The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Quote (music4two @ Feb. 17 2007,16:14)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 17 2007,12:39) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 17 2007,03:37) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2007,03:17) Quote (942767 @ Feb. 16 2007,22:54) Hi Music42: Enjoyed reading this post, and it should help those who teach the trinity and oneness doctrines to see plainly that their doctrines are in error so that they can come to the knowledge of the truth and prosper. God Bless Hi SDN, Music4two holds that Yeshua did not pre-exist His incarnation, not as a sentient personage anyway. Do you agree? Hi Isaiah 1:18: I do agree based on the following scripture:  “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb withouth blemish and without spot: WHO VERILY WAS FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, BUT WAS MANIFEST IN THESE LAST TIMES FOR YOU”.  (1 Peter 1:18-20) God Bless Hi, I too struggle with the concept of Jesus pre existing with God. John 1:1 does not clearly tell me that at all. There are too many other ways to interpret that verse. However 1 Peter 1:18-19 could mean that even though Jesus pre existed with God before the foundations of the world, that it was still God's plan that he be manefested on earth in these last times. So that verse does not preclude a chance for the pre existence of Jesus, at least to me it doesn't. John 17:5 is the only scripture in my mind that seems to confirm that Jesus was with God before the world began. Jhn 17:5  “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. “ Tim What does it say was with God from the beginning. It does not say Jesus. It says the Glory was with God. If God has set glory aside for His son from the beginning it makes sense and fits the other scriptures. remember the teaching of Logos in John 1. this was the plan of God from the beginning to have a human son/messiah who would be given the keys to the kingdom and all power. Does it seem surprising that God would set asside the reward for this plans fullfillment.

Hi m42,
A word is not a plan.
A plan is a formulated idea.
A word is the expression of such a plan.

[music4two]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 17 2007,18:24)

Hi m42, A word is not a plan. A plan is a formulated idea. A word is the expression of such a plan.

Logos is defined as an expression or statement. When one makes a statement or expression it carries a message or context. If I were to buy my wife flowers, I am making a statement to her. I am expression something. The important thing is not that I am making a statement or expressing something. The importance is what am I making a statement about. My wife might like the flowers, but the flowers say something more then my ability to stop at a florist. It is clear from scripture that Jesus is to be our example. He is the perfect representation of the nature of God. God is expressing His plan for man. He is making a statement, in the person of Christ, about His plan for perfected humanity. For this reason Jesus showed forth perfected humanity and union with God. His character was perfect in his attitufe toward God and man. Even his death on the cross showed his perfect love for his fellow human beings and obediance even unto death.

Jesus is the expression of something. He is the expression of the character of God in a human. God's character, his very being, existed for all time. The expression of God's character became flesh in the person of Christ.
God has always had a plan. To have perfected sons of God that have dominion over the Earth and perfect communion with Him. Jesus is the example of that perfection. He is the expression of God's plan. Jesus is not literally the logos, but Jesus is the expression of the logos. Only in that sense can He be equated with the logos.

[NickHassan]

Hi m42,
Until the Jordan Jesus was the expression of himself, his own nature as the Son of God.
It was only when he was baptised in the Spirit and filled with the fullness of God's deity that he began to express the nature and the powers and the words of God.

[Is 1:18]

Hello M42

Quote

wikpedia = logos — which in Classical Greek stands for: a) the (oral or written) expression of thoughts and b) the ability of a person to express his thoughts (inward logos). At Robertson defines Logos as – The Word (o logov). Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech.

Yes but, with regard to John’s usage of the “logos”,  Robertson also wrote this:

“The Word (o logov). Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikov logov for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logov, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence.…… The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarc egeneto, verse John 1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. ” (Robertson's Word Pictures [NT])

BTW, since you cited Robertson and appear to respect his opnion (as you should, He is generally regarded as the foremost among the Greek NT expositors), I'll quote Him extensively in this post.

Quote

Some say that John meant Jesus when he wrote Logos? Was John very confused? Did he change his mind about the meaning after a few verses?

Robertson, like the vast majority of great NT expositors, has recognised that although an abstract concepts is used by John the context of the prologue makes it plain that it is a person that it is used of.  To underscore this, here are three pieces of evidence from the very first verse of the prologue:

John 1:1a
In the beginning was the Word,

John used the imperfect eimi, denoting continuous action of the Logos existing, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. Here is what Robertson wrote in relation to this:

Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in John 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

Plans are conceived, they have beginnings, they do not exist perpetually….the Logos was always in existence…..

John 1:1b
and the Word was with God,

John affirms that the Logos was “with” God. The preposition was used in the accusative by John. It is the Greek word “pros” which means “to be in company with someone” or to be face-to-face in communion, interaction, fellowship. So considering the previous clause of the verse we now learn that there was an eternal fellowship that was intimate, a timeless relationship between God and the Logos. Here is Robertson’s exegesis:

With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

I submit to you M42 that a conceptual expression cannot legitimately have this kind of relationship with God, or visa versa. An expression of God cannot be “pros theos”. But if you can explain to me how this could be so, I would be interested.

John 1:1c
and the Word was God.

Here’s the clincher….

The Logos is “was God”. Again this language is only applicable to a person. Can an impersonal expression be “theos” in any sense? I can’t see how. But a person can. So, if you assert that the Logos was “impersona” there is a couple of questions raised here:

1. In what sense is the Logos “God”. Is the noun “theos” definite or indefinite?

2. By applying “theos” in John 1:1c what was John intended teaching about the Logos?

Outside of the first verse, but still within the body of the prologue we read that “in him was life; and the life was the light of men” (vs 4). This again challenges the view of an impersonal logos, for how could an abstract notion be said to have any kind of life (zoe) “in Him”??

Quote

I think of Logos as the intentions or motives of God. It could also be argued as God’s plan. In this way it fits all the remaining times Logos/word is used in scripture. Une of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. Especially by the same author. If Word/Logos literally means Jesus in john 1 then it should mean Jesus everywhere else in scripture.

The Greek word “logos” is used of Yeshua in 1 John 1:1, Revelation 19:13 and (arguably) Hebrews 4:12…

Blessings

[music4two]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2007,20:59)

Hello M42 Quote wikpedia = logos — which in Classical Greek stands for: a) the (oral or written) expression of thoughts and b) the ability of a person to express his thoughts (inward logos). At Robertson defines Logos as – The Word (o logov). Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech. Yes but, with regard to John’s usage of the “logos”,  Robertson also wrote this: “The Word (o logov). Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikov logov for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logov, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence.…… The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarc egeneto, verse John 1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. ” (Robertson's Word Pictures [NT]) BTW, since you cited Robertson and appear to respect his opnion (as you should, He is generally regarded as the foremost among the Greek NT expositors), I'll quote Him extensively in this post. Quote Some say that John meant Jesus when he wrote Logos? Was John very confused? Did he change his mind about the meaning after a few verses? Robertson, like the vast majority of great NT expositors, has recognised that although an abstract concepts is used by John the context of the prologue makes it plain that it is a person that it is used of.  To underscore this, here are three pieces of evidence from the very first verse of the prologue: John 1:1a In the beginning was the Word, John used the imperfect eimi, denoting continuous action of the Logos existing, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. Here is what Robertson wrote in relation to this: Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in John 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence). A plan is conceived, it does not exist perpetually….the Logos was always in existence….. John 1:1b and the Word was with God, John affirms that the Logos was “with” God. The preposition was used in the accusative by John. It is the Greek word “pros” which means “to be in company with someone” or to be face-to-face in communion, interaction, fellowship. So considering the previous clause of the verse we now learn that there was an eternal fellowship that was intimate, a timeless relationship between God and the Logos. Here is Robertson’s exegesis: With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. I submit to you M42 that a conceptual expression cannot legitimately have this kind of relationship with God, or vise versa. An expression of God cannot be “pros theos”. But if you can explain to me how this could be so, I would be interested. John 1:1c and the Word was God. Here’s the clincher…. The Logos is “was God”. Again this language is only applicable to a person. Can an impersonal expression be “theos” in any sense? I can’t see how. But a person can. So, if you assert that the Logos was “impersona” there is a couple of questions raised here: 1. Is the noun “theos” definite or indefinite? 2. By applying “theos” in John 1:1c what was John intended teaching about the Logos? Outside of the first verse, but still within the body of the prologue we read that “in him was life; and the life was the light of men” (vs 4). This again challenges the view of an impersonal logos, for how could an abstract notion be said to have any kind of life (zoe) “in Him”?? Quote I think of Logos as the intentions or motives of God. It could also be argued as God’s plan. In this way it fits all the remaining times Logos/word is used in scripture. Une of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. Especially by the same author. If Word/Logos literally means Jesus in john 1 then it should mean Jesus everywhere else in scripture. The Greek word “logos” is used of Yeshua in 1 John 1:1, Revelation 19:13 and (arguably) Hebrews 4:12… Blessings

I am not interested in debating with you. I do not care if Jesus preexisted or not. It is not germain to the subject of Jesus being God. He could have easily existed as a pre-born soul before all time. so could all of us. that is simple speculation. As I have posted before. Some believe that we all preexist as souls before we are born. Who knows?

As to your concept of the Logos being literally Jesus – you are wrong. If you are using Jesus preexistants as proof of the trinity, I take back again to function. The greatest test of a doctrines validity is it's function. What function does it serve? What purpose does it serve the plan of God for Jesu
s to be a God?
Jesus as a man serves the purpose He was designed to serve. To be a perfect example of perfected humanity.

[Is 1:18]

Quote

I am not interested in debating with you. I do not care if Jesus preexisted or not. It is not germain to the subject of Jesus being God. He could have easily existed as  a pre-born soul before all time. so could all of us. that is simple speculation. As I have posted before. Some believe that we all preexist as souls before we are born. Who knows?

Hello again M42,
I understand your reluctance to get into fruitless debates, but this is not one. One of us is preaching “another Jesus” (2Cor 11:1-4). This is a message board where ideas are postulated and tested, that is one mechanism in which truth is determined. If you are uncomfortable with that then I suggest to you now that this is not the environment for you.

You have often posited that Yashua did not preexist his incarnation as a personage, you should be willing to defend the assertion…

Quote

As to your concept of the Logos being literally Jesus – you are wrong.

I agree. “Yeshua” is the name of the man who was born in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago. The Logos was “in the form of God”, was a sentient personage Who was in relationship with God and “was God”, but took on the form of a bond servant and was made flesh. Deity put on humanity, the result was Jesus.

Quote

If you are using Jesus preexistants as proof of the trinity, I take back again to function. The greatest test of a doctrines validity is it's function. What function does it serve? What purpose does it serve the plan of God for Jesus to be a God?

I actually answered this for you last week. Did you see my post?

[music4two]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2007,21:47)

Quote I am not interested in debating with you. I do not care if Jesus preexisted or not. It is not germain to the subject of Jesus being God. He could have easily existed as  a pre-born soul before all time. so could all of us. that is simple speculation. As I have posted before. Some believe that we all preexist as souls before we are born. Who knows? Hello again M42, I understand your reluctance to get into fruitless debates, but this is not one. One of us is preaching “another Jesus” (2Cor 11:1-4). This is a message board where ideas are postulated and tested, that is one mechanism in which truth is determined. If you are uncomfortable with that then I suggest to you now that this is not the environment for you. You have often posited that Yashua did not preexist his incarnation as a personage, you should be willing to defend the assertion… Quote As to your concept of the Logos being literally Jesus – you are wrong. I agree. “Yeshua” is the name of the man who was born in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago. The Logos was “in the form of God”, was a sentient personage Who was in relationship with God and “was God”, but took on the form of a bond servant and was made flesh. Deity put on humanity, the result was Jesus. Quote If you are using Jesus preexistants as proof of the trinity, I take back again to function. The greatest test of a doctrines validity is it's function. What function does it serve? What purpose does it serve the plan of God for Jesus to be a God? I actually answered this for you last week. Did you see my post?

As to my posts, I was simply answering direct questions from toteachachild. the post was not directed to you or was it an invitation to debate. Perhaps you should mind your own buisness.
As to your suggestion to seek another environment. that is none of your buisness either..

[NickHassan]

Quote (music4two @ Feb. 17 2007,19:40)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 17 2007,18:24) Hi m42, A word is not a plan. A plan is a formulated idea. A word is the expression of such a plan. Logos is defined as an expression or statement. When one makes a statement or expression it carries a message or context. If I were to buy my wife flowers, I am making a statement to her. I am expression something. The important thing is not that I am making a statement or expressing something. The importance is what am I making a statement about. My wife might like the flowers, but the flowers say something more then my ability to stop at a florist. It is clear from scripture that Jesus is to be our example. He is the perfect representation of the nature of God. God is expressing His plan for man. He is making a statement, in the person of Christ, about His plan for perfected humanity. For this reason Jesus showed forth perfected humanity and union with God. His character was perfect in his attitufe toward God and man. Even his death on the cross showed his perfect love for his fellow human beings and obediance even unto death. Jesus is the expression of something. He is the expression of the character of God in a human. God's character, his very being, existed for all time. The expression of God's character became flesh in the person of Christ. God has always had a plan. To have perfected sons of God that have dominion over the Earth and perfect communion with Him. Jesus is the example of that perfection. He is the expression of God's plan. Jesus is not literally the logos, but Jesus is the expression of the logos. Only in that sense can He be equated with the logos.

Hi m42,
What do you call a man who has loving thoughts and plans for his wife and even buys her flowers but never expresses those things in the simplest actions-words?
Single.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
It is the love between the Father and His son that shows God is not a trinity.
It is not self love.
Luke 20:13
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

[Is 1:18]

M42, if what you teach as truth was legitimate it would withstand a little scrutiny…..

[NickHassan]

Quote (music4two @ Feb. 17 2007,22:16)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 17 2007,21:47) Quote I am not interested in debating with you. I do not care if Jesus preexisted or not. It is not germain to the subject of Jesus being God. He could have easily existed as  a pre-born soul before all time. so could all of us. that is simple speculation. As I have posted before. Some believe that we all preexist as souls before we are born. Who knows? Hello again M42, I understand your reluctance to get into fruitless debates, but this is not one. One of us is preaching “another Jesus” (2Cor 11:1-4). This is a message board where ideas are postulated and tested, that is one mechanism in which truth is determined. If you are uncomfortable with that then I suggest to you now that this is not the environment for you. You have often posited that Yashua did not preexist his incarnation as a personage, you should be willing to defend the assertion… Quote As to your concept of the Logos being literally Jesus – you are wrong. I agree. “Yeshua” is the name of the man who was born in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago. The Logos was “in the form of God”, was a sentient personage Who was in relationship with God and “was God”, but took on the form of a bond servant and was made flesh. Deity put on humanity, the result was Jesus. Quote If you are using Jesus preexistants as proof of the trinity, I take back again to function. The greatest test of a doctrines validity is it's function. What function does it serve? What purpose does it serve the plan of God for Jesus to be a God? I actually answered this for you last week. Did you see my post? As to my posts, I was simply answering direct questions from toteachachild. the post was not directed to you or was it an invitation to debate. Perhaps you should mind your own buisness. As to your suggestion to seek another environment. that is none of your buisness either..

Hi m42,
If you wish to send private messages you should use pms. This is a public forum and all are invited to respond to all posts.

[942767]

Hi M42:

Please explain your statement that “all of humanity are sons of God” in the following verse.

Verse 11 –  They come from the same Father and for this reason Jesus calls them (humanity) brethren.
(All humanity are sons of one God including Jesus.)

Your statement below that God must have created a sperm to fertilize Mary's egg is speculation and I can't agree with you on this one.

Verse 17 – Made like his brethren in ALL THINGS. Not in everything except his nature, but all things! Everything about Jesus was like his brethren. No qualifications or added concepts. Since it is clear that Jesus is in the line of David through Mary, Her DNA must have been present. Jesus calls her mother indicating that She was the source, of the egg, 1/2 of his makeup.
We know that God is His father, therefore in order to not break this previous verse that he was like his brethren in EVERY WAY God must have created a human sperm to fertilize Mary’s egg.

God Bless

[942767]

Hi M42:

Please explain your statement that “all of humanity are sons of God” in the following verse.

Verse 11 – They come from the same Father and for this reason Jesus calls them (humanity) brethren. (All humanity are sons of one God including Jesus.)

Your statement in the following verse that God must have created a human sperm to impregnate Mary's egg is speculation and I can't agree with you on this one.

Verse 17 – Made like his brethren in ALL THINGS. Not in everything except his nature, but all things! Everything about Jesus was like his brethren. No qualifications or added concepts. Since it is clear that Jesus is in the line of David through Mary, Her DNA must have been present. Jesus calls her mother indicating that She was the source, of the egg, 1/2 of his makeup.
We know that God is His father, therefore in order to not break this previous verse that he was like his brethren in EVERY WAY God must have created a human sperm to fertilize Mary’s egg.

God Bless

[Cubes]

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 18 2007,04:54)

Hi M42: Please explain your statement that “all of humanity are sons of God” in the following verse. Verse 11 –  They come from the same Father and for this reason Jesus calls them (humanity) brethren. (All humanity are sons of one God including Jesus.) Your statement in the following verse that God must have created a human sperm to impregnate Mary's egg is speculation and I can't agree with you on this one. Verse 17 – Made like his brethren in ALL THINGS. Not in everything except his nature, but all things! Everything about Jesus was like his brethren. No qualifications or added concepts. Since it is clear that Jesus is in the line of David through Mary, Her DNA must have been present. Jesus calls her mother indicating that She was the source, of the egg, 1/2 of his makeup. We know that God is His father, therefore in order to not break this previous verse that he was like his brethren in EVERY WAY God must have created a human sperm to fertilize Mary’s egg. God Bless

Hi 9,

Something about what you said makes sense.  The emphasis on “in all things” makes sense….

If we say that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and not of man, but that his humanity is not even linked in genetic material to the very human Mary, then where was his humanity?  

You bring up the point that God could have created a human sperm to fertilize Mary's egg.

Speculatively, I say as I've said somewhere before, could God not simply have done to Joseph what he did to Adam…while in a deep sleep for example, and remove what was needed to impregnate Mary?  This would satisfy three points at least:

1.  Your point about a man's sperm and so Jesus being like his brethren in all things:  A man rather than having dual nature.
2.  It could explain how Joseph had no knowledge of the conception.
3.  It puts God in total control of the conception (even as the creation of Adam and Eve), overshadowing Mary by his spirit, without necessarily joining himself to a woman in conception.  When you think of it, he could have done it by any other way but he chose to mention Mary, Joseph, David, Abraham and Adam…
4.  It would explain John 1:12-13 and John 3:

a.  how that which is born of human is human, and that which is born of spirit is spirit; this is said for our benefit, to explain how we could be human and yet become the children/sons of God…(1 John 3:1f!)
b. how this relates to us and not to angels or some other beings;
c.  how one can be born by the will of man as we were = man, and then come to be born by the spirit and not by the will of man = children of God.
d.  how Jesus relates to us as our firstborn brother and how it is that we too can say, “our Father” along with him.

5.  It would also satisfy the Jesus Christ, “seed of David” and “King of Israel” questions in a patrilineal culture where no adopted child was known to inherit that which comes about through blood in Israel, and why it is that the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke speak of Joseph and NOT of Mary when obviously Mary could have been just as easily mentioned rather than Joseph to make it easier on us in the genealogies (in as much as Joseph could have also as easily been mentioned to have impregnated Mary rather than the scriptures which show him questioning the whole thing and needing to be assured in a dream by an angel).

6.  This does not take away from Jesus being truly the Son of God [according to John 3]  any more than we can doubt that our being born again and having God abide in us truly makes us the children of God etc.

Thus if he is the firstborn, then the firstborn of who?  And doesn't that imply –if not outrightly confirm–that we are brethren of the same type of births:  first of humanity, then of the holy spirit of God?

1Cr 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Cr 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1Cr 15:46  Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Cr 15:47  The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
1Cr 15:48  As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
1Cr 15:49  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Having said that, I recognize that God expressly focused upon and chose Jesus to be his Christ and that makes Jesus, well, second to none, excepting the Father.  Amen.

Anyway, just where I am at the moment.  What do you think?

Blessings.

[942767]

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 17 2007,23:54)

Hi M42: Please explain your statement that “all of humanity are sons of God” in the following verse. Verse 11 –  They come from the same Father and for this reason Jesus calls them (humanity) brethren. (All humanity are sons of one God including Jesus.) Your statement in the following verse that God must have created a human sperm to impregnate Mary's egg is speculation and I can't agree with you on this one. Verse 17 – Made like his brethren in ALL THINGS. Not in everything except his nature, but all things! Everything about Jesus was like his brethren. No qualifications or added concepts. Since it is clear that Jesus is in the line of David through Mary, Her DNA must have been present. Jesus calls her mother indicating that She was the source, of the egg, 1/2 of his makeup. We know that God is His father, therefore in order to not break this previous verse that he was like his brethren in EVERY WAY God must have created a human sperm to fertilize Mary’s egg. God Bless

Sorry that this got posted twice.

God Bless

[music4two]

Allow me if you will to apologise to any I may have offended with my impatience. It is not really a matter of impatience with you personally, but rather an impatience with your choices to continually engage in fruitless debate of philosophy.
On several occasions I have attempted to discuss the functionality of the doctrines being propogated on this thread. Unfortunately many are not interested in whether their teachings actually do anything or not. They are happiest when they can convince someone that their teaching is correct, regardless of whether that teaching does anything to move them closer to the plan of God. This endless debate of ideas and concepts that serve no purpose in the plan of God is nothing more then philosophy in it’s simplest terms.

In order to understand this further, it is necessary to understand God’s plan for his creation and specifically for mankind. We must also understand how God works to bring about His plans. At this point I expect to lose some that are on the fringes of Christianity, but most Christians will agree with the following points:
1. God is supreme in all of creation, both physical/material realms and spiritual realms. He is integrety and judges fairly. God is immutable and does not change. God cannot stop being God.
2. God has a specific plan for His creation, including man.
3. The crowning achievement and purpose of creation is mankind.
4. God’s plan is to develope creatures (humans) that will learn His wisdom and by doing so develope His character. He wants sons and daughters like himself.
5. God uses many sources to teach His ways unto man.
6. God does not engage in teachings that do nothing toward toward bringing about His plans. He is a God of reason and logic. 7. God works within and through His creation to bring about His plan.
8. God’s greatest example of His character is in Jesus Christ.
9. Jesus is the standard and example that all of mankind is to follow.
10. We are to work with Jesus and His Father to become perfect and Holy sons/daughters of God.

Everything that God has done through human history has been for the purpose of bringing about the completion of His plan. Anything that hinders or detracts from this process is not of God. Everything that God reveals to mankind is for the purpose of bringing about His plan. God does not engage in knowledge that serves no purpose.

God deals with man according to the heart and not the head. The Hebrews define the heart as “the authority within.” This authority is our decission making factor or our will. We can exercise our will toward living within God’s wisdom or within our own “wisdom”. This was the very choice given Adam and Eve. “You shall be like God’s knowing good and evil”. In ancient Hebrew the word translated “knowing” carries the idea of choice.  We are still being offered that same choice. Will we learn purposefull wisdom that produces life, or simple so-called knowledge of Good and evil. Who is our God? Ourselves or God Himself.

Many on here have good intentions, but are confused or sidetracked from real biblical interpretation. Real understanding results in a change of the heart and not a change of mind. Imperical knowledge that does not change one’s character or serve the purpose of God to mature His children is at best a waste of time and at worst working against God’s purpose.

There are processes that can help us to properly interpret scripture from a intelectual standpoint. These systems of hermaneutics or exegesis, if honest, can eventually lead us to an intelectual understanding of scripture. Rarely do you find a person in false doctrine willing to follow these principles and when you do they will abandon them when their God/doctrine is disproved. For this reason I have continually insisted on the one true test of a teachings validity.  It does not matter what a person believes they can prove in scripture. All of us are sesceptable to “imaginations that lift themselves above the truth of God”. The true test of a teaching is does it work toward fullfilling God’s plan on the Earth. Dose it serve the purpose of God or is it just idle mind chatter and philosophy.

Since this thread is specific to teachings about the nature of  God and Jesus, I will use those teachings as examples. I am not going to use scripture, but rather look to see if the teaching serves the purpose of fullfilling God’s plan for man.

Jesus is God . The second person of the Trinity became a man and was sent to Earth. Jesus is either fully God on Earth or is fully God and fully man at the same time. (dual-natured)

Does this serve God’s purpose and plan?

If Jesus is fully God or dual-natured then the following has to be true.
1. He cannot be our example, because we are not Gods. This includes:
A. His character in how he treated with man
B. His character in how he related with God.
C. His miracle power to overcome sin, sickness and disease.
D. His dominion over the Earth.
E. His resurection from the dead.
F. His eternal life in heaven.
G. His brotherhood with mankind.

All of the above list works against the plan and purpose of God. If Jesus cannot be our example, by virtue of Him being God, then none of the promisses so richly displayed in Jesus’ life apply to us.

My contention is that Jesus is a complete human beling created by God. Does this work in God’s plan?

Everything that Jesus did on the Earth is now open to me.
A. I can have the same character in how he treated with man
B. I can have the same character in how he related with God.
C. I can have the same miracle power to overcome sin, sickness and disease.
D. I can have the same dominion over the Earth.
E. I can have the same resurection from the dead.
F. I can have the same eternal life in heaven.
G. I can have the same brotherhood with mankind.

As I previously stated, it does not matter what a person believes they can prove. What does matter is the plan and purpose of God.

I am sure that some of the resident philosophers will now have a hay-day tying to scripturaly prove me wrong. The very fact that they will do so proves my point. They are more interested in following some teaching then they are in following Christ and the plan and purpose of God. The plan of God becomes an inconvience and it it contradicts their doctrine the plan of God gets set aside. Those who do this or not evil. We are all children of our western thinking philosophical culture. Perhaps we all need to make a shift from that culture to one that teaches, acts, lives and produces the plans and purposes of God. Our first priority should not be seeking to prove our conclussions from scripture. Far too often our conclussions are so important to us that we will bend scripture to make our proofs. Instead, we should line our conclussions up with the plan and purposes of God. If they do not fit? Your conclussion is wrong. All the debate and so-called scriptural proofs in the world will not validate a conclussion that apposes the plan of God.

I am learning to overcome my philosophical ideas and at times become impatient with those who refuse to consider God's plan in their teachings. For this reason I sometimes just ignor the same old philosophical disscussions that lead to the same old conclussions outside of God's plan. I post this for those that might be open to working and teaching within God purposes.

[NickHassan]

Hi m42,
Where did God teach that scripture is functionally designed?
Why should man be the pinnacle of creation when angels, and above them, the Son of God are greater than puny man?
Where does God say He only works through man's ability to learn and copy?
Why elevate the useless intellect of man when it is the mind of Christ and the Spirit of God that is needed?
Is it not the ultimate in human vanity to imagine that the momentary “grass” of creation is vital to God's work?
Why should man be so important in God's plan when it is the undeserved mercy of God we see shown to us?
What of the essential need for Grace and the work of God's Spirit in this total renewal process involving heaven and earth?
Is not one of the plans of God to eradicate sin from heaven too rather than being just focussed on earth?

Man is nothing.
God is all.
And God is not a trinity.

[music4two]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 18 2007,18:33)

Hi m42, Where did God teach that scripture is functionally designed? Why should man be the pinnacle of creation when angels, and above them, the Son of God are greater than puny man? Where does God say He only works through man's ability to learn and copy? Why elevate the useless intellect of man when it is the mind of Christ and the Spirit of God that is needed? Is it not the ultimate in human vanity to imagine that the momentary “grass” of creation is vital to God's work? Why should man be so important in God's plan when it is the undeserved mercy of God we see shown to us? What of the essential need for Grace and the work of God's Spirit in this total renewal process involving heaven and earth? Is not one of the plans of God to eradicate sin from heaven too rather than being just focussed on earth? Man is nothing. God is all. And God is not a trinity.

Sorry, your comments are so far outside any prudent understanding of God that I will not even discuss it with you.

[NickHassan]

Hi m42,
We do not look at our relationship with God from our viewpoint but see how He views us from His viewpoint.
We are nothing.
He owes us nothing.
All is grace.

[NickHassan]

Hi m42.
Ps 144
“Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

2My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.

3LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!

4Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.

5Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.

6Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them.

7Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;

8Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

9I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.

10It is he that giveth salvation unto kings: who delivereth David his servant from the hurtful sword.

11Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood:

12That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace:

13That our garners may be full, affording all manner of store: that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets:

14That our oxen may be strong to labour; that there be no breaking in, nor going out; that there be no complaining in our streets.

15Happy is that people, that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people, whose God is the LORD.”

We are nothing but vain puny men.

God is not a trinity and we should not dare make such proclamations I am sure you will agree.

[Author]

Posts