This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What I said was & is what God has spoken concerning HIS Glory:
I believe they are not the glory of God, and they aren't.
Correct the Glory of God is always specified as being just that, as in:
The word ''begotten" is the same process described in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where the One God, Yahweh, God the Father caused Jesus to be conceived by means of God's power, the Holy Spirit, resulting in his birth. As such God became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Mary his mother with the result that Jesus became a human, the Son of God and the son of Mary and thus through Mary the descendant of David and future heir of the Throne of David when Jesus returns to set up the Kingdom of God, centred in the literal Jerusalem for the 1000 years.
Is that so? What evidence can you provide from primary sources showing this connection?
The clear and plain meaning is that Jesus, as the Son and preincarnate Logos, possessed the actual glory of God prior to creation and certainly prior to becoming human. It can mean nothing else. And, it is fully supported by John 1:1-3, 17:24, 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:6-7, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:2, and Heb 2:10, among others.
You can say it, but it means nothing without support.
τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί
If Jesus Christ has not the Glory of God than your faith in Him is in Vain and your sins remain
Valentinus and the stoics claimed words were divine, but a word is just an element of speech, same with logos.
It is interesting how 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 2:10 don't prove your point. Yet you copy past the references as if they should mean something. I could go on about how the English translation is poor in the other verses, but I won't.
The first God of Christianity was Jesus, not YHWH. This can be proven by understanding Valentinus' logos and anthropomorphisms. He was also called Cerinthus by Polycarp, since Valentinus is never mentioned by Polycarp directly, and there were many Merinthoi and Cerinthoi Gnostics before Valentinus, Cerdo and Marcion.
Wrongs remain. Is atoning them a defect?
If Jesus Christ has not the Glory of God, you have been lied to, & your sins have not been atoned for.
And what does this prove with the doctrine of the Trinity? Where is your primary source information that proves a connection?
They do mean something. Or are you saying that some Bible verses, particularly those you disagree with, don't mean anything?
That's probably good for everyone.
None of this makes sense, nor does it provide support for your previous assertion. The first and only God of Christianity is Yahweh, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is what the NT teaches.
With whom is everything and with whom we exist. Prepositions in Greek tend not communicate causes, if at all, but I didn't understand you eisegesis.
All things what? The Greek is more specific than it looks from the english. Didn't Jesus tell his disciples all things including flat panel TVs?
YHWH is not the son. I am naturally skeptical of an English book which translates old-earth concepts poorly. This is the problem with not being skeptical of it, because the original languages are very different from the English which is given.
I'm not surprised. No anti-Trinitarian ever does address those passages which prove too difficult for their position.
I guess that explains it, doesn't it? Don't believe everything you were taught in Sunday School.
What name is that and how does it show the above?
That's begging the question. This is why I keep asking for a verse that shows Yahweh is the Father only.
It might be worth bearing in mind that believers, as a whole, are the new temple of God, with Jesus in us through the Holy Spirit. The above verses may not be speaking of a literal temple in Jerusalem.
How exactly is the concept "both impossible and contradictory"? Saying it is doesn't make it so, especially since the Bible makes it clear that that is the case.
On what basis? First, "he" isn't in the Greek, so we can't just go arbitrarily adding it into the English. Second, it makes no sense in the context. Jesus is contrasting Abraham's existence with his--Abraham's is temporal and finite; Jesus's is absolute existence.
And that makes little sense in the context as well. "I Will Be" doesn't communicate a whole lot about God; it's rather nebulous and abstract. "I Am," on the other hand, immediately gives a number of concrete attributes of God, and that he can therefore be absolutely trusted.
Are you disagreeing that a son is always the same nature as his father? If it's different for Jesus, then the language of Father and Son is meaningless and communicates nothing to us. That would be odd since it is used throughout the NT. God is the original; humans are the analogies. Since we know that sons are always the same nature as their fathers, it follows that the Son must also be the same nature as the Father.
It only further supports my point, hence why I didn't quote it. The title Son of God is a claim to deity (see the above), which the Jews fully understood and Jesus didn't deny.
On the contrary, if Jesus was only just a man, even a "very unique and special man," then at most he secured his salvation and the forgiveness of the sins of his followers at that time, for a limited period of time. If Jesus isn't also truly God, there is no salvation.
Of course, that doesn't actually address the arguments. Again, it is simple logic and a sound argument. "All things" clearly refers to all things that God created. If all things that came into existence in Gen 1 and 2, came into existence through or by the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son came into existence. Therefore, the Son has always existed and is God in nature, just as his Father is; which is exactly what we should expect from such language.With whom is everything and with whom we exist. Prepositions in Greek tend not communicate causes, if at all, but I didn't understand you eisegesis.
All things what? The Greek is more specific than it looks from the english. Didn't Jesus tell his disciples all things including flat panel TVs?
YHWH is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is what the sum of the evidence tells us.
His Son as the Spirit Holy Spirit of sonship (sons of God) is in reference to the words given to the prophet apostle the Son of man, Jesus. The outward witness that God not seen has spoken is two. . not three. Three is a crowd. Two walk together as one.
That verse doesn't have anything to do with God or the Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are all eternally distinct and coequal.
What if it doesn't?
YHWH is not the son, because the son was not supernatural in anyway. To be supernatural in any way as a man is deny the full humanity of the son.
What else could it mean?
No, Yahweh is not the Son, but the Son is Yahweh. Those are the very points John makes in John 1:1.
That is fallaciously begging the question.
How so? Are you saying it is impossible for God to come and take on human flesh? Jesus is truly man and truly God, but he preexisted as the Son (the Word) for all eternity. That’s what the Bible shows, hence why we have the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is impossible for God to be less than what he is. God creates ideals and disasters, but he doesn't suffer man, nor suffers himself to be one.
God gave him glory, but not his glory. Atone for thyself first.