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!
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
John 1 begins with talking about the Word prior to the incarnation and then mentions the incarnation in verse 14. Their is a (mostly) chronological flow from 1:1-18. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" and then the Word "became flesh and dwelt among us." Given that God can never cease to be God, Jesus retained the nature that is deity while also joining to it, not mixing, human nature.
Do you understand that when the Word took on flesh and became Jesus, He was no longer "the Word" ?
Why does this require Jesus pre-existing in heaven? Nothing here requires that. Nothing in any of the texts about Jesus coming from heaven require him having pre-existed there for some unspecified period of time. Just like the manna that did not exist eternally in heaven, but was rather sent from heaven by God, it's the same with Jesus.
Then what was Jesus doing in heaven before coming to earth? Verse?
In 1 John 1:1-3 that isn't what John was saying. He was referring to the Word as something that was revealed.
Yes, compare it to 1 John 1:1-3.
No never. That would be a pretty major contradiction with Jesus not being God.
Clearly not in a literal sense.
If that's what Thomas said then he was alone. None of the other disciples said that. The truth is that their God is the Father as Jesus said in John 20:17.
I disagree.
The Father has life in Himself, and has GIVEN the son to have life also in himself.
Can't you see that your own argument proves my point and disproves yours? Did God create the manna on earth and then send it back into heaven so that it could come down from heaven? Manna came down from heaven. The Son came down from heaven, not up into heaven and then back down.
Just as the manna originated from heaven, not earth, so the Son of Man “originated” from heaven, not earth. That is rather his point; it makes no sense otherwise. And, again, do you know where "Son of Man" comes from and why Jesus refers to himself as such?
Not Jesus, the Son. I’ve pointed out before that wherever you see YHWH acting, you see the Son acting. Again, John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2-3, 10-12, show the Son being involved in creating everything that has been created.
Which isn't relevant to what he says in John 1:1-2.
Of course, that is what John states in John 1:4, 9-17, and then expanded upon in the rest of his gospel as shown in the works of Jesus.
Yes, what? Are you now agreeing that the Word was (and is) a person who is in nature God? Compare to what, exactly, in 1 John 1:1-3?
I agree it would be a major contradiction if Jesus wasn't God, but the fact remains that it isn't a contradiction at all. Why have you been ignoring my posts where I first implied and then showed that John states Isaiah saw the glory of the Son when Isaiah saw YHWH on his throne?
That is only your unsubstantiated opinion. First, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus didn't mean it in a literal sense. The onus is on you to prove he didn't mean it in a literal sense. Second, I have given ample evidence that the writers of the NT certainly believed that Jesus preexisted with the Father (and, by extension, the Holy Spirit). And that is only because Jesus himself explicitly and implicitly stated that he preexisted with the Father.
Thomas alone said it, but he would have been far from the only one. Neither Jesus nor any of the other disciples rebuked Thomas. In fact, as I have pointed out previously, there are a few occasions where the disciples worshiped Jesus. All of it blasphemous, if Jesus wasn't also truly God.
Which doesn't preclude Jesus from also being truly God in human flesh.
Of course you do, and you do so once again based on mere opinion, not evidence.
Not at all. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Jesus, a human, was certifiably born on earth first. He didn't descend from heaven in the first place. The word "Son of man" refers to being a human and is used as such throughout the Bible.
Jesus was specific about being the "Son of Man" from heaven and not the "Son of God" from heaven. Jesus didn't pre-exist in heaven as a human. While the manna was literally rained down from the sky according to Exodus 16:4, Jesus didn't literally descend from heaven as the Son of Man. He was born in Bethlehem and his mother is Mary.
True, Jesus didn't have human life until He was conceived in Mary.
Post-resurrection.
So Jesus worshipped Himself, and prayed to Himself in the garden of Gethsemane ?
Of course. No one has said otherwise.
Incorrect. Yes, the phrase is used most often of humans, but context determines meaning. Jesus is the Messiah, correct? Let's look at this Messianic passage:
Of course not; no one is making that argument.
Except that John1:14 and Phil 2:6-8 explicitly state otherwise. Many other passages which I have given imply the same.
Jesus did not say he first ascended to heaven then came down. He ascends at the end of his ministry, not before. Again, context is important, as it always is. Jesus is saying that no one has been in heaven so as to understand heavenly things, except for him, which is why he understands and can teach on heavenly things.
You're completely ignoring context which results in poor reasoning. The Son is shown in Scripture to have preexisted, unlike John the Baptist. Whether or not manna preexisted in heaven is irrelevant.
The clear meaning is that John's baptism was given by God, that his authority came from God, which is the very thing Jesus was trying to prove about himself in response to the question he was asked.
This is all just fallaciously begging the question. You would have a much better understanding of what the Bible says if you would stop using poor reasoning and get a grasp on basic hermeneutic principles.
Yet, I've given you lots, but you either ignore it, dismiss it, or mistranslate it because you don't seem to understand basic hermeneutic principles, such as context and that clear Scripture interprets less clear Scripture. You take everything piecemeal and that will almost always lead to error.
It was, after all, Jesus quoting that exact passage of Daniel that finalized his false conviction by the Sanhedrin, who weren't working for who they thought they were working for.
Yes and Jesus said later, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory..." in Matt 24:30. confirming that there is a connection between what Daniel 7:13,14 says.
No problem with Jesus being Messiah, King, and Son of Man, but not equal to blaspheming God. In Matthew 12:31,32 Jesus was clear that speaking against the Son of Man, and all other sins for that matter, will be forgiven. However, speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
I was hoping you would take into account that even though your argument relies on Jesus being the divine Son of Man that you would address the fact that God said He isn't a son of man. So here's where I am at: manna, John the Baptist, John's water baptism, and the Son of Man are all sent by God. Whether they literally came from the sky may be literal some time. In any case, they were all sent by God.
It seems your implying flesh and blood descended. Jesus made no such claim. "He" descended.
It isn't a problem for his humanity. It very much shows his humanity, but it's not mere humanity, as the divine "human" in Dan 7 shows.
Yes, of course. I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Because they were attributing the work of the Holy Spirit through Christ to Satan. That is the unpardonable sin. Forgiveness of blasphemy against Christ is on the basis of his shed blood through repentance and faith in him.
This is just poor reasoning, as I have pointed out. See below.
Things said of Jesus generally have a different meaning than when said of others. Again, you're ignoring a lot of context.
Because God isn't a man or a son of man. There is no problem here. You're begging the question by presuming that God can't take on human flesh, but that is nowhere even implied in the above verse.
I am just saying what he taught, not what literally happened. Jesus didn't literally pre-exist as the Son of Man prior to his teaching that he as the Son of Man descended. He existed in God's foreknowledge before God's word manifested in a man which is to say the Word became flesh. The glory Jesus had with the Father before the world was was also in God's set plan and foreknowledge. So what does the Bible say Jesus' glory is? His crucifixion and resurrection, yet he was not crucified or resurrected before the world was.
I’m including the next verse (6):
We are stating what He and the Apostles taught. He descended from above as the only eyewitness of God and spoke of things He saw and heard in His Fathers presence, that which was from the beginning, the eternal life appeared which they saw and heard and touched, they declare Him to the whole world. The Word of life. God was the Word. He appeared in flesh. I agree He did come to do His Fathers will not His own. The Father did speak to us in these last days by His Son. This truth has been made plain to the whole world and those who believe certify God is truthful.
I believe we just sorted out previous to this that Jesus didn't originate as a human being in heaven, yet he plainly taught he is the Son of Man from heaven and son of man refers to being a human in the Bible. It's also on record that God is not a son of man in Numbers 23:19.
Begin with verse 15 that calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God." That means Jesus isn't the invisible God and is therefore not the God. 1 Timothy 1:17 says the only God is invisible, not an image. Someone who isn't God didn't create everything. This may be difficult for you to accept still, but if you will examine Colossians 1:15-20 it's specifically about the church being made "in" or "through" Jesus, not by Jesus as if he's the originator. Pay close attention to verse 20; the "all things" in heaven and earth were not reconciled by God to Himself until the sacrifice of Jesus.
yes and verse 22 Jesus said "the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them." How could it be anything other than a resurrection?
Jesus didn't separate Himself from Himself that's why He speaks as the Son of Man as that which was from the beginning and came down from Heaven. That life or His life appeared in flesh. He was seen, touched, and heard. The eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning.
1 John 1:1-3 refers to this "Word of life" as a thing. What you said only supports Jesus not having a iteral pre-existence. A person isn't a "that" or a "which".
Personification again. Before all things were created there was nothing else aside from God speaking words according to Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God's words weren't referred to as a person. For your interpretation of John 1 to be about the Word actually being the Creator then the Bible would need to confirm this. What you're saying doesn't exist in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. That's personification.
Being filled with the fullness of the deity applies to normal Christians too:
Just demonstrates he didn't have the words inherently, but had to get them from God.
Jesus isn't the Only Sovereign Lord according to Scripture. The authority comes from the top (the Father,=) and goes downhill to His subordinates. This is also why the Father is called the Lord of heaven and earth in Matthew 11:25 and Jesus is never called that.
How many times does the error of your reasoning on this as it relates to 1 John 1:1-3 have to be pointed out before you give up this argument? I've proven that it's based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the Greek.
Again, there is absolutely no reason to believe it is personification, especially when in Rev 19:13 Jesus appears with his name, The Word of God, on his thigh.
Again, poor argumentation. That Jesus, or rather the Son and the Word, was involved in the creation of everything that was ever created, is beyond a shadow of a doubt (John 1:1-3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12). Of course, all the other numerous verses that prove he is God in human flesh also imply the same. There is no support for the Word being personification.
Again, phrases that apply to Jesus have a different, more significant meaning than when applied to people. Context actually matters.
Of course. Phil 2:5-8.
Except that according to your reasoning regarding 1 Cor 8:6, since "one God the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. You cannot have it both ways.