Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?

[Truther]

The RCC created "God the Son".

The Bible teaches the "son of God".

These are completely opposite in meaning

I believe the Bible over the RCC.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Same entity; different persons. Seriously, anyone with 2 cents of knowledge about Trinitarianism would know this. How can you be this ignorant?

How about you deal with Jesus also being "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." cf Colossian 1:15-17?

Great verse.
We are the biological image of our fathers also.
Just like Jesus was the biological image of his Father.... as he was BORN.
God did it all by, for and THROUGH His human firstborn son.

Is it fun rewriting Scripture? Where did the word biological come from? What is biological about the Father's image? Hello? Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. How can God do it all through one who wasn't born yet? Maybe, such requires Jesus to be more than JUST a glorified man.

And all this time you thought God gave birth to God and the 2nd person of God made everything without the 1st or 3rd persons?

Have you ever talked to any Trinitarian? Ever?

Are you that duped by the RCC?

Nope, but you sure were?

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Is it fun rewriting Scripture? Where did the word biological come from? What is biological about the Father's image? Hello? Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. How can God do it all through one who wasn't born yet? Maybe, such requires Jesus to be more than JUST a glorified man.



Have you ever talked to any Trinitarian? Ever?



Nope, but you sure were?

God Bless

Jesus said his Father was his Father.

Now, was his Father his "spiritual Father" or "biological Father" via Mary?

Since you think Jesus had no biological connection to the Father of Jesus, how does Spirit beget Spirit?

Does Jesus have a Spirit mother or was Jesus exaggerating about a "Spirit Father God"?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Is it fun rewriting Scripture? Where did the word biological come from? What is biological about the Father's image? Hello? Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. How can God do it all through one who wasn't born yet? Maybe, such requires Jesus to be more than JUST a glorified man.
Have you ever talked to any Trinitarian? Ever?
Nope, but you sure were?

Jesus said his Father was his Father.
Now, was his Father his "spiritual Father" or "biological Father" via Mary?
Since you think Jesus had no biological connection to the Father of Jesus, how does Spirit beget Spirit?

You said "Jesus was the biological image of his Father." The Father isn't physical. Therefore, he isn't biological at all. So again, what is biological about the Father's image? I didn't deny that the Father fathered Jesus via Mary. But, that was far from a biological fathering, unless you're Mormon. Perhaps, you should read what others are actually writing as to understand what is being said.

Nice job ignoring again the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing. Talking about failing epically.

Does Jesus have a Spirit mother or was Jesus exaggerating about a "Spirit Father God"?

For one trying to argue against Trinitarianism, how can you be this ignorant of Trinitarianism. Did you ever hear a Trinitarian say "Spirit mother"? I know you didn't because that's all gnostic nonsense condemned 1700 years ago as heresy.

God Bless

 

[Truther]

You said "Jesus was the biological image of his Father." The Father isn't physical. Therefore, he isn't biological at all. So again, what is biological about the Father's image? I didn't deny that the Father fathered Jesus via Mary. But, that was far from a biological fathering, unless you're Mormon. Perhaps, you should read what others are actually writing as to understand what is being said.

Nice job ignoring again the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing. Talking about failing epically.



For one trying to argue against Trinitarianism, how can you be this ignorant of Trinitarianism. Did you ever hear a Trinitarian say "Spirit mother"? I know you didn't because that's all gnostic nonsense condemned 1700 years ago as heresy.

God Bless

Are you saying a "Spiritual" sperm cell caused the egg of Mary to be fertilized or a physical one made by God?

Are you saying Mary's egg self fertilized and the Father adopted Jesus?

Are you saying God became a microscopic sperm cell in Mary's ovaries, yet remained God?

Are you saying that Jesus' human body was a mere "human nature" robe that became a "spiritual human nature" after he resurrected?

This is your incarnation theory in a nut shell.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

You said "Jesus was the biological image of his Father." The Father isn't physical. Therefore, he isn't biological at all. So again, what is biological about the Father's image? I didn't deny that the Father fathered Jesus via Mary. But, that was far from a biological fathering, unless you're Mormon. Perhaps, you should read what others are actually writing as to understand what is being said.

Nice job ignoring again the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing. Talking about failing epically.

For one trying to argue against Trinitarianism, how can you be this ignorant of Trinitarianism. Did you ever hear a Trinitarian say "Spirit mother"? I know you didn't because that's all gnostic nonsense condemned 1700 years ago as heresy.

Are you saying a "Spiritual" sperm cell caused the egg of Mary to be fertilized or a physical one made by God?
Are you saying Mary's egg self fertilized and the Father adopted Jesus?
Are you saying God became a microscopic sperm cell in Mary's ovaries, yet remained God?
Are you saying that Jesus' human body was a mere "human nature" robe that became a "spiritual human nature" after he resurrected?

Neither;
Nope;
Nope;
Nope.

All I said was: The Father isn't physical. Therefore, he isn't biological at all. So, what is biological about the Father's image?

Ever consider the possibility that your imagination is causing you to misunderstand what others are saying?

Why are you still ignoring the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17? Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing.

This is your incarnation theory in a nut shell.

I will take your opinion under advisement when you show a working knowledge of the topic. So far, all I see is abject ignorance.

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Neither;
Nope;
Nope;
Nope.

All I said was: The Father isn't physical. Therefore, he isn't biological at all. So, what is biological about the Father's image?

Ever consider the possibility that your imagination is causing you to misunderstand what others are saying?

Why are you still ignoring the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17? Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing.



I will take your opinion under advisement when you show a working knowledge of the topic. So far, all I see is abject ignorance.

God Bless

The man Christ Jesus was the firstborn of creation per Col.

Yes or no?

If you say the 2nd person in a trinity is the firstborn of creation, you are Hinduish.

Your problem is, you don't think God can transcend time(His creation of measurement).

You think God subjects Himself to time.

Fact is, the man christ Jesus was who Adam #1 was made in the image of.

Trinity makes you quasi-Hindu(divinity begetting divinity).

The RCC is your pagan mother.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

The man Christ Jesus was the firstborn of creation per Col.
Yes or no?

Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all creation per Colossian 1:15. No reason to add man because he wasn't a man then.

If you say the 2nd person in a trinity is the firstborn of creation, you are Hinduish.

Nope, but then again, you deny completely that Jesus is the first of creation at all.

Your problem is, you don't think God can transcend time(His creation of measurement).

Really? It has nothing to do with transcending time. It has to do with logic. One cannot be made through itself. Such is literally nonsense.

You think God subjects Himself to time.

More ignorance expressed by "Truther", the furthest thing from the truth.

Fact is, the man christ Jesus was who Adam #1 was made in the image of.
Trinity makes you quasi-Hindu(divinity begetting divinity).
The RCC is your pagan mother.

The insults of the ignorant hold no sting.

Why are you still ignoring the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17? Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing.

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all creation per Colossian 1:15. No reason to add man because he wasn't a man then.



Nope, but then again, you deny completely that Jesus is the first of creation at all.



Really? It has nothing to do with transcending time. It has to do with logic. One cannot be made through itself. Such is literally nonsense.



More ignorance expressed by "Truther", the furthest thing from the truth.



The insults of the ignorant hold no sting.

Why are you still ignoring the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17? Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing.

God Bless

If Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, does this mean the firstborn before any living thing reproduced or was God kidding?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all creation per Colossian 1:15. No reason to add man because he wasn't a man then.
Nope, but then again, you deny completely that Jesus is the first of creation at all.
Really? It has nothing to do with transcending time. It has to do with logic. One cannot be made through itself. Such is literally nonsense.
More ignorance expressed by "Truther", the furthest thing from the truth.
The insults of the ignorant hold no sting.
Why are you still ignoring the crushing fact that Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17? Don't explain at all how Jesus is the image of God in Colossian 1:15. Otherwise, the vacuousness of your theology would be on display for all to see. Definitely don't explain how God created through one prior to that one existing.

If Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, does this mean the firstborn before any living thing reproduced or was God kidding?

Neither, firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.

If you believe Jesus is just a man, now glorified, how was Jesus "before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17?

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Neither, firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.

If you believe Jesus is just a man, now glorified, how was Jesus "before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17?

God Bless

How can the man Christ Jesus be the firstborn of every creature and not really actually be the firstborn of every creature.

Notice, it says c...r...e...a...t...u...r...e.

Firstborn...creature...get it?

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

I know, God was exaggerating and not really literal, right?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Neither, firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.

If you believe Jesus is just a man, now glorified, how was Jesus "before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17?

How can the man Christ Jesus be the firstborn of every creature and not really actually be the firstborn of every creature.

Try reading what I wrote: firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.

Notice, it says c...r...e...a...t...u...r...e.
Firstborn...creature...get it?

You believe, Jesus was just a man, later glorified. Therefore, you don't believe Jesus was the first born creature

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Try reading what I wrote: firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.




You believe, Jesus was just a man, later glorified. Therefore, you don't believe Jesus was the first born creature

God Bless

No, firstborn is a description, not just a title.

Just like the firstborn(s) in your family are.

You think Jesus has no preeminence, plain and simple.

Do you also think Jesus is the first and the last by not being first in creation?

Now you finally know what that means.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Try reading what I wrote: firstborn is a title, a position, not necessarily a designation of birth order. For example, the nation of Israel was firstborn of God among the nations even through they were not the first nation created. Likewise, Jesus is the firstborn of creation without being first born human.

You believe, Jesus was just a man, later glorified. Therefore, you don't believe Jesus was the first born creature

No, firstborn is a description, not just a title.

And, why would you believe such? Oh yeah, because you like making empty theories online as to attack Trinitarianism. If your primary goal is to attack Trinitarianism, what does that say about your motivations. It's almost like you care more about attacking others than believing that which is true.

Just like the firstborn(s) in your family are.

In Jesus' day, no woman would ever have the title firstborn. Firstborn was a title, usually owned by the first male born in a family, but it was primarily a title. Why deny this obvious fact? According to Exodus 4:22 "Thus says YHWH, Israel is my firstborn son". How was Israel YHWH's firstborn son? He wasn't even Isaac's firstborn son. But such doesn't matter to Truther, you can just assert the otherwise to attack Trinitarianism.

You think Jesus has no preeminence, plain and simple.

How do you come this conclusion? You deny every aspect of Colossians 1:15-17, and yet, I'm the one denying preeminence because I claim Jesus holds the title "firstborn of all creation" being the second person of the Trinity while you believe he is a just a glorified man?

Do you also think Jesus is the first and the last by not being first in creation?

I think Jesus is the first and the last being the Alpha and the Omega: the God who was before everything else and is the last word on that which is true.

Now you finally know what that means.

No, I always knew that firstborn is a title and not a designation of birth order. Now, all I have is your assertion otherwise.

God Bless

PS: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.

 

[Truther]

And, why would you believe such? Oh yeah, because you like making empty theories online as to attack Trinitarianism. If your primary goal is to attack Trinitarianism, what does that say about your motivations. It's almost like you care more about attacking others than believing that which is true.



In Jesus' day, no woman would ever have the title firstborn. Firstborn was a title, usually owned by the first male born in a family, but it was primarily a title. Why deny this obvious fact? According to Exodus 4:22 "Thus says YHWH, Israel is my firstborn son". How was Israel YHWH's firstborn son? He wasn't even Isaac's firstborn son. But such doesn't matter to Truther, you can just assert the otherwise to attack Trinitarianism.



How do you come this conclusion? You deny every aspect of Colossians 1:15-17, and yet, I'm the one denying preeminence because I claim Jesus holds the title "firstborn of all creation" being the second person of the Trinity while you believe he is a just a glorified man?



I think Jesus is the first and the last being the Alpha and the Omega: the God who was before everything else and is the last word on that which is true.



No, I always knew that firstborn is a title and not a designation of birth order. Now, all I have is your assertion otherwise.

God Bless

PS: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.

Jesus, being born before all things, has preeminence and is officially the first(and last).

God made all things by, for and through His preeminent human son.

God even made Adam in His human son's image.

He was the blueprint of the creation of Adam per Romans 5:14.

The only way this could be is by God being able to transcend time, which you don't believe that He can.

Now you know why Psalm 22 etc are in the present tense, and not future tense.

I hope you don't believe that God predicted the death of Christ before He made the earth, rather than actually witnessing it???

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

And, why would you believe such? Oh yeah, because you like making empty theories online as to attack Trinitarianism. If your primary goal is to attack Trinitarianism, what does that say about your motivations. It's almost like you care more about attacking others than believing that which is true.
In Jesus' day, no woman would ever have the title firstborn. Firstborn was a title, usually owned by the first male born in a family, but it was primarily a title. Why deny this obvious fact? According to Exodus 4:22 "Thus says YHWH, Israel is my firstborn son". How was Israel YHWH's firstborn son? He wasn't even Isaac's firstborn son. But such doesn't matter to Truther, you can just assert the otherwise to attack Trinitarianism.
How do you come this conclusion? You deny every aspect of Colossians 1:15-17, and yet, I'm the one denying preeminence because I claim Jesus holds the title"firstborn of all creation" being the second person of the Trinity while you believe he is a just a glorified man?
I think Jesus is the first and the last being the Alpha and the Omega: the God who was before everything else and is the last word on that which is true.
No, I always knew that firstborn is a title and not a designation of birth order. Now, all I have is your assertion otherwise.
PS: I'm still waiting for you to explain how Jesus "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.

Jesus, being born before all things, has preeminence and is officially the first(and last).

But, you don't believe Jesus was born before all things; he was born of Mary.

God made all things by, for and through His preeminent human son.

How when you don't believe Jesus existed when God made all things? BTW, it say "For by him(Jesus) all things were created", not "God made all things by, for and through" Jesus. Do you like twisting Scripture?

God even made Adam in His human son's image.

Where are you getting this? It's not from Scripture.

He was the blueprint of the creation of Adam per Romans 5:14.

Really? Let's look at the text: "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Type now means blueprint of the creation of Adam? NOT!!! Talk about abusing Scripture.

The only way this could be is by God being able to transcend time, which you don't believe that He can.

What do you mean by transcend time? It seams to me it is just a phrase you use to claim God is ignoring the law of cause and effect. Have fun with that; there is literally nothing more rational than denying cause and effect.

Now you know why Psalm 22 etc are in the present tense, and not future tense.
I hope you don't believe that God predicted the death of Christ before He made the earth, rather than actually witnessing it???

In reality, "for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER your hand and your plan had PREDESTINED to take place." Acts 4:27-28. Try reading Scripture before making up your theology.

God Bless

 

[Truther]

But, you don't believe Jesus was born before all things; he was born of Mary.



How when you don't believe Jesus existed when God made all things? BTW, it say "For by him(Jesus) all things were created", not "God made all things by, for and through" Jesus. Do you like twisting Scripture?



Where are you getting this? It's not from Scripture.



Really? Let's look at the text: "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Type now means blueprint of the creation of Adam? NOT!!! Talk about abusing Scripture.



What do you mean by transcend time? It seams to me it is just a phrase you use to claim God is ignoring the law of cause and effect. Have fun with that; there is literally nothing more rational than denying cause and effect.



In reality, "for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER your hand and your plan had PREDESTINED to take place." Acts 4:27-28. Try reading Scripture before making up your theology.

God Bless

God spake of things that are not(non existent) as though the were(already happened).

Now, did God foretell the future like a prophet?

Or, did God see and participate in the future as the prophets foretold it?

What I have been saying all along is that God doesn't tell time, but transcends time.

You think God cannot transcend time, which means to actually PARTICIPATE in our future events.

You don't think that God knows the back of the book, but only waits for it.

You don't think God is smart enough to observe our conversation before He made the earth, but I sure think He observed it and participated in it back then.

Am I correct that you don't think that God personally knew His human son as Mary's son before He created the world for him?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

God spake of things that are not(non existent) as though the were(already happened).
Now, did God foretell the future like a prophet?
Or, did God see and participate in the future as the prophets foretold it?

Neither, time unfolds as God foreordains.

What I have been saying all along is that God doesn't tell time, but transcends time.

Yep, and such is utterly irrelevant to God making everything through a human being born of Mary in time. That's nonsense even with God transcending time. It's a denial of cause and effect.

You think God cannot transcend time, which means to actually PARTICIPATE in our future events.

And, why would you believe such? Oh yeah, you're painfully ignorant of Trinitarian perspectives.

You don't think that God knows the back of the book, but only waits for it.
You don't think God is smart enough to observe our conversation before He made the earth, but I sure think He observed it and participated in it back then.

BTW, I'm a Calvinist. It's amazing how ignorant you are?

Am I correct that you don't think that God personally knew His human son as Mary's son before He created the world for him?

You couldn't be more wrong. I believe God ordained the beginning from the ends before creating anything. Not only does God transcend time, he completely sculpted out every event throughout time to accomplish what he desired in time. On a scale from God not knowing the future to total fatalism, 0-10, you're sitting at like a 3 or 4 and accusing me of being a 0 or 1 when I'm actually and 8.5. Open your eyes to how ignorant you are.

God Bless

 

[Truther]

Neither, time unfolds as God foreordains.



Yep, and such is utterly irrelevant to God making everything through a human being born of Mary in time. That's nonsense even with God transcending time. It's a denial of cause and effect.



And, why would you believe such? Oh yeah, you're painfully ignorant of Trinitarian perspectives.



BTW, I'm a Calvinist. It's amazing how ignorant you are?



You couldn't be more wrong. I believe God ordained the beginning from the ends before creating anything. Not only does God transcend time, he completely sculpted out every event throughout time to accomplish what he desired in time. On a scale from God not knowing the future to total fatalism, 0-10, you're sitting at like a 3 or 4 and accusing me of being a 0 or 1 when I'm actually and 8.5. Open your eyes to how ignorant you are.

God Bless

Do you think that God could know the man, Jeremiah, before he was conceived, but not know the man, Christ Jesus, before he was conceived.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Do you think that God could know the man, Jeremiah, before he was conceived, but not know the man, Christ Jesus, before he was conceived.

What part of "I am a Calvinist" do you not understand? I believe "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Romans 8:29-30. I hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which states:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. Ch 3.1​

​

So, I believe God knew the man, Jeremiah, before he was conceive, and knew Jesus as a man before he was conceived. But, The Father knew Jesus differently too; Jesus is the second person in the Trinity. I believe both/and; you're the weird one only believing parts of what Scripture says.

God Bless