- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2008,17:56) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 02 2008,16:35) t8…..I disagree with you, you are the one reading into the text things it doesn't specifically say if not Show me one Place where Jesus said He was a preexisting being and I change my mind , but saying because He said before Abraham i am is saying the same thing a him saying he preexisted before him, that is forcing the text to say what you want it to say. So whose pushing their own view point which is not specifically said in scripture like the trinitarians do. Why did Paul call him the second Adam then when in fact He was nothing like Adam being a super being who created all the world and every thing in it as you preexistence's say. I believe what Paul said was right He was truly a second Adam in every way simply a man
from his berth to His death, a man who God Perfected and became to him a Father and He became to Him a son.Just like it say's, For he (shall)be unto me a so and I (shall) be unto him a Father.Some say (will be) instead (shall be) but non the less it's future tense showing that at the time that statement was made that relationship did not exist. So where is a preexistence son then, its not their because it had not happened yet.
so maybe you need to get the log out of your eye before accusing others of having one in their eye.
IMO…………….gene
Excellent post Gene,
Let all pre-existence believers reply your query what was the relationship their pre-existent being having with God. When all the prophecies about Jesus the Christ in O.T. were future events like “This day or he will be a son to me” how can these people create a pre-existing son? Is there a logic in that?
Peace to you
Adam
I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son. I think scriptures like Luke 1:35, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1:5 unmistakably bear out that the sonship of Yeshua relates to His earthly birth. That is not to say that He did not preexist the incarnation – He did! As the Logos.Endure sound teaching…..
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,19:10) I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son.
Welcome to the Heretical club. I think you might find that the guardians of the Trinity doctrine would hold you as a heretic for saying that the son wasn't perpetually begotten/generating.Of course I don't believe in the Trinity doctrine so I don't think that the guardians of that doctrine have any right to judge those that do not believe it.
But you go on about how heretical I am, and yet you could be too from the point of view of the official Trinity doctrine police.
So is your Trinity the right one, or is the official Trinity the right one?
Perhaps your time might be spent more efficiently convincing those that hold to the Trinity to go with your version instead of the Apostles Creed.
Then when you have conquered them, you could all gang up on us.
Just a suggestion.
Explain SOMETHING to me t8, according to Hebrews 1:5 the Father said to the Son these words: “I will be a Father to Him and He will be a Son to Me”. Why would he say that He will be (future tense) a Father to Him IF HE ALREADY WAS A FATHER TO HIM??
Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,20:27) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,19:10) I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son.
Welcome to the Heretical club. I think you might find that the guardians of the Trinity doctrine would hold you as a heretic for saying that the son wasn't perpetually begotten/generating.Of course I don't believe in the Trinity doctrine so I don't think that the guardians of that doctrine have any right to judge those that do not believe it.
But you go on about how heretical I am, and yet you could be too from the point of view of the official Trinity doctrine police.
So is your Trinity the right one, or is the official Trinity the right one?
Perhaps your time might be spent more efficiently convincing those that hold to the Trinity to go with your version instead of the Apostles Creed.
Then when you have conquered them, you could all gang up on us.
Just a suggestion.
I have already gone on record as saying my theology is generally orthodox, but has elements of non-orthodoxy. The pre-inncarnation sonship of Yeshua is one aspect of the creeds I don't happan to hold to. Neither do a lot of trinitarians actually. Ironically you do. So much for your aspirations for being the archetypal iconoclast.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,20:50) Explain SOMETHING to me t8, according to Hebrews 1:5 the Father said to the Son these words: “I will be a Father to Him and He will be a Son to Me”. Why would he say that He will be (future tense) a Father to Him IF HE ALREADY WAS A FATHER TO HIM??
I am not disagreeing or agreeing, my point is that you are heretical if that is your Trinity. The Trinity Police might have burnt you at the stake in the dark ages.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:00) I have already gone on record as saying my theology is generally orthodox, but has elements of non-orthodoxy. The pre-inncarnation sonship of Yeshua is one aspect of the creeds I don't happan to hold to.
HERESY.Read the Apostles Creed.
If that doesn't sway you and you wish to remain a heretic, then you are welcome to join the polyhenoheretical club of which I am suppose to be a member.
Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,21:01) I am not disagreeing or agreeing, my point is that you are heretical if that is your Trinity. The Trinity Police might have burnt you at the stake in the dark ages.
I'm not a sensitive soul like you t8. I care not.
Going to answer the question?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:00) Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,20:27) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,19:10) I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son.
Welcome to the Heretical club. I think you might find that the guardians of the Trinity doctrine would hold you as a heretic for saying that the son wasn't perpetually begotten/generating.Of course I don't believe in the Trinity doctrine so I don't think that the guardians of that doctrine have any right to judge those that do not believe it.
But you go on about how heretical I am, and yet you could be too from the point of view of the official Trinity doctrine police.
So is your Trinity the right one, or is the official Trinity the right one?
Perhaps your time might be spent more efficiently convincing those that hold to the Trinity to go with your version instead of the Apostles Creed.
Then when you have conquered them, you could all gang up on us.
Just a suggestion.
I have already gone on record as saying my theology is generally orthodox, but has elements of non-orthodoxy. The pre-inncarnation sonship of Yeshua is one aspect of the creeds I don't happan to hold to. Neither do a lot of trinitarians actually. Ironically you do. So much for your aspirations for being the archetypal iconoclast.
You made a spelling mistake IS. It sounds like you might be a bit mad right now and are not concentrating.That is OK of course.
But I just find it ironic that you accuse me of pretty much being an outsider or having my own doctrine and then you admit that you are outside the Apostles Creed too and have your own doctrine.
Can I suggest that it may not be a good idea for persecuting those who challenge known false but official teachings because you admit to doing it yourself.
I am not saying it is wrong to disagree but that you shouldn't persecute people for disagreeing with dodgy doctrine.
Thanks for listening.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:09) Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,21:01) I am not disagreeing or agreeing, my point is that you are heretical if that is your Trinity. The Trinity Police might have burnt you at the stake in the dark ages.
I'm not a sensitive soul like you t8. I care not.Going to answer the question?
That is interesting. You think I am sensitive.
I take that as a compliment.What question?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,20:50) Explain SOMETHING to me t8, according to Hebrews 1:5 the Father said to the Son these words: “I will be a Father to Him and He will be a Son to Me”. Why would he say that He will be (future tense) a Father to Him IF HE ALREADY WAS A FATHER TO HIM??
This question.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:00) I have already gone on record as saying my theology is generally orthodox, but has elements of non-orthodoxy. The pre-inncarnation sonship of Yeshua is one aspect of the creeds I don't happan to hold to.
Ah hah. The Trinity Doctrine is a doctrine that is developing.So much for the lie that the first century Church taught the Trinity, but never mentioned it because it was taken for granted.
I guess Encarta might be true regarding the Trinity Doctrine.
A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.Admit it, the doctrine came later and has gone through many changes and still is. Given that, can you not see how unreasonable it is to condemn those who do not believe it?
Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,21:09) But you go on about how heretical I am, and yet you could be too from the point of view of the official Trinity doctrine police. But I just find it ironic that you accuse me of pretty much being an outsider or having my own doctrine and then you admit that you are outside the Apostles Creed too and have your own doctrine.
t8, where have I said such things? I don't believe I have. Please find a quote to support the accusations. Otherwise hold your (figurative) tongue.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:12) Waiting for an answer to the Hebrews 1:5 question…..
Still waiting. t8 please indicate to me if you intend to address the question so I can make a decision on whether to stay or sign off. As fun as the witty repartee is….Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:13) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,20:50) Explain SOMETHING to me t8, according to Hebrews 1:5 the Father said to the Son these words: “I will be a Father to Him and He will be a Son to Me”. Why would he say that He will be (future tense) a Father to Him IF HE ALREADY WAS A FATHER TO HIM??
This question.
Jesus was the Word of God. He was with God in the beginning.I don't know if there is an actual scripture that says that he was the son of God before being the second Adam. We do have angels as sons of God, and I know that he is greater than the angels, therefore greater than the sons.
Hebrews 1:1-8
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.” 7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.” 8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.It says that God created all things through the son and the son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.
Of course I am open to this simply meaning the son as he was before he was the son.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2008,21:19) Quote (t8 @ June 02 2008,21:09) But you go on about how heretical I am, and yet you could be too from the point of view of the official Trinity doctrine police. But I just find it ironic that you accuse me of pretty much being an outsider or having my own doctrine and then you admit that you are outside the Apostles Creed too and have your own doctrine.
t8, where have I said such things? I don't believe I have. Please find a quote to support the accusations. Otherwise hold your (figurative) tongue.
Looking for it would be like finding needles in the haystack, but you have recently said on occasion that I am a Polytheist, Heno-something, and I know that you have said in the past that I have my own made up doctrine. In other words you are saying that I am outside the truth when you sum up your attacks.You are entitled to your opinion of course. But you have said such things about me and you might see them quoted on that great day. But I pray that God forgives you.
Hi T8,
Don't take everything personal way. We are here to debate and release our inhibitions or misconceptions about scripture. No one is fully correct. I hope Isaiah will appreciate it.
AdamQuote I don't know if there is an actual scripture that says that he was the son of God before being the second Adam John 3:16 (niv)-16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Isaiah 9:6 (niv)- 6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.Psalm 2:7 (niv)- 7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, “You are my Son [a] ;
today I have become your Father.Psalm 2:12 (niv)- 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.All scriptures referring to Jesus before his birth
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
