Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Much repetition. The One God, God the Father was the father of the human Jesus in the begettal/birth process and Mary as his mother. Jesus had human nature Hebrew 2:14, Romans 8:3. If you press the father / son concept, every father exists before the existence of their son. The father begets the son. How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.At a minimum, since we know that sons are always the same nature as their fathers--it cannot be otherwise--then that reflects God's revelation of Father and Son. If the Son is not the same nature as the Father, then the whole thing breaks down and God's use of Father and Son communicates nothing to us.
Jesus was a specially prepared individual, a special birth and a special education, with the result he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, Luke 2:40,52. Isaac was a special birth and one aspect of his failure was with Esau and Jacob. All the faithful of old in one way or another pointed forward to the completeness revealed in Jesus. Trinitarians whitewash over all this detail and replace this with the idea that Jesus MUST be God.If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient.
All you anti-Trinitarians are great at providing verses which prove Jesus was human, which Trinitarians fully agree with, but why do you not take Heb 1:2 and 1:10-12 into account? Why skip to 2:14, as though chapter 1 doesn't have anything to say on the matter, when it clearly does?Greetings again Free,
Much repetition. The One God, God the Father was the father of the human Jesus in the begettal/birth process and Mary as his mother. Jesus had human nature Hebrew 2:14, Romans 8:3.
It is not contradictory; it's complicated and ultimately incomprehensible, but not contradictory. A son is always of the same nature as his father. So the Son is the same nature as the Father, which is deity. That necessarily means that the Son has always existed or wouldn't be of the same nature. The NT reaffirms this repeatedly, speaking not only of the preexistence of the Son, but of eternal, absolute existence.If you press the father / son concept, every father exists before the existence of their son. The father begets the son. How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.
We aren't the ones "whitewashing." Your response doesn't actually address what you quoted, which was: "If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient."Jesus was a specially prepared individual, a special birth and a special education, with the result he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, Luke 2:40,52. Isaac was a special birth and one aspect of his failure was with Esau and Jacob. All the faithful of old in one way or another pointed forward to the completeness revealed in Jesus. Trinitarians whitewash over all this detail and replace this with the idea that Jesus MUST be God.
I am not interested in answering all the supposed "Trinitarian" verses otherwise this thread will become a full Trinitarian vs Biblical Unitarian thread. I was interested in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 and I suggest that I have presented my understanding of these adequately.All you anti-Trinitarians are great at providing verses which prove Jesus was human, which Trinitarians fully agree with, but why do you not take Heb 1:2 and 1:10-12 into account? Why skip to 2:14, as though chapter 1 doesn't have anything to say on the matter, when it clearly does?
Did John the Baptist preexist?And why ignore the wording of Romans 8:3? "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (ESV). Notice that God sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." That strongly implies his Son preexisted in some other form, such as in the form of God, which Paul writes in Phil 2:6.
I suggest that the Trinitarian concept is both incomprehensible and contradictory. The Father/Son relationship was between a Deity and a human.It is not contradictory; it's complicated and ultimately incomprehensible, but not contradictory. A son is always of the same nature as his father. So the Son is the same nature as the Father, which is deity.
No other human has been so prepared to be the Saviour. It was a Divine work, and no man can strive to achieve ALL that was accomplished in Jesus. He alone was sinless, and thus the only one in and through whom the sentence of death could be reversed and thus share this with others, ALL of whom are in need of this blessing.Your response doesn't actually address what you quoted, which was: "If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient."
Or the invention of new words and concepts. One I have seen used a lot is "eternally begotten."How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.
Yes, that is a difficult one to analyse. I tried to suggest a few explanations, but decided that it is only an attempt to explain the NT term "only begotten". The simple explanation of "only begotten" is that God the Father is the father of the human Jesus Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.Or the invention of new words and concepts. One I have seen used a lot is "eternally begotten."
That's true, but then sometimes I see people raise distinction between the Son of Man (human Jesus) and the Son of God (non-human Jesus) where the Father is the father of the Son of God, but since the Son of God was never actually born then he isn't really a son and the Father isn't really a father. Thus he was "eternally begotten." That's how I think the logic works. In that way they can still say he's begotten yet also eternal which is self-contradictory anyway. It sounds religious, but ultimately it's false.Greetings Runningman,
Yes, that is a difficult one to analyse. I tried to suggest a few explanations, but decided that it is only an attempt to explain the NT term "only begotten". The simple explanation of "only begotten" is that God the Father is the father of the human Jesus Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.
Kind regards
Trevor
Who would these clergy be and where is your proof they did?There is no phrase " I am" in the Hebrew.
Therefore, the clergy that put it there in Greek are a sham!