- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote The very commonly held idea that Jesus was alive before his conception raises a number of questions about his nature. Is it possible to be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother? –Not3in1.
This is your opening question, and what I believe you base most of this on.
The very one who created human beings, can he not do whatever he wishes?
Are you saying this is “impossible” for God, and this is your main argument?david
Quote The Messiah, according to scripture was to be a descendant of David, of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and the seed of the women (Gen. 3:15). Paul constantly thinks of Christ as the last Adam (man). If he existed as a person before his conception, in what sense is he – the real person – a human being and a descendant of David and Abraham? –Not3
This was also an argument in your first post: Can Jesus be a descendant of David if he pre-existed?
de·scen·dant n. A person, animal, or plant whose descent can be traced to a particular individual or group.
In the first chapters of some of the gospels, this is EXACTLY what is done. The path is traced from Jesus down past David, to Adam. It is clearly shown that he is a descendant of David.It's true, he was a descendant of David:
ROMANS 1:3
“concerning his Son, who sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh,”REVELATION 22:16
““‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’””Yet,
MARK 12:36-37
“By the holy spirit David himself said, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.”’ David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ but how does it come that he is his son?” And the great crowd was listening to him with pleasure.”Quote The teachings of preexistence seem to be missing from Peter and Paul's messages. “ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God and beneficial for…..” (2 Tim 3:16)
And I think this teaching is found in Paul's message. One example:
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8
“Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.”
This entire thing is about humility. Jesus showed humbleness in choosing to empty himself and come to be in the fashion of a man.
I'm not sure how you can make this scripture about humility fit your beliefs. But if you could explain it.
Quote No doubt this commitment to keeping a low profile about his true identity is exactly what Philippians is referring to, and removes this section of scripture from the mystical clutches of “kenotic Christology”. This system belief, the handmaiden of “the incarnation,” teaches that Christ emptied himself of his “pre-incarnate divinity” before he was conceived. How much simpler it is to place these verses in the specific context of the witness of Christ's life as revealed in the gospels. Hi Not3. You wrote the following about Philipians. I'm wondering if you could expand on that.
Phil 2:5 makes it plain that we are to imitate Jesus in some respect here. The scripture says he existed in God's form, but came to be in the likeness of men. I take that as meaning we should imitate his humility.
HOW DO YOU TAKE IT? How are we to imitate him here?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2007,10:51) worshiping Jesus …> i gess when you went to school the word (ONLY) did not mean no one else, and the word (THOU) didn't mean someone other then the one speaking. It did in the school i went too. and if scripture say's Jesus is God then i gess what Jesus said by saying
“THOU art the (ONLY) true God was a lie.and i have never said a word questioning your relationship with Jesus thats not my place to make that Judgement, Jesus will have to do that not me.
my disagreement with you is how you skirt the simple straight forward textes and jump all around to avoid dealing with then, using debatable scriptures and not answer the straight forward questions put to you.
if we can't get this simple little thing right how can we get anything right.
go figure; Gene
GBYour patronizing and name calling simply shows your own weakness. Kind of like a bully. When you stand up to him then he cowers!
All I see you doing is making empty claims about the Trinitarian faith being wrong and implying that we are ignorant.
Yet you dont address the scriptures that support our belief, or post scriptures that support yours!
So tell me GB what is your interpretations of John 1:1 and 20:28 and Heb 1:8, just for starters.
Or are you to cowardly to lay out your theology here for everyone to judge?
Grow up and quit the childesh “Trinity is false” “Trinity is false” “you are blind” “You are blind”, nana nana nana!
Step up to the plate my friend!
wj..> IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD SCRIPTURES I PRESENTED TO YOU WHAT GOOD IS IT TO KEEP BRINGING UP MORE. you and ISA1:18 when presented with sound scriptures simple skirt around then or say there not literal , but hold to a most controrversal John 1:1 scritpure in the bible and say this is your reason for you stand. but i will give you what I believe John 1:1 was taliking about and i already have posted it before by the way, If you take John for exqactly what he said it will come out this way.
in the beginning the word (intellegence utterance) was with God and the word (intellegence utterance ) was God. now whats so hard about that, all original greek was written in capital letters and the translators made upper case letters or lower case letters when ever the chose and all the translators were trinitarians so the convently would use this method to support there belife system they had no why of knowing is the word (word) should have been captlized or not so they simply went with there own relegious persaysions hence the CApital (word) Turnning the simple meaning of the word to a person.
it was simple saying in the beginning was intellegence it was with God and God was intellegence and this intellegence was the light of man, it gives us our intelect we have it comes from God.to try to make this text a support for the trinitarian idealogy is folly.
Gene.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 08 2007,01:48) wj..> IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD SCRIPTURES I PRESENTED TO YOU WHAT GOOD IS IT TO KEEP BRINGING UP MORE. you and ISA1:18 when presented with sound scriptures simple skirt around then or say there not literal , but hold to a most controrversal John 1:1 scritpure in the bible and say this is your reason for you stand. but i will give you what I believe John 1:1 was taliking about and i already have posted it before by the way, If you take John for exqactly what he said it will come out this way. in the beginning the word (intellegence utterance) was with God and the word (intellegence utterance ) was God. now whats so hard about that, all original greek was written in capital letters and the translators made upper case letters or lower case letters when ever the chose and all the translators were trinitarians so the convently would use this method to support there belife system they had no why of knowing is the word (word) should have been captlized or not so they simply went with there own relegious persaysions hence the CApital (word) Turnning the simple meaning of the word to a person.
it was simple saying in the beginning was intellegence it was with God and God was intellegence and this intellegence was the light of man, it gives us our intelect we have it comes from God.to try to make this text a support for the trinitarian idealogy is folly.
Gene.
GBSo John 1: should have been interpreted…
[1] In the beginning was the (intellegence utterance), and the (intellegence utterance) was with God, and the (intellegence utterance) was God.
[2] The (intellegence utterance) was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by (intellegence utterance); and without (intellegence utterance) was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In (intellegence utterance) was life; and the (intellegence utterance) was the light of men.
[5] And the (intellegence utterance)Shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the (intellegence utterance), that all men through (intellegence utterance)might believe.
[8] Hewas not that (intellegence utterance), but was sent to bear witness of that (intellegence utterance).
[9] That was the true (intellegence utterance), which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[10] (intellegence utterance)was in the world, and the world was made by (intellegence utterance), and the world knew (intellegence utterance)not.
[11] (intellegence utterance)came unto his own, and (intellegence utterance) own received (intellegence utterance) not.
[12] But as many as received (intellegence utterance), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on (intellegence utterance) name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the (intellegence utterance) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld (intellegence utterance) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.So this is the way the translators should have translated it?
The problem that you have is contextually John is using over 40 pronouns in the 1st chapter of John all refering to the “Word” that was made flesh!
So you have to insert your (intellegence utterance) where these pronouns are used!'
So you think that over 600 scholars conspired to mislead and changed the text?
So why didnt they interpret it like you say?
The Word comes out of the mouth of Elohim, His breath, His Spirit, the Sword, the Truth. The Word is the Torah, The Light, The Life, The Son, The Teacher, The Instruction.
wj ..> every then the way you rephrased it is absolutly right except the part of intellengent utterance becoming flesh that impossible because flesh and blood is not spirit. and intellengence is spirit the word (became) means came to be, it should read came to be in flesh.that should be obivious.
you can throw around all kinds of things torks but the bottom line is what Sir Issac Newton said true knowledge is always in it's simplest form.
you might find it refreshing for a change ..Gene
Laurel…> Happy sabbath to you also.
truly the sabbath was made for man it is a time to rejoice in….
…geneQuote (Laurel @ July 08 2007,04:40) Is 58:13
The Sabbath is a delight!!
How many here do you know that honor the Sabbath?
Blessings and happy Sabbath to you too Sis.!I keep the Sabbath but I don't worship the Sabbath. I don't follow the Sabbath to the letter I follow the Sabbath according to the Spirit.
Laurel…> the sabbath has been switch to the pagan sun god day by
by those who seek to destory the commandments of God.through false trinitarian teachings.as they do other scriptures as well.again peace have a good sabbath.. and hold on to what you have …..
gene.kenrch…> good sabbath to you also. Jesus said the sabbath was made for us not us for it. we are lord of the sabbath just like he said he was also…peace to you… gene
It is awesome to have you both here, I will pay special attention to your posts.
Then there's the mark of the beast….Hi,
Some would spend much effort in showing that everything was made through the Word in the beginning. Then they would find verses saying God alone created. Finally they would use this as a basis for trying to say God must be the Word and this is a foundation for saying God must be a trinity.
That is no sort of foundation to build any sort of faith on.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 08 2007,07:44) Hi,
Some would spend much effort in showing that everything was made through the Word in the beginning. Then they would find verses saying God alone created. Finally they would use this as a basis for trying to say God must be the Word and this is a foundation for saying God must be a trinity.
That is no sort of foundation to build any sort of faith on.
NHGood! Then you live with the contradiction!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
