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!
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
This was not a secret at the time, it was even hinted in Mark and John where there was no nativity story. In Mark, folks in Jesus's hometown wondered: "Isn't this the son of Mary?" In John the Jews yelled at him: "we're Abraham's seeds, we're not born of fornication." Both are subtle insults of Jesus's paternity.
Interesting, but I tend to disagree. However, I do take a similar stance on the Word (logos) of John 1:1. That's just personification of something that isn't actually a person. Kind of like how Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8, we don't actually think wisdom is another person. I also don't think the logos - a word, speech, or divine utterance/analogy is an actual person. In 1 John 1:1,2, the "word of life" is referred to as an it and in numerous places the word is clearly differentiated from Jesus himself, such as in Revelation 20:4 for example.
Seems we can agree here I think. And a soul and spirit are not a separate person in relation to the person, i.e., the Holy Spirit, also known as the Spirit of God, is not a separate person in relation to Himself. Our soul/spirit is not a separate person from ourselves. but rather a part of who we are.
The Spirit of God the Father -yes
Jesus stated He was God's Son.
That's just your disbelief. Rev. 19:13 clearly stated He was called the Word of God. If that's not Jesus, and you insist that this is God himself not Jesus, then why did God appear in the form of a man in a bloody robe, exactly as prophesied in Is. 63:1-6?
That part is received and developed in our formative years, from family, community, church, peers, influencers, you know. In other words, it's nurture, not nature, we just take it for granted as though it's nature. God has no grandchild, the word of God is taught from generation to generation, as written in Deut. 6:7 - “You shall teach them diligently to your children." We each have to make our own decision and develop our relationship with Christ.
Obviously I disagree with that. Why do you think Jesus is not a human made out of the same created compounds and elements other humans are made of?
No I hold the same beliefs as the early church. I assume you're a Trinitarian. Your beliefs are not stated in the Bible neither explicitly nor are they described.
John 1:10 isn't about Jesus. Jesus repeatedly said he came from above to do the will of the Father, such as is the case in John 3 and John 6 just to name a couple examples. If he was already in the world then he wasn't sent from above. John 1:10 refers to God the Father because, in accordance with God the Father was already working on planet Earth as the whole of the Old Testament testifies. John 1:9 refers to the True Light who gives light to men coming into the world - men like Jesus who came into the world from above, for example.
There's an interesting theory, that in Matt. 1, Jesus's genealogy, the word "husband” in Joseph the husband of Mary actually refers to a "male guardian". For a married woman, that's her husband, but for a single woman, that's usually her father or brother, that was the local custom at the time, therefore this Jospeh may be the father, not husband, of Mary, which would male Matt. 1 the genealogy of Mary, whereas Lk. 3 is the genealogy of Joseph. This also solves the mystery of the "missing generation" in Matt. 1.
He was called the word of God or he is the word of God? See, it isn't as clear as you seem to think. There is strong evidence in that passage that it isn't even about Jesus.
I agree, here, but nevertheless it is stated that the Father did make something through the Son. It refers to the creation of the church. This is often misunderstood because of corruption in many Bibles like Hebrews 1:2 where it says God made the universe through the son when actually that word for universe in the Greek has nothing to do with the universe. It refers to an age or cycle of time... the church age.
You said God can't take form in a man, that's idolatry, then why did God appear as a man in this passage? If not Jesus, then who is that? Isaiah didn't know "who is this," but we should know, because this book is not titled Revelation for nothing. It's the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 20:4 differentiates the word of God from Jesus.
Again, you're stuck in the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Why can't the word of God be both the literal record of divine inspiration AND Jesus Christ - who actually fulfilled those words?
There's no point of arguing with more Scripture portions, it's only gonna be your interpretation against his. The problem is not theology, but a mentality of false dichotomy. This is a big problem that has plagued the christian community for a long time - secular vs sacred; science vs religion; faith vs work; law vs grace; Israel vs the gentile church, just to name a few. Do you really have to add the deity of Jesus vs. the humanity of Jesus in this mix? These are NOT opposing views, but two sides of the same coin, you just erroneously think of them as opposing views, and hence the false dischotomy. The subjects involved in those other dichotomies are at least kind of obscure in the Scripture, sometimes it may seem contradictory on face value, it requires some study and experience to understand, but the nature of Christ is clear as day, it's pointless to make it so complicated and stir up a fight.
So what are we debating here?
I believe all of those verses, but I reject your interpretations.