 12 singularities, but in a three-dimensional plane, 12 lines equal one singularity = one cube. In a two-dimensional plane, we have six squares equal six singularities, but in a three-dimensional world, six squares equal one singularity = one cube.

Notice what happened. As you move up into more complex planes you do not lose the things from the lower planes but combine them in new ways that are not conceivable in the lower planes.

The human plane is a simple plane, where one center of consciousness = one being, or two centers of consciousness = two beings. On the Divine level there exist centers of consciousness but they are combined in new ways that we could not conceive in the human plane, such as three centers of consciousness existing in one being.

Same as a cube is six squares or twelve lines but remains a cube.

As to arithmetic 1+1+1≠ 1
Mathematics 12[L]=1C 6=1C 4[L]=1S

 

[shnarkle]

• Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is, what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.

Did you come up with that yourself? Here's the actual definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: "

• Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is,

No, the answer to the question as to what a thing is would be the definition of the thing.

• the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
  • God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,

Not according to Paul. He clearly distinguishes between the origin and means of everything that exists and God is the origin or existence itself. The essence of God is origin. The essence of Christ is existence.

• 
  
• .
  • “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,

If "being" is an attribute, then grammatically speaking it is the Genitive of Possession rather than the Verb To Be. Being is then an attribute rather than who God is.

• • • holy
    • omnipresent
    • omniscient

Omnipresent and omniscient are basically two ways of describing the same thing, but from radically different perspectives. However, they both present their own set of problems. If God is omnipresent then there can be no absence of or from his presence including His presence in absence. In other words, it isn't the absence of his presence, but the presence of his absence.

Omniscience, by definition, precludes anyone else from knowing. God cannot be the object of knowledge if he is all knowing. All knowing cannot be known.

The human plane is a simple plane, where one center of consciousness = one being, or two centers of consciousness = two beings. On the Divine level there exist centers of consciousness but they are combined in new ways that we could not conceive in the human plane, such as three centers of consciousness existing in one being.

Is God's consciousness pure or not? Presumably, most would agree that God's consciousness is pure consciousness, therefore, there can be no object of or for God's consciousness. In other words, pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

The "all things" is the all things of Psalm 8:6 which speaks of the fact that God has raised up a descendant of Adam, the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God to be in control of the New Creation including those things of the Edenic Creation. Moses was not able to uphold or bear all things in his day, but Jesus has been able and will bear the "all things".

I am not questioning what 'all things' is.

As to your answer, it was addressed by the author of Hebrews 2:8 ...You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.
Notice how 'all things' is defined. " He left nothing that is not put under him" that would be everything that was created, physical and non physical.
Since we have defined what 'all things' is.
Again. = If Jesus was a mere man who died on a cross, how can a mere man [who just died] sustain the universe?
Heb 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had [c]by Himself [d]purged [e]our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Yes, Jesus is the means whereby God the Father tabernacled in His Son. For example, all the symbols of the furniture of the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place are fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus reveals God's glory, he was full of grace and truth.

How do come to such a conclusion from. 'And the Logos became flesh and tabernacle amongst us'. I read John's writings and I never came across anything written by John that agrees with the above.

Yes. We are told how Jesus became the Son of God by means of the conception/birth.

Nothing in the text states that Jesus became the Son of God by means of conception/birth. What it does say is 'He shall be called 'the Son of God.'
There is a difference
became= begin to be.
called =to give someone or something a name

I understand Philippians 2 to be speaking about the disposition of mind of Jesus in his youth, and before and during his ministry. He was the greatest prince to be born, and instead of using this, he humbled himself and became a servant, even unto the death on the cross. Unlike Adam and Eve he did not grasp at equality with God. Compare Absalom

The text is in chronological orders and you are reading it wrong. Jesus first “considered” and then “became” man. Your argument is in reverse. Note the opening to vs 7 “BUT” a conjunction = used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

The combination of chronological order with the use of the conjunction ‘but’, vs 7 introduces the choice Jesus made in contrast to what He was considering in vs 6, established vs 6 occurred before the incarnation.

Now you opened a huge can of worms. If Jesus was a mere man who considered his equality with God, considered Himself equal to God, Jesus would have sinned, and God would not have exalted Him as Paul records in Phil 2.
Note the following.
He [Satan] was apparently close enough to God to “taste” what it would be like to be Him, and considered such “equality” enough of a possibility that he thought he could get away with grasping for it. Instead, he lost his relationship with his Creator (because he apparently overlooked the fact that he was created), [ One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith]

The same act of considering equality, Satan is exiled, Jesus is rewarded. Outside the Trinity how do you reconcile?

They are describing how Jesus came into existence, and his unique birth to become the Son of God, with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. Trinitarians try to write another story.

Please show us where it is stated in Mt 1:20 and Lu 1:34

This describes the fact that he was a descendant of David and thus an heir to the promises to David, but also that God the Father was the originator of the birth through Mary, and the originator of his spotless character and his resurrection. All of these prove that Jesus is the Son of God.

You miss the point.
Notice the anthesis. "According to the flesh" vs "according to the spirit". If one applies then the other does also.
Now notice your answer. It all falls under 'according to the spirit'.
was born of the seed of David according to the flesh
You wrote "God the Father was the originator of the birth" applying your answer 'was born' that falls under 'according to the spirit'; which disagrees with Paul.

The whole incident of Genesis 22 is about Abraham and his son and this pointed forward to God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Son of God.

Ok.
Back to Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Only-begotten translates from
3439 μονογενής [monogenes /mon·og·en·ace/] adj. From 3441 and 1096; TDNT 4:737; TDNTA 606; GK 3666; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “only begotten” six times, “only” twice, and “only child” once. 1 single of its kind, only. 1A used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1B used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.
Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

"only begotten"= monogenes has nothing to do with procreating but relationship.

"Become" gives more the sense that the outcome is the product of God, an extension of His Being. The earth is to be filled with the glory of God Numbers 14:21, God's glory, not just the glory of God revealed in others. God will be "all in all" 1 Corinthians 15:28. God will be or become all, the ultimate fulfillment of "He will be/become".

I would suggest you rethink this. Do you now know God better than Him to choose another name and deem it more sensible than the name He picked?

Your choice as to whether or not you accept my reference and partial explanation of Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5. You can lead a horse to water. You can impose your own Trinitarian views upon Genesis 1:26-27, and these verses do NOT explicitly state what you claim, and I certainly do not want to drink those ideas.

It is a simple question. "wherein the text does it state explicitly that the angels were involved in the creation of man?"
I believe you made the claim based on something explicit that states that angles were involved in the creation of man, and not that you are reading into the text what it does not say.

 

[Towerwatchman]

LOL, the Jews knew what it really meant to be called "God's Son" from David's words in Palms 2 where God began this in His decree that David was his Son, for David said "I will declare the decree, Yahweh has said unto me, You are my Son this day have I begotten you".
Then after David this position with God went to Solomon David's anointed son and right on down through the anointed by God from David's descendants to the one that they were only the types of and which is Jesus Christ.
Therefore your idea that Jesus was calling himself Yahweh by admitting to them that he was the Son of God is nothing but your false indoctrination and imagination about it.

Total nonsense.
Jn 5:18 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.

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.”

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.”

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No, it is claiming to be God.

Le 24:16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

“Son of” used by ancient Semitics and Orientals to indicate “likeness, sameness of nature, of the order of and equality of being.”
1 Ki 20:35 Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor

For no such thing was even being hinted on from Jesus' answer to them and that includes your wacky idea that him saying that he would be appearing in the clouds was the same as telling them he was Yahweh himself.


Already covered how foolish this assumption really is in my second response to this post.

HIs being received into heaven in a cloud and returning in clouds has nothing whatsoever to do with him being revealed to be Yahweh but rather the Son of man and Son of David and Son of God which we see in Daniel 7:13-14 below.


Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Try to follow.

Daniel in the late 500’s BC had the following vision in which there was a distinction between “The Son of Man” = Jesus and “The Ancient of Days” = God.

Da 7:13-14 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man,

Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him... His dominion is an everlasting dominion…

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears never the Father.

Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

John writes about the same event note again the “ten horns” = ten kings, who give their allegiance to the “other horn” = the beast, and make ware against the saints and the Lamb.

Re 17:12-14“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings… they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast…These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will over come them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers.

This does not agree with John, for according to John 5:22 Jesus only judges “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son”, and in Revelation John’s vision is of Jesus intervening for the saints and judging the beast and his followers.

Rev19:11-14 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses…16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…19-21And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse…

Daniel 7:13 one member of the Triune God is brought before the other two members. Note “Ancient of Days” conveys the idea of eternal, the quality of wisdom which all three members of the Trinity possess. Therefore “Ancient of Days” in Daniel 7:20-22 can apply and does apply to Jesus and is in harmony with the Gospel of John, and Revelation. The “Ancient of Days” that judges in Daniel 7:20 is the same Jesus that judges in Revelation.

Indeed, for it is truly a can of worms for you in the way that you read and interpret it for certain, but I understand it correctly and Jesus was doing no such thing as revealing that he was one God with the Father by what he said, not in your life TW.

Are you sure about this ? "he was one God with the Father"

In fact when Jesus said "have I been so long with you and yet you still don't know me Philip, he was speaking for Yahweh and not for himself when he said this

and even went on to explain this in that 10th verse that you quoted "the words that I speak, I speak not of myself but it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".

Where in the immediate text does it state explicitly that Jesus was speaking for YHWH?
Speak for =to represent the feelings or opinions of another person or group of people.
If Jesus was speaking for YHWH, what Jesus would have said next would be YHWH' words. Similar to "Thus says the Lord"...
Applying your flawed reasoning to the text below the "Me" who is speaking is YHWH.
"He who has seen Me {the Father} has seen the Father;"

Jesus couldn't have said it any better, that he was speaking for the Father who was dwelling within him and manifesting himself through the life of Jesus and this is what Paul meant also when he said that Jesus is in the form "morphe" of God.

Chapter and verse.

Nope, that isn't how it is stated and that is also why not all of the translations agree with the versions you cherry pick for this passage about it either and I am not interested in your biased rule of grammar on this, for the fact that many translations don't agree with your version proves that you cannot be dogmatic about it like you want to be.

It actually reads like this in the original " Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ".

Paul is calling Jesus "The Glory of our Great God and Savior" and not "Our Great God and 'Savior" like you are chopping it up to be saying in your false religious bias.

In a court of law you would lose. You cannot claim that the acceptable grammatical rules [that every translator uses] is wrong, without explaining where, and why I am wrong, and what is the correct application of the grammatical rules. Just because X translates differently does not equate to me being wrong.
Sorry that is how the adult world works.

 

[Towerwatchman]

By this, Paul is saying basically the same thing as he did in Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God", for it is through Jesus that God reveals himself and his glory but that doesn't make Jesus Yahweh God like you falsely believe about it.

Seriously need to ask that spirit who enlightens you for its educational background.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Ex 20:1“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…

Israel was not only forbidden to make false idols but forbidden to make idols of God Himself. Since God is spirit there is nothing material than can represent Him. Attempting to portray the Creator by something He created is idolatry. To make an idol of God in their likeness of anything in the sky , or on the earth, or in the waters below was forbidden because God is a jealous God. He is zealous, He wants all devotion to be given exclusively to Him and no one else. There is nothing that could truly portray His uniqueness.

Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.

Is 48:11 For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.

In Isaiah God is very explicit, He shares His glory with no one. In Exodus God is very explicit also; that there shall be no physical representation of Him ever. This is because there is nothing in creation that can portray His uniqueness.

Now if Jesus is not God but a mere man, we have a severe contradiction with Col. Paul wrote that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that Jesus alone fully and exactly exhibits the very nature and glory of God. How can that be possible if Jesus is part of creation? God is incomparable, that is the reason why He prohibited the use of anything to represent Him. There is nothing He created that comes close to His glory or image.


How do you reconcile this?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

He was condemned for claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God, a human, not a God man.

Kind regards
Trevor

Where does it say in the immediate narrative that Jesus claimed to be a man.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Did you come up with that yourself? Here's the actual definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: "

If I am making a triangle out of wood boards, what abstract quality does my triangle need to have in order for me to capture the essence of a triangle?
Three straight sides = properly described what a triangle is, Three straight sides expresses what a triangle is by definition.

No, the answer to the question as to what a thing is would be the definition of the thing.

Did I not write..

• Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is, what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.

Not according to Paul. He clearly distinguishes between the origin and means of everything that exists and God is the origin or existence itself. The essence of God is origin. The essence of Christ is existence.

Origin is not the essence of God. That falls under necessary being, one that cannot possibly not exist. Before anything came into existence God had always existed. God's essence is the very act of subsistent existence itself. Why is that? Because God's existence depends on nothing else for its existence.

If God is omnipresent then there can be no absence of or from his presence including His presence in absence. In other words, it isn't the absence of his presence, but the presence of his absence.

Omniscience, by definition, precludes anyone else from knowing. God cannot be the object of knowledge if he is all knowing. All knowing cannot be known.

Is God's consciousness pure or not? Presumably, most would agree that God's consciousness is pure consciousness, therefore, there can be no object of or for God's consciousness. In other words, pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything.

Semantic games. Similar to asking someone to describe 'nothing'.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

If Jesus was a mere man who died on a cross, how can a mere man [who just died] sustain the universe?

Jesus is not a mere man, he is the Son of God who is now glorified and seated at the right hand of God, the Majesty on high and has received the Holy Spirit, God's power.

How do come to such a conclusion from. 'And the Logos became flesh and tabernacle amongst us'. I read John's writings and I never came across anything written by John that agrees with the above.

All part of the overall picture.

Nothing in the text states that Jesus became the Son of God by means of conception/birth. What it does say is 'He shall be called 'the Son of God.'
There is a difference became= begin to be. called =to give someone or something a name

He was called the Son of God by others after his birth and he was the Son of God because God the Father was his father and Mary his mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35. Show me where there is any hint in these two basic passages that God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit, or God the Son on his own volition, transferred God the Son from heaven into the womb of Mary for 9 months, and then pretended to be a baby, infant, child, teenager and young adult for 30 years until his revelation at the baptism of John.

vs 6 occurred before the incarnation

There is no mention of an "incarnation". The passage is speaking about the disposition of mind of Jesus in his early years up until his ministry. He was in the form of God because he was made in the image and and after the likeness of God Genesis 1:26-27, a little lower than the Angels Psalm 8:5-6. The language is based upon these passages and Yahweh's Servant of the four Servant Songs. The whole process of Philippians 2 is to the glory of God the Father, not the Trinity Philippians 2:11.

Please show us where it is stated in Mt 1:20 and Lu 1:34

Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 teach that Mary was the provider of the female side of the conception, and God the Father the male side through the power of the Holy Spirit, a creative process. These passages are not teaching a supposed incarnation of God the Son. Again, show me how these verses teach or even hint at an incarnation.

Notice the anthesis. "According to the flesh" vs "according to the spirit".

These are not an antithesis. Not sure what you are saying in the rest of this portion.

1A used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1B used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

I would suggest you rethink this. Do you now know God better than Him to choose another name and deem it more sensible than the name He picked?

Exodus 3:12, Exodus 6:1-8 and Exodus 15:2-3 were helpful for me to lock in my understanding of the Yahweh Name. These initial verses have been strongly reinforced by many passages and expositions in the nearly 60 years since I first understood these three passages. One of my youth leaders introduced the first two passages.

It is a simple question. "wherein the text does it state explicitly that the angels were involved in the creation of man?"
I believe you made the claim based on something explicit that states that angels were involved in the creation of man, and not that you are reading into the text what it does not say.

If it was explicit then all would agree with me. I consider that Psalm 8 is a result of David's meditation on Genesis 1:26-27 and the whole of Psalm 8 is neglected by most commentators because of their Trinitarian views.

Where does it say in the immediate narrative that Jesus claimed to be a man.

Do you deny that Jesus was a man? Why would Jesus need to claim that he was a man? Caiaphas considered Jesus to be a man John 11:50.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Seriously need to ask that spirit who enlightens you for its educational background.

I will let you attempt to do that when you stand before God at the end of the age and then will see how that goes OK?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Ex 20:1“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…

Israel was not only forbidden to make false idols but forbidden to make idols of God Himself. Since God is spirit there is nothing material than can represent Him. Attempting to portray the Creator by something He created is idolatry. To make an idol of God in their likeness of anything in the sky , or on the earth, or in the waters below was forbidden because God is a jealous God. He is zealous, He wants all devotion to be given exclusively to Him and no one else. There is nothing that could truly portray His uniqueness.

LOL, yes God told Israel who were all sinners not to make any image of him to worship as being him but that commandment wasn't given to God himself and the image of himself that he gave unto us was not given in place of himself like it would have been if the people had made it.

This brings us back to you trins also, for you have broken that commandment by twisting the true image of the invisible God Jesus Christ into an image that you do worship in place of Yahweh and as Yahweh and that is your error and one that will soon catch up with you also.

Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images. Is 48:11 For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.
In Isaiah God is very explicit, He shares His glory with no one. In Exodus God is very explicit also; that there shall be no physical representation of Him ever. This is because there is nothing in creation that can portray His uniqueness.

Now if Jesus is not God but a mere man, we have a severe contradiction with Col. Paul wrote that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that Jesus alone fully and exactly exhibits the very nature and glory of God. How can that be possible if Jesus is part of creation? God is incomparable, that is the reason why He prohibited the use of anything to represent Him. There is nothing He created that comes close to His glory or image.


How do you reconcile this?

LOL, he will not give his glory as being Yahweh God to another but the Bible is clear that he does give glory even to the church and it is the glory that he gave Jesus and which Jesus shares with the believer.


John 17: 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.


This verse actually slays two doctrines that trins hold to, the one is that the glory of John 17:5 is that of Jesus being God and which this verse reveals as false and the other is their false doctrine that in John 10:30 by Jesus saying that he and the Father are one, he was claiming to be God and this verse proves you wrong on both cases.

For Jesus here makes it quite obvious that the glory that he was speaking of in John 17:5 is not that of his being God, otherwise you have him giving his glory as Yahweh and which Yahweh gave him even unto his church.

You keep manifesting how worthless your cherished Bible education is and which you pride yourself on, nevertheless I will soon see the day when God tramples all of that hot shot education that trins actually relish right down to the ground and reveals the folly of it and those who put their trust in it to every man that ever lived at the GWTJ at the end of the age.

What a glorious day that will be also.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Total nonsense.
Jn 5:18 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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No, it is claiming to be God.

Le 24:16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

“Son of” used by ancient Semitics and Orientals to indicate “likeness, sameness of nature, of the order of and equality of being.”
1 Ki 20:35 Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor

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.

Try to follow.

Daniel in the late 500’s BC had the following vision in which there was a distinction between “The Son of Man” = Jesus and “The Ancient of Days” = God.

Da 7:13-14 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man,

Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him... His dominion is an everlasting dominion…

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears never the Father.

Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

John writes about the same event note again the “ten horns” = ten kings, who give their allegiance to the “other horn” = the beast, and make ware against the saints and the Lamb.

Re 17:12-14“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings… they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast…These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will over come them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers.

This does not agree with John, for according to John 5:22 Jesus only judges “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son”, and in Revelation John’s vision is of Jesus intervening for the saints and judging the beast and his followers.

Rev19:11-14 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses…16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…19-21And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse…

Daniel 7:13 one member of the Triune God is brought before the other two members. Note “Ancient of Days” conveys the idea of eternal, the quality of wisdom which all three members of the Trinity possess. Therefore “Ancient of Days” in Daniel 7:20-22 can apply and does apply to Jesus and is in harmony with the Gospel of John, and Revelation. The “Ancient of Days” that judges in Daniel 7:20 is the same Jesus that judges in Revelation.

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.

Are you sure about this ? "he was one God with the Father"

Where in the immediate text does it state explicitly that Jesus was speaking for YHWH?
Speak for =to represent the feelings or opinions of another person or group of people.
If Jesus was speaking for YHWH, what Jesus would have said next would be YHWH' words. Similar to "Thus says the Lord"...
Applying your flawed reasoning to the text below the "Me" who is speaking is YHWH.
"He who has seen Me {the Father} has seen the Father;"

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.

 

[shnarkle]

Total nonsense.

This may be the case, but then this would mean that what the Pharisees believed was true. Do we know this is the case?

Jn 5:18 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.

I think the problem with this verse is that one can interpret John to be saying that what the Pharisees understood was true, or he is simply reporting the reason they had for wanting to kill him. Reporting why they believed they should kill Jesus doesn't necessarily mean that John agrees with their reason, or that their reason is accurate. We have numerous examples of the Pharisee's teachings being viewed as false, e.g. "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" etc.

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.”

Again, this is clearly their perspective.

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.”

Note that by pointing out that it is their law, this continues the theme of this being their understanding rather than an accurate assessment. This is a recurring theme throughout the bible. The bible refers to the Israelites doing what was right in their own eyes. They kept their own laws, and their own feast days rather than the Lord's feast days. This is especially the case with John's gospel where we see "the feast of the Jews".

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No, it is claiming to be God.

At least according to the Pharisees, or rather their interpretation of Christ's claims. Nowhere in the texts does he actually claim 'I am God".

Le 24:16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

Inapplicable. Jesus isn't using God's name at all.

“Son of” used by ancient Semitics and Orientals to indicate “likeness, sameness of nature, of the order of and equality of being.”
1 Ki 20:35 Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor



Try to follow.

Daniel in the late 500’s BC had the following vision in which there was a distinction between “The Son of Man” = Jesus

This is assumed, but never claimed by Daniel.

and “The Ancient of Days” = God.

Da 7:13-14 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man,

Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him... His dominion is an everlasting dominion…

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears

Jesus not only doesn't appear, he isn't even given the name until eight days after he's born.

Where in the immediate text does it state explicitly that Jesus was speaking for YHWH?

Is there some reason why we must confine this to the immediate text?

Speak for =to represent the feelings or opinions of another person or group of people.
If Jesus was speaking for YHWH, what Jesus would have said next would be YHWH' words. Similar to "Thus says the Lord"...

He says that he only says what is given to him to say from the father. He only does what he sees the father doing. He also says that when you have seen the son, you have seen the father.

Applying your flawed reasoning to the text below the "Me" who is speaking is YHWH.
"He who has seen Me {the Father} has seen the Father;"

He who has seen the image of God has seen God. Christ is the image of God according to Paul so there's really no other way to see the father except by looking at his one and only image. There is no other. You quite simply can never see God unless you are looking at God himself, and Christ is God personified.

 

[shnarkle]

If I am making a triangle out of wood boards, what abstract quality does my triangle need to have in order for me to capture the essence of a triangle?

The essence of a triangle cannot be captured as Plato, and Euclid have both documented with their arguments and proofs.

Three straight sides = properly described what a triangle is, Three straight sides expresses what a triangle is by definition.

Correct.

Did I not write..

• Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is, what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.

Yes. I just reread my response, and must retract my claim. What a thing is, is not how it is described or defined. What something IS should never be conflated with what it MEANS any more than a word should be conflated with its meaning or definition.

The essence of anything cannot be in its meaning unless its essence is epistemological rather than ontological which would make intelligibility the essence of everything rather than its very existence or being. Epistemologies are not fundamental. They do not trump ontological reality.

Origin is not the essence of God.

It most certainly is, and this is explicitly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:6

"there is but one God, the Father, FROM WHOM all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM all things came and THROUGH whom we live."

"From" denotes origin while "through" denotes the means. Likewise, the Father also denotes the origin of the Son. Christ affirms this when he points out that he came from the father as well.

That falls under necessary being, one that cannot possibly not exist.

Necessary being cannot not exist, and being is one, but not a certain or specific one. As soon as you create this god of yours, you cross into idolatry. As soon as you begin defining your gods, you create gods that are subject to definition, observation, etc. The biblical god transcends all definition, description, imagination, intelligibility, etc.

Again, you're simply ignoring Paul's claim while Begging the Question. John's introduction does not begin with "in the beginning was god" because it is not God who exists eternally, but the Word. Eternal being is attributed to God. Eternal being has no beginning or end, but this does not negate the fact that God is the origin of being.

Being or existence is necessarily eternal. It is a logical as well as empirical necessity. It is also a characteristic or attribute of God in that God is the origin of being.

Grammatically speaking, being belongs to God, therefore (with reference to God) being is more accurately the Genitive of Possession rather than the Verb to Be. Being is a possession of God rather than what God is.

God will be what God will be, but God cannot be anything because the Creator cannot be what is created, except in, with, and through Christ the Son who is the only means, medium, or mediator between the Creator and the creation. God's omnipotence is manifest in, with, and through Christ. What is potential in God is actualized through Christ. What will be in God is manifest through Christ.

Before anything came into existence God had always existed.

False. Being is eternal. God is the origin of EVERYTHING including being or existence which must necessarily exist a priori in order for any thing to exist. The problem here is in not noting that the origin of being cannot BE without creating an infinite regression. In other words, being is not the origin of being. Some might say that becoming is the origin of being, but this creates more problems than it solves.

The biblical authors solve the problem simply by pointing out that what will be (i.e. potential) will be manifest. Again, whatever exists cannot be God any more than what is created can be the creator. This is why it is so imperative to distinguish between the origin and means, but to note the logical necessity for both. There is no chronological order to either of them. They conceptually exist simultaneously, but the origin of existence cannot logically or empirically exist without violating the law of non-contradiction.

God's essence is the very act of subsistent existence itself.

False. See Paul's claim in his letter to the Corinthians. Existence is not an act. Existence is not a verb. It just is.
ex·ist·ence
[iɡˈzistəns]

NOUN

1. the fact or state of living or having objective reality:

Why is that? Because God's existence depends on nothing else for its existence.

Again, you're just Begging the Question. I'm providing you with Paul's own observations as well as a logical argument that refutes your assumptions.

Semantic games.

False. Read what I'm actually posting instead of these strawman arguments from your imagination.

Similar to asking someone to describe 'nothing'.

There is a definition for "nothing", and as I've already pointed out, the definition cannot be what it defines. Thanks for providing an excellent example to prove my point. The same holds true for God. There is no referent for the word "God". There is only the word itself. This is why Christ is the means which leaves only the origin which can only be manifest through Christ, e.g. "and the word was (i.e. manifests) God.

 

[shnarkle]

Now if Jesus is not God but a mere man, we have a severe contradiction with Col. Paul wrote that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that Jesus alone fully and exactly exhibits the very nature and glory of God. How can that be possible if Jesus is part of creation? God is incomparable, that is the reason why He prohibited the use of anything to represent Him. There is nothing He created that comes close to His glory or image.


How do you reconcile this?

It is reconciled by the fact that the image of God is not God. It's God's image. Jesus is the name of a man who sees that he is also not the name the world identifies him with. He does not identify with the name or persona, but instead with the life that animates the flesh. He goes so far as to point out that he 'IS the life", and the life should never be conflated with the body that is animated by the life. The flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63).

Christ is literally sacrificed from the beginning of creation. The act of creation is itself an act of self sacrifice. Jesus' name means "God's salvation" and God's salvation comes through self sacrifice or self denial. Jesus begins his ministry with "deny yourself" and ends by illustrating it with the crucifixion, and the empty tomb. There isn't even a body left. It is a complete negation of self. That is the image of God. That is how God is revealed. That is how one sees God.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

Jesus is not a mere man, he is the Son of God who is now glorified and seated at the right hand of God, the Majesty on high and has received the Holy Spirit, God's power.

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.

All part of the overall picture.

We are interested in truth no personal opinion.

He was called the Son of God by others after his birth and he was the Son of God because God the Father was his father and Mary his mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35.

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.

the Jews believed that God had continued to work since creation, sustaining the world even on the Sabbath. The Sabbath exist because of God, God is not bound by His law concerning the Sabbath, therefore above the Sabbath.

Jesus uses [ho pater ego] “my Father”. By using this title of God , Jesus was claiming a unique relationship with God. The Jews understood this to be a claim to be equal with God in nature. Note in vs 18 this is repeated by the use of [idios] “His” meaning “unique expression”.

“Son of” can be offspring of or “of the order of” 1Kg 20:35. “Son of God” = “Of the order of God.” Orientals used the phrase “Son of” to indicate likeness, sameness of nature, or equality of being.

Jesus adds that God has worked until that very moment and now adds “And I work” Or, I also work. Keeping the idea of equal in nature with God, the relation is it comes to work is not that of imitation, or example, but of equality of will and procedure.

To the Pharisees breaking the Sabbath was bad enough but claiming to be equal with God was impossible for them to accept. To them God had no equals.

Notice, John never wrote that the Jews were wrong when they accused Jesus of making Himself equal with God by calling God His Father. Same applies to the passages below.

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.”

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.”

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No it is claiming to be God.

Show me where there is any hint in these two basic passages that God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit, or God the Son on his own volition, transferred God the Son from heaven into the womb of Mary for 9 months, and then pretended to be a baby, infant, child, teenager and young adult for 30 years until his revelation at the baptism of John.

Funny, asking me to provide X, when you know that X is not mentioned in the Bible.

There is no mention of an "incarnation".

Call it what you want, incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination, its not the main point.

The passage is speaking about the disposition of mind of Jesus in his early years up until his ministry.

Since you failed to answer the question.

The text is in chronological order. Your idea would work if vs 6 did not exist. Note the conjunction “but”. What flow of thought is being expressed logically between vs 6 and 7 with the use of “but”? Take into account that “but” is contrastive suggesting an oppositional thought or relationship to the word, phrase, or clause to which it is connected.

As the text reads Jesus “considered” between two options in vs 6 and executed His choice in vs 7, and dwelt amongst us vs 8. Based on the grammar it is in chronological orders; therefore vs 6 takes place before the incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination.

On other words Jesus committed the act of considering His equality with God before the incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination.

He was in the form of God because he was made in the image and and after the likeness of God Genesis 1:26-27, a little lower than the Angels Psalm 8:5-6. The language is based upon these passages and Yahweh's Servant of the four Servant Songs.

Again its in chronological order. Jesus was in the form of God when He was considering His equality with God which took place before he incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination, therefore the above is wrong.

Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, {NKJV

Grammar 101
Equal in vs 6 translates from isos = equal in quality and quantity. By the use of isos Paul is stating that Jesus was equal with God in quality and quantity.

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.

The whole process of Philippians 2 is to the glory of God the Father, not the Trinity Philippians 2:11.

Bad logic, 'the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, proves that the Trinity does not exist'.

Let's put it to the test.
Can you say the same of a Ford F150?

Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 teach that Mary was the provider of the female side of the conception, and God the Father the male side through the power of the Holy Spirit, a creative process. These passages are not teaching a supposed incarnation of God the Son. Again, show me how these verses teach or even hint at an incarnation.

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.

These are not an antithesis.

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”.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
(Ro 8:1).
that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
(Ro 8:4). (
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. {Ro 8:5]
But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
Ga 4:29).

Not sure what you are saying in the rest of this portion.

Your post: = I am discussing the fact that Jesus is the only Son of God, conceiver/begotten by means of the Holy Spirit as God being the father and Mary his mother...Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14, Romans 1:1-4.

My reply = But here we have Paul writing about both natures, human and divine. Born translates from the above and is referring to physical birth. But that is half of what Paul is communicating.
"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
Notice the anthesis. "According to the flesh" vs "according to the spirit". If one applies then the other does also.

Your reply= This describes the fact that he was a descendant of David and thus an heir to the promises to David, but also that God the Father was the originator of the birth through Mary, and the originator of his spotless character and his resurrection. All of these prove that Jesus is the Son of God.

My reply: You wrote "God the Father was the originator of the birth". Applying your reasoning to the passage "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" should read "according to the spirit"; which disagrees with Paul.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

He is both. Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1, John 20:28

 

[Towerwatchman]

Exodus 3:12, Exodus 6:1-8 and Exodus 15:2-3 were helpful for me to lock in my understanding of the Yahweh Name. These initial verses have been strongly reinforced by many passages and expositions in the nearly 60 years since I first understood these three passages. One of my youth leaders introduced the first two passages.

Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.

Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.

God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,

Essence and existence are identical in God.

If I am making a triangle out of wood boards, what abstract quality does my triangle need to have in order for me to capture the essence of a triangle?
Three straight sides = properly described what a triangle is, Three straight sides expresses what a triangle is by definition.
Regardless if the angles add up to 180*, the color, or physical make up/ triangle = three straight sides.


How do we come to such a conclusion? The essence of a thing is definable in terms of whatever feature it would exhibit in every possible world, and the possible worlds have to be a logical and consistent description of how things might have been. In any possible world a triangle has to have three sides.

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.
When it comes to God we have to transcend 'every possible world' because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all. The best I can come up with is 'Possibility".

True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be an eternally existing being? = True
True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be the Creator and Sustainer of all? =False
Why? Because there can be one possibility where God chooses not to create.

And that is where your idea fails.

If it was explicit then all would agree with me. I consider that Psalm 8 is a result of David's meditation on Genesis 1:26-27 and the whole of Psalm 8 is neglected by most commentators because of their Trinitarian views.

Its neither implicit or explicit.

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.

Do you deny that Jesus was a man? Why would Jesus need to claim that he was a man? Caiaphas considered Jesus to be a man John 11:50.

Your post: He was condemned for claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God, a human, not a God man.

Jesus was condemned for claiming to be the Son of God =claiming deity. Claiming to be human does not carry a death sentence.

 

[shnarkle]

To the Pharisees breaking the Sabbath was bad enough

So you believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath? Jesus was a sinner? Sin was not just imputed to him, but he was an actual transgressor of God's law?

but claiming to be equal with God was impossible for them to accept. To them God had no equals.

Notice, John never wrote that the Jews were wrong when they accused Jesus of making Himself equal with God by calling God His Father.

The author presents them as liars. It's a pervasive theme. John doesn't present any caveats to that claim.

Same applies to the passages below.

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.”

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.”

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No it is claiming to be God.

So you're claiming that Jesus committed blasphemy?

Again its in chronological order. Jesus was in the form of God when He was considering His equality with God which took place before he incarnation, immaculate conception, spiritual insemination,

The chronological order places the incarnation, gestation, and birth before he was given the name Jesus. Therefore, it was not Jesus who was in the form of God, but as John says, "the word" which THEN BECAME the man named Jesus.

Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, {NKJV

 

[johnny guitar]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

John 19:7 (KJV): The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
No, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

It is interesting that you add "Divine" to the status "The Son of God" by saying "The Divine Son of God". You are either ignoring the significance of the status "The Son of God" and/or trying in some way include the concept of God the Son. Jesus became the Son of God, a human, when God the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit participated in the conception/birth of Jesus. He was also a human, the son of Mary his mother. Mary did not give birth to God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Now WHY would the Jews say He ought to die because He made Himself The Son of God????
Jesus Christ NEVER became The Son of God.
The conception of Jesus was by The Holy Spirit, NOT The Father.
Mary gave birth to one who was BOTH The Son of God AND Man.