The Trinity

[JLB]

There is every reason to believe He is a man: the term God-man does not occur anywhere in scripture, expressly or by implication.

Here's the good reason:

1 Tim.2.5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note the present tense.

Here's another:

Lk 24.38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

What more do you need?

Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord?

and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Romans 8:9

The Spirit of Christ is Omnipresent!

Can the Spirit of a man occupy all those who call upon Him and confess Him as Lord.

JLB

 

[Free]

There is every reason to believe He is a man: the term God-man does not occur anywhere in scripture, expressly or by implication.

Here's the good reason:

1 Tim.2.5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note the present tense.

Here's another:

Lk 24.38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

What more do you need?

And yet this does not disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. You are once again divorcing these passages from the larger context of the entirety of Scripture.

 

[Asyncritus]

And yet this does not disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. You are once again divorcing these passages from the larger context of the entirety of Scripture.

What nonsense Free.

You seem to be unable to admit into evidence anything that contradicts your viewpoint.

1 You have no defence against the passage above which states perfectly clearly that the Lord, now in heaven, at the right hand of God Himself, is a man. The definite article is again absent, indicating a quality, such as 'human'.

I'm happy to say that NET agrees with me (though I didn't know that they did till just now when I looked at their translation. It's great when a plan comes together!)

8tn Grk “one mediator between God and mankind, the human, Christ Jesus.”


2 You cannot account for the clear statement in Ps. 2 'this day have I begotten thee', which clearly refutes the idea of eternal pre-existence.

3 You refuse to accept the powerful truth that Jesus was CONCEIVED of the Holy Spirit, and its consequences.

4 You have never come back about the point made by that jewish expositor that 'echad' in Hebrew really means one, numerically, and that all this about a 'compound unity' is simply wrong.

5 You have been unable to account for those many statements where the Lord states unequivocally and perfectly clearly, that the Father is His God.

6 You refuse to countenance my suggestion that 'the 'beginning' in Jn 1.1 is the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' as Mark puts it. As John clarifies in his first letter.

7 And worst of all, you ignore the immediate context of the statement in Jn 1.1.

What context is that, I hear you asking.

Clearly, the rest of the chapter, coming in the middle of the prologue:

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Why is that right there, Free, if not to tell us that this is NOT the 'beginning' of Gen 1, but the 'beginning' of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

You speak of context - and right here in the context is the plainest, and most definite indication that this 'beginning' is the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ', not Gen 1.1. Why don't you accept that incontrovertible fact?

Just incidentally, too, did you know that in the phrase: 'there was a man sent from God whose name was John', the from is the Greek para which means 'from alongside' God?

How can that be?Did John pre-exist in heaven too?

Or is it a reference to the fact that Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, brought the message of his impending birth from the side of God? What do you think?

Be careful here, because if you admit that this is a figurative remark, then you immediately open the floodgates to understanding that 'in the beginning' is also a figurative statement referring, as I say, to the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ', and you have left literality far behind.

Quite rightly too, I may say - because it is obvious that the figurative abounds herein.

Take 'light' as the example. Is John referring to the literal light spoken of in Gen 1.3,4, or is it the figurative 'light' of the gospel which brings 'life'?

Clearly not the literal meaning of light, because Jesus claims to be the 'light of the world'.

This re-introduces the possibility that we are dealing here with the non-literal meaning of the passage. And since John is introduced as time marker, you then have the problem of explaining why the writer is jumping back and forth from Gen 1 to the introduction of Jesus into the world.

And even 'the world' is not the planet. Why? Because of the non-literality of the use of the word, being restricted to meaning 'the Jewish People'. How do we know this? Because of these words:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Thw world is not the planet - because the planet, soil, water and all, cannot know Him. But John does not leave us in any doubt as to his meaning, because he immediately goes on to clarify his own meaning:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Who are 'his own'? Clearly the Jewish People.

So as you have now seen, there are a significant number of non-literal elements in the passage:

'the world', the 'light' and I also suggest, 'the beginning'.

All of which is very rug-pulling, I suggest.

 

[Asyncritus]

Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord?

and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Romans 8:9

The Spirit of Christ is Omnipresent!

Can the Spirit of a man occupy all those who call upon Him and confess Him as Lord.

JLB

JLB

You are sch a mixture of perfect good sense and not so perfect good sense. Take this as an example:

Can the Spirit of a man occupy all those who call upon Him and confess Him as Lord.

The answer is of course, 'No'.

But what do you know about Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Do you remember this verse, which is completely easy to understand and apply?

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

In other words, Jesus can do what He likes with God's Spirit, which was given unreservedly to Him.

Do you agree with that statement?

And do you agree with Paul here:

1 Tim 2. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[JLB]

JLB

You are sch a mixture of perfect good sense and not so perfect good sense. Take this as an example:


The answer is of course, 'No'.

But what do you know about Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Do you remember this verse, which is completely easy to understand and apply?

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

In other words, Jesus can do what He likes with God's Spirit, which was given unreservedly to Him.

Do you agree with that statement?

And do you agree with Paul here:

1 Tim 2. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I agree with Paul.

There is one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.

Everyone agrees with you on this. Why?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Sin came to all men through a man, therefore legally sin had to removed by Man.

God had to become a Man, because there were none righteous to pay the price for sin.

The price for sin is death. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.

God became flesh so He could pay the price for all Mankind!

Not an angel, not a man, but God, The Lord Himself, YHWH.


Here is a little hint for you to consider.

The NIV says it best -


Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one. John 17:11 [NIV]


JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

I agree with Paul.

There is one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.

Everyone agrees with you on this. Why?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Sin came to all men through a man, therefore legally sin had to removed by Man.

So far, excellent scriptural stuff.

Now the rest:

God had to become a Man, because there were none righteous to pay the price for sin.

The price for sin is death. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.

God became flesh so He could pay the price for all Mankind!

Erm, where do you get this from in scripture? And don't even think about Timothy again, or I'll have to dump the old textual question on you again, because you're clearly not listening.

Not an angel, not a man, but God, The Lord Himself, YHWH.

Here is a little hint for you to consider.

The NIV says it best -

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one. John 17:11 [NIV]

Now that's interesting, because if you're right YHWH gave YHWH the name.

I find that confusing and contradictory, don't you?

But the name God gave Him is detailed here, and it isn't YHWH:

Lk1. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Mat 1. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

God carefully gave Him that name - and for a good reason.

Philip.2 says much the same thing:

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Which name is that?

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, [never forgetting that it is all] to the glory of God the Father.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 

[Free]

What nonsense Free.

You seem to be unable to admit into evidence anything that contradicts your viewpoint.

And you do? :gah I will admit into evidence anything that is rational and for which there is good biblical, exegetical reasoning for it's admittance. If it is so obviously against Scripture, ignoring context, or simply irrational, then no, I would not admit it. Why should anyone?

1 You have no defence against the passage above which states perfectly clearly that the Lord, now in heaven, at the right hand of God Himself, is a man. The definite article is again absent, indicating a quality, such as 'human'.

I'm happy to say that NET agrees with me (though I didn't know that they did till just now when I looked at their translation. It's great when a plan comes together!)

8tn Grk “one mediator between God and mankind, the human, Christ Jesus.”

And here is a significant contradiction on your part. You want me to believe that a lack of the article in this verse "indicates a quality," and that is to say that Jesus is human. Yet you will not admit that the lack of the article in John 1:1c indicates that Jesus is God.

And without any basis whatsoever, you think that that passage somehow overrules and does away with what John so very clearly says in his first chapter.

2 You cannot account for the clear statement in Ps. 2 'this day have I begotten thee', which clearly refutes the idea of eternal pre-existence.

No it does not. You are once again using select verses and pitting them against others so as to completely nullify what the others clearly state, without any basis whatsoever.

3 You refuse to accept the powerful truth that Jesus was CONCEIVED of the Holy Spirit, and its consequences.

Nowhere have I ever denied that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

4 You have never come back about the point made by that jewish expositor that 'echad' in Hebrew really means one, numerically, and that all this about a 'compound unity' is simply wrong.

On the contrary, I made it abundantly clear and it is you who has completely failed to grasp it's significance. You clearly do not understand the difference between an absolute unity and a compound unity. Any reader can go back and that that is the case.

5 You have been unable to account for those many statements where the Lord states unequivocally and perfectly clearly, that the Father is His God.

Not at all. I have dealt with them. And once again, as is habit, you are completely divorcing certain verses and passages from the context of the entirety of Scripture. You are once again pitting verse against verse, passage against passage, and without any basis whatsoever, stating that the ones you provide somehow completely overrule what all the others say.

6 You refuse to countenance my suggestion that 'the 'beginning' in Jn 1.1 is the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' as Mark puts it. As John clarifies in his first letter.

Of course. Any reader will easily see that my position is the strongest, that you have completely ripped John 1:1 from it's immediate, plain, clear context.

7 And worst of all, you ignore the immediate context of the statement in Jn 1.1.

What context is that, I hear you asking.

Clearly, the rest of the chapter, coming in the middle of the prologue:

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Why is that right there, Free, if not to tell us that this is NOT the 'beginning' of Gen 1, but the 'beginning' of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Sorry but you're wrong. The immediate context is verse 1-3. Yes, verses 6-9 provide further insight into who the Word is, as does the rest of the chapter, but what is said there doesn't somehow overrule or change what is said in verses 1-3.

You speak of context - and right here in the context is the plainest, and most definite indication that this 'beginning' is the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ', not Gen 1.1. Why don't you accept that incontrovertible fact?

Because, as I have shown time and again, it is you that is ignoring the context. You very clearly are in the wrong on this.

Just incidentally, too, did you know that in the phrase: 'there was a man sent from God whose name was John', the from is the Greek para which means 'from alongside' God?

How can that be?Did John pre-exist in heaven too?

Of course John didn't preexist. That can be because it shows that you don't understand how different words have different nuances and uses.

Or is it a reference to the fact that Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, brought the message of his impending birth from the side of God? What do you think?

I don't know what to think of this as I can't see how it has any bearing on this discussion.

Be careful here, because if you admit that this is a figurative remark, then you immediately open the floodgates to understanding that 'in the beginning' is also a figurative statement referring, as I say, to the 'beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ', and you have left literality far behind.

Quite rightly too, I may say - because it is obvious that the figurative abounds herein.

Take 'light' as the example. Is John referring to the literal light spoken of in Gen 1.3,4, or is it the figurative 'light' of the gospel which brings 'life'?

Clearly not the literal meaning of light, because Jesus claims to be the 'light of the world'.

This re-introduces the possibility that we are dealing here with the non-literal meaning of the passage. And since John is introduced as time marker, you then have the problem of explaining why the writer is jumping back and forth from Gen 1 to the introduction of Jesus into the world.

And even 'the world' is not the planet. Why? Because of the non-literality of the use of the word, being restricted to meaning 'the Jewish People'. How do we know this? Because of these words:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Thw world is not the planet - because the planet, soil, water and all, cannot know Him. But John does not leave us in any doubt as to his meaning, because he immediately goes on to clarify his own meaning:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Who are 'his own'? Clearly the Jewish People.

So as you have now seen, there are a significant number of non-literal elements in the passage:

'the world', the 'light' and I also suggest, 'the beginning'.

All of which is very rug-pulling, I suggest.

Nothing at all is rug-pulling. I suggest you look up what the Jews understood "light" to be as it is used here. And you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for suggesting that because there is some figurative language used in various parts that therefore 'the beginning' is figurative as well. Goodness, if we were to accept that, we could change what the whole Bible says and make into whatever we wanted.

 

[JLB]

So far, excellent scriptural stuff.

Now the rest:


Erm, where do you get this from in scripture? And don't even think about Timothy again, or I'll have to dump the old textual question on you again, because you're clearly not listening.



Now that's interesting, because if you're right YHWH gave YHWH the name.

I find that confusing and contradictory, don't you?

But the name God gave Him is detailed here, and it isn't YHWH:

Lk1. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Mat 1. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

God carefully gave Him that name - and for a good reason.

Philip.2 says much the same thing:

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Which name is that?

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, [never forgetting that it is all] to the glory of God the Father.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Joshua = Yĕhowshuwa`- Strong’s Number: 3091

“YHWH is salvation†= the lord is salvation

If you need to add some letters to YHWH add these-

YHWH= yehowshuwa = Jesus

Prove this wrong!

You have ignored all of the scriptures the everyone has given you that proves Jesus Christ is Lord.

If you chose to deny that, then Happy Trails.


JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

Joshua = Yĕhowshuwa`- Strong’s Number: 3091

“YHWH is salvation” = the lord is salvation

If you need to add some letters to YHWH add these-

YHWH= yehowshuwa = Jesus

Prove this wrong!

It's perfectly correct. But I don't follow the logic. The Hebrew form of Jesus is 'Joshua'.

Joshua led the children of Israel into the Promised Land. Was he YHWH?

You have ignored all of the scriptures the everyone has given you that proves Jesus Christ is Lord.

If you chose to deny that, then Happy Trails.

I make no such denial: and I do insist that we ALL follow Paul's example when using that phrase.

He didn't stop there: he said '...that Jesus Christ is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER'.

That is the whole end, purpose, intention of all this: that the Father should be glorified.

Can you fault that attitude of mine?

It's Jesus' attitude too, you know:

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

 

[JLB]

It's perfectly correct. But I don't follow the logic. The Hebrew form of Jesus is 'Joshua'.

Joshua led the children of Israel into the Promised Land. Was he YHWH?

I make no such denial: and I do insist that we ALL follow Paul's example when using that phrase.

He didn't stop there: he said '...that Jesus Christ is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER'.

That is the whole end, purpose, intention of all this: that the Father should be glorified.

Can you fault that attitude of mine?

It's Jesus' attitude too, you know:

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

And you think the Lord of the old testament is what, a man?

There is one Lord!

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:4

Blessed is the Nation whose God is The Lord!

JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

And you think the Lord of the old testament is what, a man?

There is one Lord!

Well, Hallelujah! You got that right at long last!

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:4

Yeah. And...?

Blessed is the Nation whose God is The Lord!

And Hallelujah again!

But what's that got to do with what we're discussing?

 

[JLB]

Well, Hallelujah! You got that right at long last!



Yeah. And...?



And Hallelujah again!

But what's that got to do with what we're discussing?

The Lord is God.

The Lord is Creator!

JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

Erm...

Which Lord?

 

[JLB]

Erm...

Which Lord?

Deuteronomy 10:17

The Lord of lords....

There is only One.

The Lord God

JLB

 

[wayseer]

Are you guys still at it?