The "IT" Logos

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Sorry, no bad feelings. It is my job to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," 2 Corinthians 10:5.

It’s mine too.

Then do your job and stop playing this game.

You choose to spit in Christ's face theologically/biblically,

That’s false. Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. His God is my God.

Yet, you do not honor the Son as you honor the Father. Therefore, you don't honor the Father either, cf John 5:22-23.

Then, why are you acting like you are? One line comments? Short snippets expressing nothing but hubris and ignorance? Confident people either take their time to make a meaningful, God honoring response or ignore the entire discussion. The guilty, fearful, and panicked need to respond, but can't do so in a God honoring way, so resort to how you regularly respond.

There have been many times I’ve given detailed explanations of why I believe as I do.

Lately, you have refused to do such. It doesn't matter how others react to such. It only matters that you engage that some might hear.

They fall of deaf ears. It seems that no matter what is shared, no matter what verses are given, no matter what reasons are given, peoples’ minds are made up, and they cannot accept that maybe they were wrong.

Do you accept that you might be wrong? FYI, responding and explaining why one doesn't accept your explanation is expressing that they may be wrong. They are expressing how and why they cannot accept right now your position. They are not necessarily expressing they can't be wrong. At least, they are only expressing that you haven't answered all their concerns. If they don't give any reason while simply rejecting your detailed explanations, only then are they expressing that they cannot be wrong.

This is especially true on theology forums. At some point it becomes an exercise in futility. I’ve seen your interactions with others. You’re civil at first, but if you can’t convince them of your Trinitarian beliefs, you frequently wind up attacking and belittling them. Who needs that?

If you think it is an exercise in futility, then you should simply walk away and say nothing. Knock the dust off you feet and say nothing. Making passing remarks while choosing to not take the time to make a meaningful, God honoring response, is "expressing abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth."

BTW, what you call "attacking and belittling", I call telling people the truth. I am very careful with my words as to not make accusations that are not justified in the very conversation itself. Could I be wrong? Sure. Am I pretty confident that I'm not wrong in such statements. Yep. But if you disagree with said assessment, then break down why you think the logic that lead me to that conclusion is incorrect.

That may be the case, but not by one expressing abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth like you do.

See what I mean? You’re being a jerk. Who needs it?
I love God, I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I love the truth.

No, I'm telling the truth. Blowing people off with we've already been through this is "abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth." Refusing to deal with the actual reasons why the other person disagrees with you is "abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth." I'm not saying your theology is "abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth." I'm saying how you are treating the conversation itself expresses a hatred for how people come to know truth, and that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Who needs to be talked to like this? Those who refuse to deal with reality out of hubris. Who wants to hear such hard truths? Those who care about truth more than they care about having their feelings hurt.

God Bless

..right. No sane person tells someone they “have an abject hatred for the pursuit of Truth,” then signs off with “God Bless.”

Yep, those who don't know Christ don't know and express his love for his fellow man. No matter how evil or demon possessed the other is, love is the attribute that defines the Christian. To tell one the truth as they see it, whether they are right or wrong, is loving. Signing off with God Bless is yet another expression of Love for the other person. I will not stop loving you because you don't know that love.

God Bless

 

[Runningman]

Facepalm....the only way? OK, whatever you say.

I know it’s problematic for Jesus to be a firstborn for you. That’s why you people always try to redefine that word. Don’t you think it’s bad to do that?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I know it’s problematic for Jesus to be a firstborn for you. That’s why you people always try to redefine that word. Don’t you think it’s bad to do that?

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn? Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't disagree with your perspective.

God Bless

 

[Yahchristian]

you do not honor the Son as you honor the Father.

Just to clarify your TRINITARIAN doctrine…

Is the second Person of the Trinity subordinate to the first Person of the Trinity?

 

[Runningman]

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn? Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't disagree with your perspective.

God Bless

Firstborn means someone's first child. Why do you seem to need this to change? When you realize Jesus isn't God there is no problem with him being a Son who had a beginning point. The easiest way to understand this is to just go with what the plain and apparent meaning is. No need for a complex, unintuitive, homebrewed doctrine that lawyers the word firstborn into something it isn't.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What you keep missing is that there are different types of glory. One’s that can and cannot be shared. Isa speaks of what cannot be shared, John does. They are not the same. But enough with your latest red herring, and back to the main topic.

You are making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts what God says. He says He does not share His glory with another. His personal glory. You say He shares what He says is His glory? Then give an example.

Jesus does not just share glory, He shares his glory. Your problem remains.

if there are 3 YHWH in Gen 18:3 you have a problem. The Father has never been seen, the HS does not manifest himself, cannot be angels became YHWH does not share His glory. You have a problem to resolve.

The text does not say there are 3 YHWH's. That contradicts the Shema. There is 1 YHWH.

There are 3 who are sent from YHWH and so they are all given that honor and respect as His representatives.

That's what the Hebrew grammar supports.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

you do not honor the Son as you honor the Father

Just to clarify your TRINITARIAN doctrine…

Is the second Person of the Trinity subordinate to the first Person of the Trinity?

Ontologically, the Second person is not subordinate to the First. They are the same God.
In role, the Second person is second to the First.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn? Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't agree with your perspective.

Firstborn means someone's first child.

Normally, but not always, as seen above. Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point?

Why do you seem to need this to change?

I don't need this to change, and I'm not changing anything. Sometimes, Scripture uses firstborn figuratively, and I'm simply observing that fact. Why aren't you? Why aren't you interacting with those verses that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child".

When you realize Jesus isn't God there is no problem with him being a Son who had a beginning point. The easiest way to understand this is to just go with what the plain and apparent meaning is. No need for a complex, unintuitive, homebrewed doctrine that lawyers the word firstborn into something it isn't.

I'd like to note that you changed your toon when I pointed out what Scripture really says, and then you proceeded to side step the entire discussion as to paint a narrative that your perspective is clearly seen in Scripture. Sorry, but you need to justify such, not just say it. From my experience, your perspective seems reasonable if one simply ignores 35% of what the NT teaches.

God Bless

 

[Towerwatchman]

You are making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts what God says. He says He does not share His glory with another. His personal glory. You say He shares what He says is His glory? Then give an example.

Jesus does not just share glory, He shares his glory. Your problem remains.



The text does not say there are 3 YHWH's. That contradicts the Shema. There is 1 YHWH.

There are 3 who are sent from YHWH and so they are all given that honor and respect as His representatives.

That's what the Hebrew grammar supports.

Even if they were sent by YHWH, according to you and me YHWH does not share His glory. Then who is it? Cannot be angels.
And if sent by YHWH where does it state that the three were sent by YHWH ?

 

[Runningman]

I'd like to note that you changed your toon when I pointed out what Scripture really says, and then you proceeded to side step the entire discussion as to paint a narrative that your perspective is clearly seen in Scripture. Sorry, but you need to justify such, not just say it. From my experience, your perspective seems reasonable if one simply ignores 35% of what the NT teaches.

Looking at the word firstborn in the Bible and believing it means someone's first child is totally missing the mark? You got to be kidding me. You're just making things up because if Jesus is actually God's firstborn then he isn't God lol and he isn't.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I'd like to note that you changed your tune when I pointed out what Scripture really says, and then you proceeded to side step the entire discussion as to paint a narrative that your perspective is clearly seen in Scripture. Sorry, but you need to justify such, not just say it. From my experience, your perspective seems reasonable if one simply ignores 35% of what the NT teaches.

Looking at the word firstborn in the Bible and believing it means someone's first child is totally missing the mark?

I didn't say that. I said in specific cases it doesn't refer to someone's first child.

You got to be kidding me. You're just making things up because if Jesus is actually God's firstborn then he isn't God lol and he isn't.

Nope, looking at how any word is used in context is called reading. Making up silly rules to establish theological arguments is called abusing Scripture. And, that goes for any position, on any topic.

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn? Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't agree with your perspective.

One last thing, are you an Arian? Aka, do you think the first being God created was Jesus? Because, if you don't believe that, then Jesus isn't God's firstborn as in the first one born of God; Adam was, or one of the angels. As an Arian, this argument holds some water, but if you're not an Arian, you are just playing rhetorical games.

God Bless

 

[CrowCross]

I know it’s problematic for Jesus to be a firstborn for you. That’s why you people always try to redefine that word. Don’t you think it’s bad to do that?

Jesus is the firstborn....But I also recognize your superiority when it comes to theology and understand your anti-trintite interpretation is the only way to understand firstborn.

 

[johnny guitar]

Firstborn means someone's first child. Why do you seem to need this to change? When you realize Jesus isn't God there is no problem with him being a Son who had a beginning point. The easiest way to understand this is to just go with what the plain and apparent meaning is. No need for a complex, unintuitive, homebrewed doctrine that lawyers the word firstborn into something it isn't.

The Son of God has NO beginning. He was IN The beginning.

 

[johnny guitar]

Looking at the word firstborn in the Bible and believing it means someone's first child is totally missing the mark? You got to be kidding me. You're just making things up because if Jesus is actually God's firstborn then he isn't God lol and he isn't.

He is the firstborn(HEAD, RULER) OVER ALL creation.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Even if they were sent by YHWH, according to you and me YHWH does not share His glory. Then who is it? Cannot be angels.

YHWH does not share glory with the men/angels in 18:1,3; 19:1.

Abraham recognized them as God's representatives and spoke to them as if he was speaking to Jehovah.

And if sent by YHWH where does it state that the three were sent by YHWH ?

I do harmonize Hebrews 13:2 to identify the men as angels and by definition the name angel means one sent to represent someone else.

However even men can be called angelos.

 

[Runningman]

I didn't say that. I said in specific cases it doesn't refer to someone's first child.

Then use a different word. Firstborn is already taken,

Nope, looking at how any word is used in context is called reading. Making up silly rules to establish theological arguments is called abusing Scripture. And, that goes for any position, on any topic.

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn?

Ephraim is the firstborn from YHWH's perspective because He said so. It still refers to being a child.

Hosea 11
3It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
taking them in My arms,
but they never realized
that it was I who healed them.

Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't agree with your perspective.

In Psalm 89:27 it's simple. Before he was born, he was appointed to be God's firstborn. After he was born, he became God's firstborn. This is so easy when you finally realize Jesus isn't God and that he didn't pre-exist God's prophecies.

One last thing, are you an Arian? Aka, do you think the first being God created was Jesus? Because, if you don't believe that, then Jesus isn't God's firstborn as in the first one born of God; Adam was, or one of the angels. As an Arian, this argument holds some water, but if you're not an Arian, you are just playing rhetorical games.

God Bless

No I am not arian. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. He was dead, then he was alive again. Since Jesus was the first God resurrected, that's like being born. Therefore, in that sense Jesus became the Son of God.

Romans 1
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Colossians 1
18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.

 

[Runningman]

He is the firstborn(HEAD, RULER) OVER ALL creation.

Jesus is demonstrably not the ruler of creation.

 

[Runningman]

The Son of God has NO beginning. He was IN The beginning.

The Son of God is a human according to scripture. Son of God, Son of Man, Immanuel, Jesus Christ, etc. All different names or titles for a human.

 

[Our Lord's God]

YHWH does not share glory with the men/angels in 18:1,3; 19:1.

Abraham recognized them as God's representatives and spoke to them as if he was speaking to Jehovah.

That's what messengers are for.

I do harmonize Hebrews 13:2 to identify the men as angels and by definition the name angel means one sent to represent someone else.

Yep that's what messengers do.

It is such a simple concept that it's hard to believe that some people don't comprehend this.

However even men can be called angelos.

 

[Towerwatchman]

YHWH does not share glory with the men/angels in 18:1,3; 19:1.

Abraham recognized them as God's representatives and spoke to them as if he was speaking to Jehovah.

Nothing in the text suggests that.

I do harmonize Hebrews 13:2 to identify the men as angels and by definition the name angel means one sent to represent someone else.

However even men can be called angelos.

When it’s angels the scriptures state so. Nothing here states that it is three angels.