- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi AP,
Mt1
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
So is established the Son of man.
Christ is son of man
Outer Man is flesh.
But man is more than flesh.
Inner man is soul\spirit.
Christ is son of God, become son of man.(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
OK Nick!
You weren't meant to read anything into the extra 's'Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,07:44) Oh! My Avatar is exactly my mirror-image!!
I thought so! Ha!To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if I am a Biblical Unitarian? I'm not sure if I am a plain Unitarian? I know I'm not a Trinitarian. Maybe I'm a Librarian? Ha! I kill me. I just know I want more of God; I want more of Jesus. I want John 17:3. Whatever “label” that comes with – I'll take it.
I will check out the book recommeded and thanks so much for everything, Adam. I always appreciate your posts.
Quote If any time you fancy some heavy reading concerning things which back up these claims; I recommend 1) James Dunn, Christology in the Making, the Second edition
Dunn shows many quotes from Jewish writings/Pseudepigrapha which have the word (logos) and the wisdom of GOD being personified as if they were actual persons in the presence of GOD; yet he goes on to show that this was not the intent of the Jewish writers! He shows that the pre-NT Jews did NOT believe that the word/logos or wisdom/sophia were literal pre-existing intermediary beings; but rather were ways of describing these attributes of the One GOD; and therefore used these literary devices such as personification to describe how GOD's spoken word & wisdom interact in the created world.This is the same kind of personification as seen in John 1:1-14
2) I also recommend (again, quite heavy theologically)
BORN BEFORE ALL TIME? The Dispute over Christ's Origin by Karl-Josef KuschelYes AP.
So lets all just throw our Bibles away and go after the writtings and works of a few Unitarians!
Heck! Lets just throw away millions of hours of work of over 600+ Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Scholars, many of whom gave their lives litterally to bring us the purist form of scripture possible.
I dont think so!!!
Tell me AP, what purpose would John say…
1 Jn 4:
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: *because many false prophets are gone out into the world*.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that *Jesus Christ is come in the **flesh** is of God*:
3 And every spirit that *confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the **flesh** is not of God*: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.Why didnt he say…
Every spirit that confesseth that *Jesus Christ is come in the **world** is of God*
Why all the confusion about him comming in the flesh!
Why not just say he was born in the world?
What is the “Mystery of Godliness” if he was a simple man born in sin like you and I?
It is a waste of words and so confusing!
If he meant “The thought or plan came in the flesh”
Why did he not say…
Every spirit that confesseth that *the logos (thought or plan) is come in the **flesh** is of God*
Why did he use “Jesus Christ” personal name!
Are we to assume the translators are all wrong?
Lies from the Spirit of anti-christ!
You say…
Quote
PS
Oh! My Avatar is exactly my mirror-image!!
You should add a couple of horns to it….
I still love you though!
Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,03:22) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2007,00:29) Hi AP,
Number 1083
Transliteration:
gennesis {ghen'-nay-sis}
Word Origin:
from 1080
Part of Speech:
adjective
Usage in the KJV:
birth 2Total: 2
Definition:
begat, engendering
nativity, birth
Genesis means beginning as in e.g.
“In the Beginning“
And of course, Genesis deals with the beginning of the heavens & the earth, mankind, etc.(Mat 1:1) The book of the generation (genesis i.e. beginning) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
(Mat 1:18) Now the birth (genesis i.e. beginning) of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
BTW FYI
Because of
(a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and
(b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe
the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18]
which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology …Catholic scribes therefore added an extra 'n' to genesis in verse 18 in order to change
the context from beginning/origination to birth
Source: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, (1993), p. 75-76;Like I said, FYI
ApYou say…
Quote BTW FYI
Because of
(a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and
(b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe
the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18]
which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology …This is a classic example of mis-representation!
The beginnings of Jesus Christ is not a contradiction to Trinitarians, for Jesus was born in the flesh and had beginnings as a man.
This is how you mislead your followers is that right?
Because you full well know no Trinitarian believes that Jesus didnt have a natural birth and beginning in the flesh!
Because you full well know no Trinitarian believes that Jesus didnt have a natural birth and beginning in the flesh!
*****************
I think you are missing the point altogether, WJ.Trinitarians do believe that Jesus had birth – it just wasn't a “natural” one. It was an incarnation, right?
A natural birth, like Adam is representing, means that Jesus began to exist as a *new individual* like you and me at his birth.
According to Trinitarianism, this is not so. Am I correct?
To Adam.
Quote (Adam Pastor @ June 01 2007,02:44) When I came to the knowledge of scriptural unitarian truth; it amazed me how much of the Bible I can plainly read and let it speak for itself!
Except of course for the scriptures quoted in the following:
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htmBut if you ignore them and some others, then yes Unitarianism pretty much fits together.
But then if I was able to delete or ignore certain scriptures, I could say the same for Trinitarianism.
I find that both Trinitarians and Unitarians use the same method.
They start with the conclusion and work backwards, looking for scriptures that fit and ignoring the ones that don't.
But in truth, it is better to start with scripture and ignore nothing. If there are contradictions in your understanding, then you need to seek deeper and be humble and teachable.
The truth isn't meant to come easy, but it is the reward of those who seek it.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2007,05:05) Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,07:44) Oh! My Avatar is exactly my mirror-image!!
I thought so! Ha!To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if I am a Biblical Unitarian? I'm not sure if I am a plain Unitarian? I know I'm not a Trinitarian. Maybe I'm a Librarian? Ha! I kill me. I just know I want more of God; I want more of Jesus. I want John 17:3. Whatever “label” that comes with – I'll take it.
I will check out the book recommeded and thanks so much for everything, Adam. I always appreciate your posts.
I like your attitude.You are not a label, but you want to align yourself with the truth.
I can appreciate that.
BTW: Librarians are the ones with the truth.
OK, that was a joke.
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2007,15:32) Because you full well know no Trinitarian believes that Jesus didnt have a natural birth and beginning in the flesh!
*****************
I think you are missing the point altogether, WJ.Trinitarians do believe that Jesus had birth – it just wasn't a “natural” one. It was an incarnation, right?
A natural birth, like Adam is representing, means that Jesus began to exist as a *new individual* like you and me at his birth.
According to Trinitarianism, this is not so. Am I correct?
Not3You can play with the word “natural birth” and try to say it means Jesus came into existence like you and me if you want, but if what you say is true then Jesus still didnt have a natural birth because he had no natural Father!
You cant take a term like natural birth and say it exclusively means what you want.
We know Jesus took on the likeness of sinfull flesh, now that means he has to be natural as far as the flesh or he couldnt be our Saviour!
But again scriptures clearly teach that Yeshua came from heaven as the Lord from heaven to be the second Adam so he could bring mankind back to him!
Apparantly John was just wasting his words when he said…
1 Jn 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that *Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God*:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that *Jesus Christ is come in the flesh* is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.Why didnt he just say that Jesus was born in the world.
What is all the emphasis about him coming in the flesh?
This is very serious not3!
AP denys he came in the flesh therefore he is of the Spirit of anti-christ!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) Why didnt he just say that Jesus was born in the world.
WJ, he did!Matthew 1:18
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about…..”vs. 21
“She will give birth to a son….”vs. 23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son….”The reason it is difficult for you to accept this simple truth is because it is too simple. Jesus was born into the world.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) You can play with the word “natural birth” and try to say it means Jesus came into existence like you and me if you want, but if what you say is true then Jesus still didnt have a natural birth because he had no natural Father!
And here is the mystery!Jesus did have a natural birth – Mary would slap your face if she heard you say otherwise! She endured the pregnancy that not only brought her physical pain but social pain as well. Mary endured the labor pains! She gave birth to her son in the most “natural” way possible these days. There were no labor drugs or epidurals in those days, mister. So don't deny Mary her due.
Indeed, Jesus did not have a “natural” Father. But he did have a Father……this is the mystery…….God provided what was needed to have a son of his very own. A Son (so to speak) from his body. A son, that like Abraham, he could leave his inheritence to. Understanding this is to understand the who and what Jesus truly is.
Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,15:56) Quote (942767 @ May 31 2007,10:05) Hi: If God wanted us to know that Jesus pre-existed his Virgin birth he would have told us that he did. He is not the author of confusion. Any way what matters, is that He loves us and gave his life for us as shown clearly in the scriptures so that we could be reconciled to God, and that he lives forever more to make intercession for us, and that by his shed blood we have forgiveness for sin.
God Bless
Hi 94.First off, we know that Christ is a hidden mystery that is revealed in the last days. So the clear teaching you speak of is perhaps not in order, rather a revelation of this.
Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him
27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.But there are many scriptures that teach he did or demonstrate that he did. These seem to be applicable to a mystery being revealed.
For a list of some of the more compelling revelations of Christ, go here:
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htmI believe that Christ existed in heaven in glory with God before emptying himself of his glory and becoming a humble man. I also believe that he returned to the same glory he had before with God.
It is these and other scriptures that clinch it for me.
Also, where is it written that he didn't pre-exist? If you say that it should be a clear teaching, where is the clear teaching that says that he existed for the first time ever in the womb of Mary?
Hi t8:There are some scriptures that make a plain statement by which in MHO we need to understand those that are not as easy to understand.
First about the creation:
Gen. 1:1
In the beginning God created * the heaven and the earth.1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created heAlthough in Verse 26 God says “Let us make man in our image” verse 27 says “So God created man in his own image”, and so indicates that God alone is the creator, and the following verse also bears this out:Gen. 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.The first man was made a living soul, and the following verse indicates that all mankind since then was born of a woman:
3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.The scripture tells us that Jesus was and is a man who is unique in that he is the Only begotten Son of the living God, but he was born of a woman just as all of humanity.
Mt 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.And so, if he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, He is the only man who God is his Father in this way, but in that he was conceived in the womb of Mary, he had a beginning and did not pre-exist his birth of the virgin Mary at least not as a man.
I know that this a simplistic approach to this argument but what are your thoughts about this?
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2007,09:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) You can play with the word “natural birth” and try to say it means Jesus came into existence like you and me if you want, but if what you say is true then Jesus still didnt have a natural birth because he had no natural Father!
And here is the mystery!Jesus did have a natural birth – Mary would slap your face if she heard you say otherwise! She endured the pregnancy that not only brought her physical pain but social pain as well. Mary endured the labor pains! She gave birth to her son in the most “natural” way possible these days. There were no labor drugs or epidurals in those days, mister. So don't deny Mary her due.
Indeed, Jesus did not have a “natural” Father. But he did have a Father……this is the mystery…….God provided what was needed to have a son of his very own. A Son (so to speak) from his body. A son, that like Abraham, he could leave his inheritence to. Understanding this is to understand the who and what Jesus truly is.
I said…Quote
You can play with the word “natural birth” and try to say it means Jesus came into existence like you and me if you want, but if what you say is true then Jesus still didnt have a natural birth because he had no natural Father.You said…
Quote
Jesus did have a natural birth – Mary would slap your face if she heard you say otherwise!Then you proceed to tell me that he didnt have a natural birth like us!
You said…
Quote
Indeed, Jesus did not have a “natural” Father. But he did have a Father……this is the mystery…….God provided what was needed to have a son of his very own.Again if he didnt have a natural Father and God was his Father and Mary was a virgin.
Then that would clasify his birth as not being natural like ours!
Wouldnt you say?
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2007,08:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) Why didnt he just say that Jesus was born in the world.
WJ, he did!Matthew 1:18
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about…..”vs. 21
“She will give birth to a son….”vs. 23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son….”The reason it is difficult for you to accept this simple truth is because it is too simple. Jesus was born into the world.
not3I know he was born!
But you didnt answer my question as to why John would refer to him comming in the flesh.
Why that particular language?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2007,11:43) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2007,08:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) Why didnt he just say that Jesus was born in the world.
WJ, he did!Matthew 1:18
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about…..”vs. 21
“She will give birth to a son….”vs. 23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son….”The reason it is difficult for you to accept this simple truth is because it is too simple. Jesus was born into the world.
not3I know he was born!
But you didnt answer my question as to why John would refer to him comming in the flesh.
Why that particular language?
Why that particular language?
John was defending Christ agains the pagen religions of the day – Gnostics believed Christ wasn't really “human” and only a spirit. That is why he used the word “flesh” to describe Jesus' coming to us…..he was human and made of flesh.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2007,11:40) I said…Quote You can play with the word “natural birth” and try to say it means Jesus came into existence like you and me if you want, but if what you say is true then Jesus still didnt have a natural birth because he had no natural Father.
You said…Quote
Jesus did have a natural birth – Mary would slap your face if she heard you say otherwise!
Then you proceed to tell me that he didnt have a natural birth like us!
You said…Quote
Indeed, Jesus did not have a “natural” Father. But he did have a Father……this is the mystery…….God provided what was needed to have a son of his very own.
Again if he didnt have a natural Father and God was his Father and Mary was a virgin.
Then that would clasify his birth as not being natural like ours!
Wouldnt you say?
No.Jesus did have a natural BIRTH. I think you are walking right past the obvious……he was born and therefore he had a “natural birth” just like you did. Unless, of course you think he came out of Mary a different way? Birth is birth.
What you are pointing out is related to birth but not the birth itself – the fact that Jesus didn't have an earthly Dad; true. But this did not affect his BIRTH.
How many different beliefs do we have here on Jesus' preexistence? Has anyone been keeping track? I know Nick and t8 share a common view; Adam and I share a very close view….anyone else care to share?
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 03 2007,10:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2007,11:43) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2007,08:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,03:34) Why didnt he just say that Jesus was born in the world.
WJ, he did!Matthew 1:18
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about…..”vs. 21
“She will give birth to a son….”vs. 23
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son….”The reason it is difficult for you to accept this simple truth is because it is too simple. Jesus was born into the world.
not3I know he was born!
But you didnt answer my question as to why John would refer to him comming in the flesh.
Why that particular language?
Why that particular language?
John was defending Christ agains the pagen religions of the day – Gnostics believed Christ wasn't really “human” and only a spirit. That is why he used the word “flesh” to describe Jesus' coming to us…..he was human and made of flesh.
Hi not3,
Jesus Christ CAME IN the flesh.
You cannot rewrite this as WAS FLESH.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
