Do you think Jesus is still Jesus in heaven?Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.
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/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
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.
Do you think Jesus is still Jesus in heaven?Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.
He gave out spiritual gifts to all. That's Paul's point as we read around that text. That has nothing to do with existing outside of time. He ascended to the right hand of God as psalm 110 states and Jesus stated at His trial. So do you believe Jesus is at the right hand of God now?If you had been reading my posts, you would know the answer to your questions.
Jesus, when He ascended, ascended to "fill all things" (Ephesians 4:10), that is, to exist outside of time.
Therefore, He was there, existing side-by-side with the Father, in the beginning.
Yes, Christ is now at God's right hand. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity. Jesus is that same Spirit dwelling in human flesh.
They are distinct; not separate.
I found your reply=>The pre-incarnate Jesus is the Father in my view; and the risen Jesus, who is ascended to exist outside of time, is also the Father. One God, even the Father.Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.
Yes, you have.I have not "misrepresented your position" here.
Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.Hebrews 9:16-22 also teaches Patripassianism. Which is a denial of your contention.
You simply cannot be serious. It is the natural reading because we know, without a doubt, that it was Jesus, the Son, not the Father, "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."It is "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" who "was delivered over for our offences and raised again for our justification;" just as the text plainly bears out.
It is a forced reading to say that Jesus is the One who was delivered over.
And you contradict what you just said. Which is it, is it "a forced reading to say that Jesus is the One who was delivered over" or " we know that Jesus was in fact delivered over"?While we know that Jesus was in fact delivered over,
Actually, no, it certainly doesn't.the reading of the passage requires that it is "Him who raised Jesus from the dead" who was "delivered over".
It not only doesn't state it clearly, it isn't even implied.Yes, this is true. Thus we gain an added insight into biblical truth when we read this passage; as the passage is quite clearly declaring that Jesus is the Father.
Again, it isn't even implied. You are reading into the text a meaning that simply isn't there. The plain and most straightforward meaning shows two different people--the Father and the Son.You are fighting a losing battle here. The clear meaning of the passage is that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification".
The problem with this argument is that you are now saying the English "He" was inspired despite it not being in the Greek manuscripts, which means it likely wasn't in the original, and only inspired, text. That means any late addition to the text, whether Latin, English, or any other language, is inspired and authoritative. One could make the Bible say what they want and claim it is inspired because it appears in their version of the Bible. That is the logical outcome of your argument.As I said, the "He" does not have to be even in there in order to get the intended meaning that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered up for our offences and was raised for our justification".
And that the kjv is authoritative, indicates that it is to be accepted and that such translations as the ESV do not trump it in its renderings of such passages as Romans 4:24-25.
No, not more than one God. Don't misrepresent others' positions.That would indicate more than one God, if the Father be God...and thus a polytheistic theology.
You believe you have, but you haven't. Not even close. You haven't addressed:Really...I believe that I have addressed every verse that has been presented to me on my watch.
You certainly aren't trinitarian and argue against it.Although your statement may indeed be true since I am not an anti-trinitarian.
How about proving my statement wrong rather then?You seem to be very clearly in denial of the truth.
If you believe there is only one Person and that Jesus is the Father, then you're not a "Trinitarian of a different sort." You're not at all Trinitarian. As I've stated before, you cannot simply take a term like "Trinitarian" and then redefine it how you like so that you can claim to be "a Trinitarian of a different sort." Since you believe in the absolute oneness of God, why do you want people to think you're Trinitarian anyway? That's not honest.As a "Trinitarian of a different sort", I can show you that Jesus is God very easily.
...
If they are the same Lord then they are the same Person.
Thus, Jesus is God, even the Father.
Yes, why wouldn't I?Do you think Jesus is still Jesus in heaven?
Ephesians 4:10 teaches us that Jesus ascended to fill all things...and time is a created thing.He gave out spiritual gifts to all. That's Paul's point as we read around that text. That has nothing to do with existing outside of time.
Yes.He ascended to the right hand of God as psalm 110 states and Jesus stated at His trial. So do you believe Jesus is at the right hand of God now?
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Yes, Jesus is distinct from the Father. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity; and Jesus is the same Spirit come in flesh. The Father sits on a throne and Jesus is in the flesh at His right hand.I found your reply=>The pre-incarnate Jesus is the Father in my view; and the risen Jesus, who is ascended to exist outside of time, is also the Father. One God, even the Father.
Your in direct contradiction to Jesus.
I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Consider that the scriptures teach us that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Matthew 11:25, Luke 20:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:3).Jesus knows His scriptures
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
The glory Jesus had with the Father before the world was began is the glory that the pre-incarnate Word had with the risen Jesus (who is the Father). The presence of the Father that Jesus is asking to be glorified in, is the presence of the pre-incarnate Word (who is the Father); as He will rise to become the risen Jesus.Here again you are in direct contradiction to Jesus.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
I do not deny that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning.You also are in direct contradiction with 1john and john 1:18
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.
Your position, in context of this argument, is exactly the opposite of this:Yes, you have.
Again, your translation leaves things to be desired in being able to see what is clearly taught by the passage.Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)
Where? I can see nothing that teaches Patripassianism.
Actually, no, it certainly doesn't.
Again, it isn't even implied. You are reading into the text a meaning that simply isn't there. The plain and most straightforward meaning shows two different people--the Father and the Son.
It does not matter whether the "He" is inspired or not. If I don't include the "He" in the NASB rendering, the meaning is the same:The problem with this argument is that you are now saying the English "He" was inspired despite it not being in the Greek manuscripts, which means it likely wasn't in the original, and only inspired, text. That means any late addition to the text, whether Latin, English, or any other language, is inspired and authoritative. One could make the Bible say what they want and claim it is inspired because it appears in their version of the Bible. That is the logical outcome of your argument.
You believe you have, but you haven't. Not even close. You haven't addressed:
I think that I addressed that; but maybe I didn't. I would ask you to bring that post to the forefront.1. John 1:1-2 and the exposition I gave.
I do not deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct members within the Godhead.2. Gen 1:26-27 and the plurality within the one God.
Answered by Hebrews 10:5, primarily. I also made one post that dealt with anything that is not distinctly answered by that verse.
Jesus is pre-existent in heaven with His Father in my theology; in that He ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); that is, to exist once again outside of time.
Yes, in my theology the Father is in heaven as a Spirit without flesh; while Jesus is the same Spirit come in human flesh.
Since Jesus is pre-existent as a Person who is Omnipresent and outside of time, your point is moot.6. The deficiency of the God of Oneness by needing creation in order to love. Therefore, he cannot be love as John states in 1 John 4:8, 16. This despite Jesus saying that the Father loved him "before the foundation of the world."
I can show that God is an absolute unity simply be revealing what it says in scripture (in John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4). God is one Spirit. Other than that, He exists as three distinct Persons within the Godhead; and therefore I have no contention with these Hebrew words.7. The difference between yachid and 'echad (and the Greek equivalent heis), which shows that God is never clearly or directly referred to as an absolute unity.
I believe in one God who exists as three distinct Persons within the Trinity.You certainly aren't trinitarian and argue against it.
You have misrepresented my position and that is against the ToS.If you believe there is only one Person and that Jesus is the Father, then you're not a "Trinitarian of a different sort." You're not at all Trinitarian. As I've stated before, you cannot simply take a term like "Trinitarian" and then redefine it how you like so that you can claim to be "a Trinitarian of a different sort." Since you believe in the absolute oneness of God, why do you want people to think you're Trinitarian anyway? That's not honest.
Consider that the scriptures teach us that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:3).
What do you say, Free?There is one God, even the Father; and therefore if Jesus is not the Father (but is rather the Lord), then He isn't God.
He's not the only unbegotten God - The FatherThere is one God, even the Father; and therefore if Jesus is not the Father (but is rather the Lord), then He isn't God.
Define what you mean by the nature of God, as depending on what you mean there are an enormous amount talking about His nature (and what it's not).As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, and then repeated some more, those are all verses that simply support monotheism and say nothing about the nature of God.
They are both distinct and not distinct. Our minds cannot comprehend being two seemingly opposing things can be. That's the infinity divinity for you, finite mortality cannot comprehend it. A triange has 3 distinct sides you can all recognize, but it's still the same triangle, one triangle. 3 in 1 & 1 in 3.The question is to those who don't believe the Father and Son are distinct persons. Is that your belief?
I am not attempting to confuse anyone.
Yes, there is. In the context of this discussion on the Trinity, by the nature of God, I am referring to whether or not he is three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons. It is the nature of his self-existence—how he existed before creation of space and time.Define what you mean by the nature of God, as depending on what you mean there are an enormous amount talking about His nature (and what it's not).
A couple of things. Firstly, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then "one Lord Jesus Christ" necessarily precludes the Father from being Lord. Secondly, if "of whom are all things" points to the deity and eternal preexistence of the Father, then "by whom are all things" necessarily points to the deity and eternal preexistence of Jesus (the Son).Free, I wonder if I can convince you of the truth by coming in through the back door.
There is an argument of the Jehovah's Witnesses; and it goes like this.
1 Corinthians 8:6 says this,
1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
This verse plainly tells us that Jesus is the Lord and therefore He is not God since there is one God, even the Father and Jesus is the Lord. Therefore Jesus is not God since He is the one Lord and therefore He is not the one God.
What is your answer to the Jehovah's Witness?