Sorry, not yet. I'm behind on my replies. I'll get to it. Keep pestering me in case I forget.Free, did you see my post about the video link?
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.
Sorry, not yet. I'm behind on my replies. I'll get to it. Keep pestering me in case I forget.Free, did you see my post about the video link?
You should, at least as the preexistent Son; that is what the NT makes very clear:I do not believe Yeshua is the Creator God or God Almighty.
He certainly was and he certainly was aware that he preexisted, as the Son. In addition to verses I've given already:Was He aware of it?....
Can you link to the post(s)? I must have missed it.Ya I explained this and Christ explained this and I am not going to repeat myself.
I previously laid it out, in the last portion of post #130.You might give the passage you want to talk about.
Can you link to the post(s)? I must have missed it.
Quote scripture you want to talk about and we will talk about.
I'm looking for the biblical definition of that particular Greek word. Webster's often just doesn't cut it when it comes to ancient languages used in specific contexts. I take it that you did not know....
Now you're just begging the question.
You stated: "Yeshua was begotten, conceived, and born….not created."
I responded: "if the Son did not exist prior to all creation, if he did not have absolute existence, as the Father did, then it necessarily follows that he was created."
You stated: "If He pre-existed He could have just appeared on a mountain top."
To which I responded: "But, then he wouldn't have been truly human, which would completely undermine the gospel."
Being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit says nothing of whether or not the Son preexisted.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5). This was before the MAN Jesus was born on the earth. Many say Jesus became the SON when he was born--that He did not exist before that. This verse clearly shows he did. John 17:5 is CLEARLY showing (2) persons: the FATHER AND THE SON---BEFORE the world began. "Jesus Only" people try to say God is ONE GOD expressed in three manifestations. No---not true. This verse clearly refutes that. God has eternally been (3) persons in one God: THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. This is Biblical and true without a doubt.You have no other option. You stated: "Yeshua was begotten, conceived, and born….not created." However, if the Son did not exist prior to all creation, if he did not have absolute existence, as the Father did, then it necessarily follows that he was created. Again, there is no other option. There is God, who is necessary being, and all others are contingent beings.
How can it not? In multiple places in the NT it states that the Son was the agent of creation. I also quoted just one of several instances of Jesus saying he preexisted with the Father, sharing his glory before creation, and then John saying that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son when Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh.
Is there a reason why you and every other anti-Trinitarian here hasn't even attempted to address that? Is there a reason why no anti-Trinitarian can show how two logical arguments I have given regarding 1 Cor 8:6 might be wrong?
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.
Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.
If you disagree, then please show me where my reasoning is wrong.
Also, John 1:1-18, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:2, and Heb 1:10-12 all state that the Son was the agent of creation.
Third, then, if all things were created by or through the Son, then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be a created thing and is necessary being, just as the Father is.
Again, if you disagree, then show me where my reasoning is wrong.
No. Your speculation is not biblical. Merely having an awareness can in no way make the Son God. If the Father simply taught or somehow just gave the Son awareness of past, present, and future, then you have to show just how it follows that that can make him God.
No, that isn't Gnostic; it's biblical. The Gnostic belief here is that there is more than one God. The biblical revelation is that there was, is, and ever will be only one God.
You missed my point entirely. If Christ can somehow create enough bread and fish to feed thousands, how cannot it not also be the case that the Holy Spirit also somehow created the embryo into which the nature of the Son went into? Could that not have also been a single thought?
You stated: "Now just for the fun of it would you like to explain how a pre-existing God became sperm and fertilized Miriam’s egg so she would conceive?"
Hence, you implied that the Son couldn't have preexisted because he would have to have become sperm and fertilize the egg. Of course, this is why I brought up the feeding of the thousands--because God is the creator of DNA, is he not? Do you really think that if the Son preexisted as deity he would have to become sperm?
And, like I keep repeating, you gave one example of a unitarian view of God, and in so doing, misrepresented Pentecostal beliefs. Again, United Pentecostals or "Jesus Only" do not believe in Trinitarianism:
"Oneness writers strongly deny the doctrine of the Trinity. In the words of David K. Bernard,
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity, and trinitarianism actually contradicts the Bible. It does not add any positive benefit to the Christian message….the doctrine of the trinity does detract from the important biblical themes of the oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.”
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/onenes...definition-of-chalcedon-and-oneness-theology/
The OT is monotheistic, not monolithic. The NT is also monotheistic. If not, then you have made God out to be either a liar or ignorant (certainly not omniscient). Either way, he cannot be the God of the Bible.
Runningman----That's correct, pending any scriptural backing of Jesus doing something before Abraham.
But, again, Yahweh says there was no god before him and there will be none after him. From start to finish the Bible teaches monotheism, that there is only one God. If the Bible teaches that the Son is deity, then he is the same deity as the Father, being of the same substance. There simply can be no other explanation. We absolutely cannot believe in three separate Gods.I will have to take the hit on that. I do not believing that Yeshua was a functioning God in the Old Testament….One God in the Old Testament See post 263
And a few other things I do not believe…..
Yeshua is a Great God, but I do not believe He is Almighty God or the Creator God.
It shows the intimacy and interpenetration of the three persons. The Holy Spirit is a distinct "person" from the Father and the Son, yet can also be said to be the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ.I do not believe that the Holy Spirit, is just the spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua.
In contradiction to Scripture's clear and plain teaching from start to finish that there is only one God. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, distinct from both the Father and the Son, but cannot be said to be a third God.I believe the Holy Spirit is a God.
Those things are obvious, but none explain why you don't address the obvious in John 1:1-3, 10, and 14.I do not believe you have to hate your father and mother to be a Christian.
I do not believe if you are wealth you are going to Hell unless you can squeeze through an eye of a needle.
I do not believe the world is flat.
I believe meteorites can fall to the earth, but not stars.
But, again, Yahweh says there was no god before him and there will be none after him. From start to finish the Bible teaches monotheism, that there is only one God. If the Bible teaches that the Son is deity, then he is the same deity as the Father, being of the same substance. There simply can be no other explanation. We absolutely cannot believe in three separate Gods.
It shows the intimacy and interpenetration of the three persons. The Holy Spirit is a distinct "person" from the Father and the Son, yet can also be said to be the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ.
Those things are obvious, but none explain why you don't address the obvious in John 1:1-3, 10, and 14.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)
The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.
In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.
When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."
We should also consider verses 2, 3, 10, and 14:
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)
We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)
Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)
Again, we see that "the world was made through him," that is, through the Son, who became Jesus. This can only mean that he was in existence when the creation began and is, therefore, eternal. Otherwise, it's a false claim on the part of John.
John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is precisely what Paul is speaking of and expands on in Phil 2:5-8.
Can't find it in Genesis 19. Which verse please?It's in Genesis 19. When He's calling down fire and brimstone on Sodom
The word "form" there in Philippians 2:6 means the form, shape, outward appearance. Are you saying God is a human?He's making the case that Christ was in the same form as God. However, He humble Hself and became man. He's not telling the Philippians to think they're equal with God. He's saying look at Christ. He was equal (in form) with God and yet He didn't say, no I'm not going to be a lowly man. Instead He humbled Himself and took the lower position. It's the same thing Jesus said, He said when you're invited to a feast don't take the upper seats. He said take the lower one and let the host move you up to a higher seat.
Not good enough because being known and blessed by God before the world began is something that applies to normal Christians. If it applies to me and yet I didn't pre-exist then why do you say it applies to Jesus differently? There should be something in the Old Testament demonstrating what Jesus was saying and doing.Runningman----
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5)
This is WAY before Abraham!
A description of ChristSo how do you see Isaiah 9:6...
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5)Not good enough because being known and blessed by God before the world began is something that applies to normal Christians. If it applies to me and yet I didn't pre-exist then why do you say it applies to Jesus differently? There should be something in the Old Testament demonstrating what Jesus was saying and doing.
Much of that is against Modalism, not Trinitarianism, particularly when it comes to the Incarnation and the resulting "economic Trinity"--the functions and relationships of the three divine persons for the purpose of salvation.aPosts 78 - 82
I did. You quoted it: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And, in John 8:58 (and 8:24) Jesus also claimed to be I Am.Quote scripture you want to talk about and we will talk about.
If you are only talking about Genesis....God said I Am.
I have Strong's and then some. The clear problem here is that the only word translated as "only begotten" when used of Christ, is not gennao, but monogenes.Ya know that would have been something that would have really helped, if the Bible came with a dictionary.
How about the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance...
Strong's Greek: 1080. γεννάω (gennaó) -- to beget, to bring forth. ... , produce offspring; (passive) be born, "begotten." NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from genna ( ... . fol. 19, 2 "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this ...
You do not have a Strong's