Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
The Jews never accused Jesus of not being a genuine human being. Infact, quite the contrary. You are making things up yet again.
The Jews didn't believe Jesus was the bread that came down from heaven. Neither do you. Neither have I ever said Jesus wasn't a "genuine human being." That's your slander. End of debate.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Sure you did. You said his “I” wasn’t human.
Re Heb 1:2, Col 1:16, Eph 3:9, 1 Cor 8:6, Rom 3:14. Col 1:15,18, John 1:1-3, 17:5, John Milton (the real historical figure) says "All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting his generation from all eternity."
p.107 A Treatise on Christian Doctrine compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone

Are you sure you have the right user name?

NB: I said Jesus (i.e. "I") was human when in the flesh, but not when out of the flesh.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The Jews didn't believe Jesus was the bread that came down from heaven. Neither do you. Neither have I ever said Jesus wasn't a "genuine human being." That's your slander. End of debate.

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Do you believe him?
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
More correctly, the Trinitarian Jesus is not a human person ( he has no human “ I”), but is only a Divine person ( he has only a Divine “I”). This is referred to as anhypostasis. But you have so far refused to confess this, at least publicly.
he is BOTH sinless human and God, 2 natures in One Person
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Re Heb 1:2, Col 1:16, Eph 3:9, 1 Cor 8:6, Rom 3:14. Col 1:15,18, John 1:1-3, 17:5, John Milton (the real historical figure) says "All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting his generation from all eternity."
p.107 A Treatise on Christian Doctrine compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone

Are you sure you have the right user name?

NB: I said Jesus (i.e. "I") was human when in the flesh, but not when out of the flesh.
You also said Jesus’s “ I” was the same whether “in the flesh” or “out of the flesh.” So your words contradict your assertion. IOW you are spewing nonsense.You are just pretending that his “ I” was human.
 

cjab

Well-known member
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Do you believe him?
What is this bread? Matt 4:4 gives "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (as made known by the Logos)

Do you believe the Logos came down from heaven?
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
You also said Jesus’s “ I” was the same whether “in the flesh” or “out of the flesh.” So your words contradict your assertion. IOW you are spewing nonsense.You are just pretending that his “ I” was human.
The "I" is incorporeal and so at most could sustain a change in form, but not of substance, between the human and the Logos.

The humanity of the "I" is determined by whether the Logos is speaking as in Revelation or whether the human is speaking. You've been spewing nonsense because all your argument consists of is evasion and refusal to address scripture.

Anyway, as least I've established you've no right to your username, as you do not believe what the original John Milton believed, whose antitrinitarianism didn't extend to denying Jesus as the Logos.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The "I" is incorporeal and so at most could sustain a change in form, but not of substance, between the human and the Logos.

The humanity of the "I" is determined by whether the Logos is speaking as in Revelation or whether the human is speaking. You've been spewing nonsense because all your argument consists of is evasion and refusal to address scripture.

Anyway, as least I've established you've no right to your username, as you do not believe what the original John Milton believed, whose antitrinitarianism didn't extend to denying Jesus as the Logos.
Your Jesus, just like the Trinitarian Jesus, was not a genuine human being. That much is clear.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Your Jesus, just like the Trinitarian Jesus, was not a genuine human being. That much is clear.
Nothing is clear to you, so why this point should be clear is something of a mystery. What is clear to me is that you don't believe what the original John Milton believed. You appear to be something of a unitarian extremist, and extremists are usually wrong, whether unitarian or trinitarian.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Your Greek is much like your understanding of trinitarianism- you do not understand either one as you distort both to fit into your belief system. That is just the opposite of exegesis, your method is 100 % eisegesis.

hope this helps !!!
How about address the fact that you have yet to publicly confess an essential Trinitarian doctrine, that Jesus is NOT a human person ( anhypostasis) ?
 

cjab

Well-known member
NB: if man is made in God's image, it suggests that what is in the form of God can become man, and that man can in turn ascend to sit at God's right hand in the form of God (i.e. Jesus).

The illogic of saying that Jesus cannot be the Logos because he wouldn't be human is ultimately a repudiation of the power of God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Was the Jesus who walked the earth a human person ? Y/N ?

If you can’t answer “no,” you are not a Trinitarian .
Just because the person who personalizes the man Christ is not a created human person does mean to say he can't be a human person. It's only a particular brand of Trinitarian who insists that Christ must be an unmodified divine person: the sort who says that as God is immutable, the Logos cannot by definition become a human person. That is civic's argument, but it's a wrong argument, because the Logos isn't God "in person," but God in action, and the Logos could become a human person (unlike the Father). So I don't agree with your thesis: you're only targeting the most extreme version of Trinitarianism which many protestants don't hold to.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
Just because the person who personalizes the man Christ is not a created human person does mean to say he can't be a human person. It's only a particular brand of Trinitarian who insists that Christ must be an unmodified divine person: the sort who says that as God is immutable, the Logos cannot by definition become a human person. That is civic's argument, but it's a wrong argument, because the Logos isn't God "in person," but God in action, and the Logos could become a human person (unlike the Father). So I don't agree with your thesis: you're only targeting the most extreme version of Trinitarianism which many protestants don't hold to.
No I’m a biblical , historical, creedal and orthodox Trinitarian. And I can argue my Christology from each of the above independently from the other . I cannot be trapped by any questions milky throws my way. I’ve refuted him going on 10 years now and many years before his time on CARM by many other failed attempts from Unitarians that were better apologists than him.

PS- it’s why he hides out here because he would have his lunch handed to him on the Trinity forum .


Next
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's only a particular brand of Trinitarian who insists that Christ must be an unmodified divine person: the sort who says that as God is immutable, the Logos cannot by definition become a human person. That is civic's argument, but it's a wrong argument, because the Logos isn't God "in person," but God in action, and the Logos could become a human person (unlike the Father). So I don't agree with your thesis: you're only targeting the most extreme version of Trinitarianism which many protestants don't hold to.
I’ve never seen Civic confess that (bold above, aka “Anhypostasis”). It is the single most important element of the so-called “Hypostatic Union” without which one is not a Trinitarian.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
I’ve never seen Civic confess that (bold above, aka “Anhypostasis”). It is the single most important element of the so-called “Hypostatic Union” without which one is not a Trinitarian.
How many times have I told you it’s the Eternal Son , the Divine 2nd Person of the Godhead who became Incarnate and took upon Himself a human nature ?

He is One Divine Person with a human nature hence He has both a Divine and human nature and is One Person.

This is the last time I respond to your false accusations on this forum and the only reason I answered this is for the onlookers on CARM.

hope this helps !!!

Them not you !

Next……..
 
Top