Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I've already quoted the definitive verse that says he wasn't the "same" Jesus: he was elevated to the right hand of God, which entailed, per 1 Cor 15:45 "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit."

A "life giving Spirit" isn't a "human being" for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" 1 Cor 15:50.
Eisegesis. That’s not speaking of the person ( the “ I,” “he” ) . The same “I” who was on earth who said “ I am the light of the word” was elevated to the right hand of God. That verse is just speaking of his role as a live giving spirit.

If Jesus was alive before his birth, if he could say “ I am the light of the world” before he was “born,” he was not a human being, at least not according to the biblical definition of a human being.

I need to see substance. I don’t have the patience to keep refuting garbage.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Eisegesis. That’s not speaking of the person ( the “ I,” “he” ) . The same “I” who was on earth who said “ I am the light of the word” was elevated to the right hand of God. That verse is just speaking of his role as a live giving spirit.

If Jesus was alive before his birth, if he could say “ I am the light of the world” before he was “born,” he was not a human being, at least not according to the biblical definition of a human being.

I need to see substance. I don’t have the patience to keep refuting garbage.
Have I ever suggested that Jesus was a human being before he was born?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

So even where not antagonistic, as in the sinner, Spirit and flesh remain parallel concepts and are born independently. A human being has spirit and a body of flesh, but after resurrection will have a body of spirit. As Jesus and Paul indicated, the body of flesh is superceded by the body of spirit (Matthew 22:29–30, 1 Cor 15:44). This applies as much to Jesus as to everyone else, because Jesus was the firstborn of many sons Rom 8:29.

As Jesus said in John 6:63, the flesh counts for nothing, the spirit for everything. So why do you place so much emphasis on the flesh?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Have I ever suggested that Jesus was a human being before he was born?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

So even where not antagonistic, as in the sinner, Spirit and flesh remain parallel concepts and are born independently. A human being has spirit and a body of flesh, but after resurrection will have a body of spirit. As Jesus and Paul indicated, the body of flesh is superceded by the body of spirit (Matthew 22:29–30, 1 Cor 15:44). This applies as much to Jesus as to everyone else, because Jesus was the firstborn of many sons Rom 8:29.

As Jesus said in John 6:63, the flesh counts for nothing, the spirit for everything. So why do you place so much emphasis on the flesh?
No one is accusing you of that. It’s precisely because he was not a human being that you have the problem.

The point is that your Jesus was a non-human being, a non-human “I” before he was born. So unless that non-human “I” ceased to exist, and a human “ I” came into existence at the point of his conception, he could not have been a real human being.

It does not seem that you have thought this through carefully .
 

cjab

Well-known member
No one is accusing you of that. It’s precisely because he was not a human being that you have the problem.

The point is that your Jesus was a non-human being, a non-human “I” before he was born. So unless that non-human “I” ceased to exist, and a human “ I” came into existence at the point of his conception, he could not have been a real human being.

It does not seem that you have thought this through carefully .
That non-human "I" did cease to exist, and such is clearly inferred by John 1:14, and by the resurrection of Christ to being the Logos again (Rev 19:13) where the risen Christ is clearly identified as the Logos of God. Note that the Logos, being Spirit, could be accomodated by human flesh, because the flesh contains both spirit and soul.

You are confounding me with hyper-Trinitarians, who maintain the heavenly "I" continued all the while in heaven but in human form, whilst Jesus was on earth, I have never adhered to that theory because it raises all kinds of compatibility issues with scripture. You are trying to create problems based on other people's opinions.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Jesus deferred to his father alone as true God Jn 17:3 and himself as the Father's Son Jn 9:35.

It seems you demand an extra-biblical faith? Otherwise prove your contention from scripture.
In same passage, Jesus also asserted that he had a former glory shared with the father, and was to have that restores, and ONLY one who is God Himself can share the glory of God!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
No one is accusing you of that. It’s precisely because he was not a human being that you have the problem.

The point is that your Jesus was a non-human being, a non-human “I” before he was born. So unless that non-human “I” ceased to exist, and a human “ I” came into existence at the point of his conception, he could not have been a real human being.

It does not seem that you have thought this through carefully .
Jesus existed eternally as God before he became incarnated as Jesus!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Eisegesis. That’s not speaking of the person ( the “ I,” “he” ) . The same “I” who was on earth who said “ I am the light of the word” was elevated to the right hand of God. That verse is just speaking of his role as a live giving spirit.

If Jesus was alive before his birth, if he could say “ I am the light of the world” before he was “born,” he was not a human being, at least not according to the biblical definition of a human being.

I need to see substance. I don’t have the patience to keep refuting garbage.
he existed as "only" God before incarnation, now is forever more the God man !
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That non-human "I" did cease to exist, and such is clearly inferred by John 1:14, and by the resurrection of Christ to being the Logos again (Rev 19:13) where the risen Christ is clearly identified as the Logos of God. Note that the Logos, being Spirit, could be accomodated by human flesh, because the flesh contains both spirit and soul.

You are confounding me with hyper-Trinitarians, who maintain the heavenly "I" continued all the while in heaven but in human form, whilst Jesus was on earth, I have never adhered to that theory because it raises all kinds of compatibility issues with scripture. You are trying to create problems based on other people's opinions.
I rest my case. Your Jesus, like the Trinitarian Jesus was not a real human being. Human beings do not have a non-human “I.”
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
he existed as "only" God before incarnation, now is forever more the God man !
A “man” does not exist before his birth, let alone “eternally,” let alone “eternally as God. “ There is no way your Jesus was a genuine man. Neither, for that matter, was he the God ( of Israel).
 

cjab

Well-known member
In same passage, Jesus also asserted that he had a former glory shared with the father, and was to have that restores, and ONLY one who is God Himself can share the glory of God!
I'm not denying Jesus was in the form of God (Phil 2:6) but the articular "ho theos" infers even more than that.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I rest my case. Your Jesus, like the Trinitarian Jesus was not a real human being. Human beings do not have a non-human “I.”
Non-human "I" relates to his prior existence, and subsequent existence (obviously). "Before Abraham was born I am" is what the human Jesus could say, denoting both his present existence as a human being, and his non-human existence as Spirit, and his future existence. Also see Rev 22:12, where the "I" is Jesus.

I don't think you've yet explained what else "last Adam became a life giving Spirit" and "Logos became flesh" could mean. Your objections make no attempt to explain the profound meanings of these passages and seem superficial, given the biblical idea of continuity of the spirit and soul. Indeed you appear to be in a state of outright denial of what the bible actually says.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Non-human "I" relates to his prior existence, and subsequent existence (obviously). "Before Abraham was born I am" is what the human Jesus could say, denoting both his present existence as a human being, and his non-human existence as Spirit, and his future existence. Also see Rev 22:12, where the "I" is Jesus.

I don't think you've yet explained what else "last Adam became a life giving Spirit" and "Logos became flesh" could mean. Your objections make no attempt to explain the profound meanings of these passages and seem superficial, given the biblical idea of continuity of the spirit and soul. Indeed you appear to be in a state of outright denial of what the bible actually says.
Definitionally, human beings in the bible don’t exist as non-human beings before becoming human beings. Even if they somehow cease their non-human existence.Also, he could no longer claim to be the “ I” of John 8:58 if he was a different “ I” at the time of speaking it.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Definitionally, human beings in the bible don’t exist as non-human beings before becoming human beings. Even if they somehow cease their non-human existence.Also, he could no longer claim to be the “ I” of John 8:58 if he was a different “ I” at the time of speaking it.
Definitionally, Jesus identified himself with the Father John 6:38, 17:3-5, etc, and with the Father's eternal reign Rev 22:12,13.

Coeternity with the Father springs from Logos being in the form of God Phil 2:6.

Again you are constrasting apples and oranges. There is no point is constrasting the definition of a human from below with the definition of a human from above. In fact you seem to be repudiating the biblical definition of Jesus at every point: your thesis is just one blanket repudiation of every verse that says that Jesus came down from heaven.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Are you saying that

over all
God
blessed for ever

have the same referent?

Thanks!

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

> Barry Hofstetter
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

So God is not grammatically connected to blessed?
It is simply in apposition to Christ?
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Definitionally, Jesus identified himself with the Father John 6:38, 17:3-5, etc, and with the Father's eternal reign Rev 22:12,13.

Coeternity with the Father springs from Logos being in the form of God Phil 2:6.

Again you are constrasting apples and oranges. There is no point is constrasting the definition of a human from below with the definition of a human from above. In fact you seem to be repudiating the biblical definition of Jesus at every point: your thesis is just one blanket repudiation of every verse that says that Jesus came down from heaven.

Now you are making stuff up. The bible does not speak of “a human being” from above as opposed to “a human being “ from below, ontologically. When Christ said “he was from above” he was not speaking of a different kind of human existence, not saying that he was a different human being than other human beings , but simply that he had been commissioned from God above .
I need to see substance.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
> Barry Hofstetter
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

So God is not grammatically connected to blessed?
It is simply in apposition to Christ?
One (that's me) would have to know what someone who has no knowledge of Greek (that's you) means by "grammatically connected."
 

cjab

Well-known member
Now you are making stuff up. The bible does not speak of “a human being” from above as opposed to “a human being “ from below, ontologically. When Christ said “he was from above” he was not speaking of a different kind of human existence, not saying that he was a different human being than other human beings , but simply that he had been commissioned from God above .
I need to see substance.
Clearly Christ is not saying "simply that he had been commissioned from God above".

He is saying "I am from above"

You need to explain how ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμ translates to "my commission is from above". You're the one who's making it up.

NB: when I said that Jesus the human being is from above, of course I meant his incorporeal parts, the parts that are given by God to created human beings.

For the Lord God created Adam (out of) dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

So if the breath of life comes from God for every human in any event , then may be that provided a route for the Logos to come from God also, down to a human being. Perhaps the difficulties you are creating are because you don't have the right conception of what a human being consists of.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
One (that's me) would have to know what someone who has no knowledge of Greek (that's you) means by "grammatically connected."

e.g. Murray J. Harris said they have a "natural association".
Another gentleman gave a more technical explanation.

Apparently you do not want to answer the question.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
e.g. Murray J. Harris said they have a "natural association".
Another gentleman gave a more technical explanation.

Apparently you do not want to answer the question.
Mazel Tov to them. Do they have actual arguments to explain what they mean, or do we have to take your word for it?
 
Top