Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Former Christian]

Free

Mitigated is good. Thanks.

FC

 

[Drew]

Drew

You mean he needs to interpret something to make it go his way?

FC

Not quite. And forgive my cynicism if I "read between the lines" and conclude that you think that I am as vulnerable to the "interpretation" critique as he is.

We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting. The claim that "you are interpreting so your conclusion is subjective" is facile and misleading (I am not necessarily saying this is what you are implying).

My basic argument is this: The God of the Old Testament promised to do certain things and described Himself in certain ways. Jesus then represents Himself as doing those same things and describes Himself in those same ways. This package constitutes an implicit claim of divinity. Jesus is saying "My work constitutes the promised return of Jehovah to Israel".

I am planning to mount a more rigourous argument to the effect that people who dismiss the Trinity on conceptual grounds - e.g. how can a man be God, or how can both a son and a father be God, etc. - get the cart before the horse.

Analogy: If you are aware of such things, you will know that scientists characterize the electron as being both a wave and a particle. This violates our conceptual toolset - something cannot be both wave and particle. But scientists correctly decide to accept what nature has to offer - it simply is the case that nature operates in a way that we struggle to describe without conceptual violations.

I trust you see where I am going. In the context of the Trinity issue, the "data" we are presented with are the texts of the Old and New Testaments. And, uncomfortable as it may be, the Bible presents a narrative in which Jesus fulfills the "God role". So just like the scientist, we need to not let the tail wag the dog - we cannot simply declare "this picture of Jesus as God in the Bible violates our concepts so we will reject it". Imagine if the scientists did that.

The key point: The scriptures are prior and fundamental, the concepts are secondary - we cannot let our choice of concepts muzzle what the scriptures are otherwise saying.

You watch - those who deny the Trinity will almost always express their critique of the Trinitarian position in terms of how it violates conceptual boundaries.

That would be like a scientist saying that "nature has to conform to my concepts and therefore an electron cannot be understood to be both wave and particle".

Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[Free]

We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting.

It is absolutely necessary that people understand that. A former member or two used to say "All you have to do is read the Bible and believe it and not interpret it." I had to make your point very strongly on more than one occasion. They never did get it.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]

Those, like Asyncritus, who deny that Jesus saw Himself as divine need either dismiss this entirely legitimate mode of making a point and / or engage the implications of the individual examples of its use.

I don't quite follow this Drew.

I believe the following (taken from the Apostles Creed):

"and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary..."

To which the following scriptures (among many others), agree, thus:

Jn 3.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Lk 1.31: 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Lu 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

And so on...

That's where I stand.

I know you're in a different place, because you cannot believe that Jesus was 'conceived'. If He is 'eternal', then He cannot have been 'conceived' as I've shown you before.

FC, you may not have seen this argument before, but I pointed out that if Jesus existed in heaven before His birth, then He was 'implanted', 'transplanted' or some other such word, into Mary's womb, and the word 'conceived' as used by Luke the doctor, Gabriel the archangel, and God the Father (in Isa 7.14) is a complete misnomer.

She, of course, was His 'surrogate mother', not His real mother at all.

And in the same vein, if what Drew and Free say is correct, was God His Father? How can someone eternal have a Father? The idea of Jesus being 'eternal', as they are insisting, carries with it all manner of serious and very difficult problems.

All of which is a flat contradiction of Lk 1 and Isa 7.

But to return to Drew in the pre-italics above: If the above constitutes 'divine', then I do think Jesus was divine.

However, His title of choice (as used very frequently by Him), is Son of Man. Man is hardly divine, so I see that you have a serious problem there.

He could not be 'divine' and 'not divine' at the same time, light's waves and particles notwithstanding.

 

[Enow]

All I'm interested in, and all I should be interested in, is this ...

Show me verses of Jesus' preaching (in the 4 gospels) where the Trinity is a part of His gospel?
And His preaching to the multitudes only, if you don't mind.
And while you're at it, don't forget His preaching about the Holy Spirit.
Good luck!

John Zain,

I do wonder if Jesus needed to speak openly about the Holy Spirit to the multitude. As it is, I see this verse below as referencing the promise of the Spirit.

Matthew 5:6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

If Jesus baptizes believers with the Holy Spirit for all those that come to Him and believe in Him, then we can see why Peter did not need to mention the promise of the Holy Spirit to those that believe. Here are Peter's exact words as he did not mention anything about the Holy Spirit either, but yet the hearers had received the promise without coming forward: without confessing Him first, and without getting baptized by water first.

Acts 10:34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter exact words were written and so where is the knowledge of the promise of the Holy Spirit as being necessary in receiving the Holy Spirit?

Let us look at John the Baptist: the one preparing the way for the Lord.

Matthew 3:11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Luke 3:16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3:15-17&version=KJV
Now John the Baptist was preaching to the multitude, right?

Surely the multitude that was listening to Jesus was reflecting on what John the Baptist had said from beforehand. I'm sure not all the multitude had heard John the Baptist regarding his preaching about he that is coming will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire: but I am sure word got around.

Certainly God the Father and the Holy Spirit testified before the multitude at the water baptism of Jesus Christ.

Certainly there is an awareness of the Holy Ghost among the multitude as witnessed and heard from John the Baptist's.

So other than Jesus's hidden references to the promise of the Spirit to the multitude for those that believe: did Jesus need to speak openly about the Holy Ghost to the multitude if they had already known about the Holy Spirit?

Genesis 1:And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

How could the Jewish nultitude not know about the Spirit of God?

But like most believers: even the Triune God can be hidden from the scripture.

Genesis 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Note how God spoke in the plural sense for the act of creating man as in "let us" and "our image" and yet when God performed teh act of acreation: God did so in the singular sense in verse 27. How blind are the scribes and the Pharisees?

So how informed are the multitudes about the Holy Spirit? Which goes to point: mayhap the reason Jesus did not speak openly about the Holy Spirit to the multitude is because the Gospel does not center around the Holy Spirit but around the Son. It is by coming to and believing in the Son is how any believer receives the promise of the Spirit at salvation: thus the focus is never on the Holy Spirit: but on the Son, Jesus Christ, because He is the Good News to man.

 

[Free]

I don't quite follow this Drew.

I believe the following (taken from the Apostles Creed):

"and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary..."

To which the following scriptures (among many others), agree, thus:

Jn 3.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Lk 1.31: 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Lu 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

And so on...

That's where I stand.

I know you're in a different place, because you cannot believe that Jesus was 'conceived'. If He is 'eternal', then He cannot have been 'conceived' as I've shown you before.

FC, you may not have seen this argument before, but I pointed out that if Jesus existed in heaven before His birth, then He was 'implanted', 'transplanted' or some other such word, into Mary's womb, and the word 'conceived' as used by Luke the doctor, Gabriel the archangel, and God the Father (in Isa 7.14) is a complete misnomer.

She, of course, was His 'surrogate mother', not His real mother at all.

And in the same vein, if what Drew and Free say is correct, was God His Father? How can someone eternal have a Father? Jesus being 'eternal', as they insist, carries with it all manner of serious and dangerous problems.

All of which is a flat contradiction of Lk 1 and Isa 7.

But to return to Drew in the pre-italics above: If the above constitutes 'divine', then I do think Jesus was divine.

However, His title of choice (as used very frequently by Him), is Son of Man. Man is hardly divine, so I see that you have a serious problem there.

He could not be 'divine' and 'not divine' at the same time, light's waves and particles notwithstanding.

As has been said to you many times regarding such passages, you are begging the question and taking them out of context, which happens to include the entirety of Scripture.

 

[Drew]

I don't quite follow this Drew.

I believe the following (taken from the Apostles Creed):

"and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary..."

To which the following scriptures (among many others), agree, thus:

Jn 3.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Lk 1.31: 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Lu 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

And so on...

That's where I stand.

The problem with your position is that you allow the rigidity of concepts to muzzle what the Scriptures are clearly otherwise saying.

This is easy to do. It is of course, very easy to argue thus:

1. Jesus was conceived;
2. Only created beings are conceived;
3. God is not a created being;
4. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

I am not ready to do so right away, but I am planning to make an argument that it is misleading for anyone, Trinitarian or otherwise, to be overly handcuffed by the concepts that we have to deploy to make sense of the relation of God to Jesus.

For example: we have this concept "human being". It is really just a label that we use to generalize over the billions of instances of two legged animals that walk upright, have advanced intellectual capabilities (at least some do, anyway), etc., etc.

We also have this concept of "god" to denote some non-physical supreme being. It goes without saying that there is no overlap between the "man" concept and the "god" concept.

We also have concepts like "self" and "the other". Again, we generally see no overlap between "self" and "the other".

However, the key point is this: our concepts are simply labels that we use to describe and categorize reality. They are not normative - they do not tell us what can, and cannot be. And yet (I believe) you are treating them precisely as though they have this power.

So, for example, the fact that the concepts of "god" and "human being" do not overlap does not mean that reality cannot send us a curve ball - a human being of whom we can meaningfully and correctly predicate "god-hood".

And I suggest that Jesus is such a "human being". What many non-Trinitarians cannot allow to be 'entered into evidence' is all the Biblical evidence that supports the assertion that Jesus the man fulfills the promised return of God to the nation of Israel.

To recognize that this theme is there in the Scriptures - and it clearly is - entirely undercuts the "Jesus is not divine" position. And this is precisely why non-Trinitarians cannot provide satisfying answers to the following questions and others like them:

Is it a coincidence that Jesus places Himself in the mother bird role, when that role belongs to God?

Is it a coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples? Has He accidentally given the reader the impression that, like God alone, He has the right to re-constitute Israel?

Is it a coincidence that in challenging the Law of Moses, Jesus is doing something that only God could legitimately do?

Is it a coincidence that Jesus describes Himself as "coming on the clouds" when that phrase is used in the OT to describe one who gets a seat in Heaven adjacent to that occupied by God alone?

He could not be 'divine' and 'not divine' at the same time, light's waves and particles notwithstanding.

I politely suggest that you are not really addressing the point. As I have tried to make clear, scientists make claims that produce the same conceptual problems as the claim that Jesus is "fully man" and "fully God". More specifically, they assert that an electron is both a wave and a particle.

These concepts clash violently. And yet all scientists accept what nature throws at us, even if we have to live with conceptual problems. We should do the same in the context of the Jesus question. Except for us, the data we have to live with is the evidence that Jesus acts and speaks as though He believes He is the incarnation of Israel's God - see the 4 questions above.

We should accept the data and not let the concepts that we bring to the data effectively trump, or muzzle, that data.

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew and Free

I think this is the most fatal objection that can be urged against your understanding that Jesus is eternal:

She, of course, was His 'surrogate mother', not His real mother at all.

And in the same vein, if what Drew and Free say is correct, was God His Father? How can someone eternal have a Father? The idea of Jesus being 'eternal', as they are insisting, carries with it all manner of serious and very difficult problems.

I'm sure I don't have to list the number of times Jesus and the apostles all state and assume that God is Jesus' Father.

That being so, the ball in your court is now demanding that you account for the fact that an eternal being could have a Father.

I personally can't see it myself, but I've no doubt that you'll say that I have a blinding prejudice.

Prejudice notwithstanding, I think that the question is a fair one and deserves a better response than 'You're ignoring the context of the whole of scripture'.

That context tells me that every father's son has a birth, a beginning, a start. And I have to challenge you to show me one contrary example.

 

[Drew]

Drew and Free

I think this is the most fatal objection that can be urged against your understanding that Jesus is eternal:

I'm sure I don't have to list the number of times Jesus and the apostles all state and assume that God is Jesus' Father.

That being so, the ball in your court is now demanding that you account for the fact that an eternal being could have a Father.

This has already been addressed. I claim that you are, perhaps unintentionally, overly obedient to "concepts".

Yes, the way the terms "father" and "son" are normally used suggests that the "son" has to be "created" by the father. But you need to recognize that concepts like "father" and "son" are merely labels - they describe reality, they do not prescribe reality.

In a sense I suggest that you are "trapped" by the belief that concepts are more than simply generalized descriptions - you see them as unalterable eternal rigid "rules". Yes, the issues here are tricky, but we need to remember the proper role of concepts like "father" - they are descriptions, they are not the reality that is described.

The point is this: if the Bible clearly tells us that there are two beings, God and Jesus who, for the most part, stand in a father-son relation (e.g. the son obeys the father, the son asks the father for help, the son seeks support from the father and so on), you cannot, legitimately anyway, insist that this particular father-son pair must "obey" the all the "aspects" of the relation between fathers and sons in order to be described as being in a father-son relation.

Remember, concepts are generalizations, and we have no choice but to use concepts when we communicate with one another.

The physics analogy is apt here: a particle is a spatially localized thing, while a wave is a spatially distributed thing. Using your reasoning - being overly deferential to descriptions and instead treating them as prescriptions - one could argue that it is simply impossible for an electron to be both a wave and a particle.

And yet all physcists believe this. Why? Precisely because they know the proper role of concepts as descriptions and they allow the data of reality to determine things, not the descriptive concepts.

And we should do the same. In our case, the data is the Biblical narrative. And it tells of a man Jesus who fulfills promises God said He would fulfill. We have to let Scripture speak and conclude that Jesus is "God", even if this means we have to modify and / or make 'exceptions' to our concepts.

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew

You have left language and reality far behind now, in pursuit of your support of your doctrine.

Nothing seems to mean anything any more.

The pronouns are meaningless, and now the father/ son relationship has no meaning.

Scripture itself, the WORD of God, consisting as it does, of words expressing the meaning God wishes to convey (or so I naively supposed), has become a tool in your hand to do with as you like.

Ignore whatever disagrees with your doctrine, and accept those fanciful connections which seem to me to be no connections at all (the hen and chicken example is the best example of this).

Isn't this demeaning of language, this depriving texts of their obvious intention too high a price to pay in order to support a theological construct which has very little to commend it, except the zeal of its supporters?

It's a tragedy, because you expose yourself to the winds of doctrine and the sleight of men when you do this. Your boss says 'I'll pay you $5000 per month, but when you get to the end of the month, he hands you $5000 JAMAICAN or Guyanese dollars worth pennies to the US dollar.

Would you sue him for breach of contract? COULD you sue him?

If words mean anything at all, then you certainly OUGHT to be able to sue him.

You're doing exactly the same here. You're seeking to change the meaning of words, and the grammatical structures in which they are found. You are ruining the very foundations of faith - the fact that words mean something, and that you are not the dictating lexicographer.

Please reassure me on the point: that the pronouns DO mean something, and that they are very precisely used when describing God. That I, me, my, mine, really mean what we all think they mean.

Reassure me that the word Father DOES mean something important, and so does 'Son' and that they mean what they are commonly supposed to mean.

That 'mother' does mean mother, and that 'Son', and 'conceived'
means exactly what we think they mean and If they don't, then discussion will be able to proceed.

 

[Free]

I'm thinking this thread has come to the end of any usefulness.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting.â€

Can you prove that without interpreting? Because if you can’t, that statement is just an interpretation.


“My basic argument is this: The God of the Old Testament promised to do certain things and described Himself in certain ways. Jesus then represents Himself as doing those same things and describes Himself in those same ways. This package constitutes an implicit claim of divinity. Jesus is saying "My work constitutes the promised return of Jehovah to Israel". â€

But isn’t that just your interpretation?


“If you are aware of such things, you will know that scientists characterize the electron as being both a wave and a particle. This violates our conceptual toolset - something cannot be both wave and particle. But scientists correctly decide to accept what nature has to offer - it simply is the case that nature operates in a way that we struggle to describe without conceptual violations.â€

Is that supposed to be an argument for the objectivity of these scientists, for their ability to come to the right conclusions through their educated ability to interpret facts properly? Most of those same scientists believe there’s no God to create the electron. They agree with Richard Dawkins who believes that anyone who believes in a religion is insane. I’m not even going to bring up the logical conclusion of that idea. They also agree with Dawkins that life on this planet is the result of evolution, and that the existence of God is unnecessary to that which is a fact to them. Aren’t you interpreting the Scientists as you are about to accuse me of doing? Do you pick and choose in your agreement with scientific interpretations? Do you agree with their idea of Evolutionism, thus nullifying the relevance of your own religion to anyone but yourself?


“I trust you see where I am going. In the context of the Trinity issue, the "data" we are presented with are the texts of the Old and New Testaments. And, uncomfortable as it may be, the Bible presents a narrative in which Jesus fulfills the "God role". So just like the scientist, we need to not let the tail wag the dog - we cannot simply declare "this picture of Jesus as God in the Bible violates our concepts so we will reject it". Imagine if the scientists did that.â€

My observations of and “interpretations†of the data clearly disagrees with yours. How do scientists deal with that kind of situation? They reject any data and interpretations that don’t agree with their own conclusions. I don’t have to imagine if scientists do that. It’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see. And if you’re thinking, “here’s another one of those followers of Ken Ham†You would be wrong.


“The key point: The scriptures are prior and fundamental, the concepts are secondary - we cannot let our choice of concepts muzzle what the scriptures are otherwise saying.â€

Does that really make sense to you? If everyone interprets, wouldn’t those secondary concepts determine the meaning of the Scriptures? Wouldn’t that imply that those secondary concepts are actually preconceptions that color our interpretations, no matter how we fight it?


“You watch - those who deny the Trinity will almost always express their critique of the Trinitarian position in terms of how it violates conceptual boundaries.
That would be like a scientist saying that "nature has to conform to myconcepts and therefore an electron cannot be understood to be both wave and particle".â€

That would be a natural reaction. After all, what is seen in Scripture, no matter who’s doing the interpreting, would be their own conceptual boundaries.


“Do you see what I am getting at?â€

Unfortunately, yes.

Let’s imagine for a moment that I agree with you. You would be asking this of an Atheist. Because if I agreed with you about interpretation, I would most assuredly be one. The Bible would lose all relevance as far as I’m concerned. And I would then go about showing you that by your own understanding, Atheism is proven by the facts that have already been proven as accepted even by non-scientists. That the existence of God is possible, but not probable. Possible only because there are facts we don’t know. But according to the facts we do know, God, not only doesn’t exist, but there isn’t any reason for a God to exist. You have admitted that belief in the Trinity is a belief in an interpretation, for, “We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting.†Surely you think that we can’t observe or experiment apart from interpretation. Which makes science nothing but an interpretation. And what you’re advocating as a religion is just an interpretation. And there’s no reason for me to believe your interpretation over my own or that accepted by my peers.

I should post that on the “Evidence For God†thread. That should elicit some interesting responses.

I assume you haven’t been reading my posts. Otherwise you would know that I oppose the practice of Biblical interpretation. Don’t you see that to those who interpret, the data itself is only an interpretation to be interpreted? And as the song says, people don’t understand the Bible alike. Because they’re determined to believe that “We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting.†It’s part of the denominational thinking that makes me what I am today.


Free

I guess this post is for you too, since you agree with Drew on this issue.


“I'm thinking this thread hascome to the end of any usefulness.â€

Want to take your toys and go home do ya? Shoot! If everyone has that attitude, I’m never gonna to get my question answered.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“FC, you may not have seen this argument before, but I pointed out that if Jesus existed in heaven before His birth, then He was 'implanted', 'transplanted' or some other such word, into Mary's womb, and the word 'conceived' as used by Luke the doctor, Gabriel the archangel, and God the Father (in Isa 7.14) is a complete misnomer.
She, of course, was His 'surrogate mother', not His real mother at all. â€

Your right. I’ve never see that argument before. Surrogate mother. Pardon me a moment. LOLOLOL. Sorry. Where were we.

I believe that Jesus inherited his Divine nature through his Father and his human nature through his mother. Nothing surrogate about that. Jesus shares both a Divine nature and a human nature that are integrated into one being in Christ. And we who are in Christ will be like Christ in the end, and can be to a degree today as we are conformed to the image of Christ. Sharing the Divine and human nature. To the extent that Christ shares in the Divinity of God, will be the extent that we’ll share in the Divinity of God as well. If Jesus is God, then that means we’ll be God also. Not individually, but certainly together with Christ being in Christ as members of the Body of Christ.

Some think of eternal as meaning only forward and backward in an unlimited sense, not understanding that eternal could refer to only forward in an unlimited sense. That is certainly how it works for one who is in Christ. God is more than just eternal. He’s eternally self-existing. Humanity as created beings aren’t self-existing, but we can exist in an eternal sense.

Adam wasn’t self-existent, but could have been if he had eaten of the tree of life, and that would have been catastrophic as a fallen creature. So God prevented Adam from eating of the tree of life and presented an alternative. Jesus would become the tree of life for all who are in Christ. Those who are in Christ are eternal by virtue of being in Christ. They still are not self-existent because their existence depends on their being in Christ. It is why I also believe that a personal ability to jump in and out of Christ at will would make eternal life to not be eternal life at all. It would only be sporadic life or no life at all.


“And in the same vein, if what Drew and Free say is correct, was God His Father? How can someone eternal have a Father? The idea of Jesus being 'eternal', as they are insisting, carries with it all manner of serious and very difficult problems.
All of which is a flat contradiction of Lk 1 and Isa 7.â€

All sides have problems. Wouldn’t be any argument if one side or the other didn’t have any problems.

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

That implies to me that he was the only begotten Son prior to being sent, which to me means pre-existence. Not necessarily eternal pre-existence. But neither does it deny eternal pre-existence. The eternal extent of that pre-existence would only have relevance to a Trinitarian. Jesus could conceivably be eternal as is his Father having inherited a share of the Divine nature from him. The question that I would have is the extent of his existence prior to becoming the Son of God, since the text says “this day I have begotten theeâ€. One thing I believe that Trinitarians don’t, apparently, is that Jesus in his humanity is a created being. Just like his mother. And I believe that Mary is as truly his mother as God is his Father.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

FC

I am left speechless sometimes by the sheer common sense and ruthless logic of your writings.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is on the question of God sending Jesus into the world from a pre-existing state.

That concept falls foul of the 'surrogate mother' and non-Fatherhood of God as I have been trying to point out to the guys.

The meaning of 'God sent His Son into the world' is extremely easy to understand without any theological contortions.

Here are 3 prime examples:

Jn 1.6 is especially important because of the context of Jesus coming into the world.

6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.

John certainly did not come from a pre-existent state, or from extra-terrestrial places!

Mr 12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

Lu 20:10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

Lu 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

John the Baptist, and the 'servant' in the parable, who is clearly one of the prophets, are sent from God. Meaning commissioned by God: His ambassadors and spokesmen if you like.

They aren't coming from off-planet places (heaven). They are being commissioned by God to go speak His words.

They are sent 'into the world': and this clearly means the Jewish world:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

So with Jesus. He was 'sent into the world' - and we know for a certainty that the Jewish world is meant, because 'the world knew Him not'. At the time, He was an irrelevancy to the rest of the planet.

Further:

Jn 1.10 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 they that were his own received him not.

Notice the parallelism of the two sentences.

The world = his own ie the Jewish nation.

Given all that, I suggest you abandon the pre-existence concept. There are far too many and too serious problems in its path.

And the simple understanding, that God was His Father, Jesus His only-begotten Son, coming to birth and existence as we do stands unassailable on the certain rock of common experience, common sense and common use of language.

No contortions are necessary.

 

[francisdesales]

FC

I am left speechless sometimes by the sheer common sense and ruthless logic of your writings.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is on the question of God sending Jesus into the world from a pre-existing state.

That concept falls foul of the 'surrogate mother' and non-Fatherhood of God as I have been trying to point out to the guys.

The meaning of 'God sent His Son into the world' is extremely easy to understand without any theological contortions.

Here are 3 prime examples:

Jn 1.6 is especially important because of the context of Jesus coming into the world.

6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.

John certainly did not come from a pre-existent state, or from extra-terrestrial places!

Mr 12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

Lu 20:10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

Lu 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

John the Baptist, and the 'servant' in the parable, who is clearly one of the prophets, are sent from God. Meaning commissioned by God: His ambassadors and spokesmen if you like.

They aren't coming from off-planet places (heaven). They are being commissioned by God to go speak His words.

They are sent 'into the world': and this clearly means the Jewish world:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

So with Jesus. He was 'sent into the world' - and we know for a certainty that the Jewish world is meant, because 'the world knew Him not'. At the time, He was an irrelevancy to the rest of the planet.

Further:

Jn 1.10 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 they that were his own received him not.

Notice the parallelism of the two sentences.

The world = his own ie the Jewish nation.

Given all that, I suggest you abandon the pre-existence concept. There are far too many and too serious problems in its path.

And the simple understanding, that God was His Father, Jesus His only-begotten Son, coming to birth and existence as we do stands unassailable on the certain rock of common experience, common sense and common use of language.

No contortions are necessary.

:biglol

Shall we discuss Phil 2 again? Seems pretty obvious there is "pre-existence" there.

 

[Enow]

John 8:57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus' own words.

 

[Asyncritus]

:biglol

Shall we discuss Phil 2 again? Seems pretty obvious there is "pre-existence" there.

As I said francis, you are at liberty to comment on my posts, but I will not be commenting on yours. Fear of infraction, you see.

There's still a question outstanding,you recall, I've raised it again here. Till you have answered that one, I regret that I will not be replying to your comments.

Over and out.

 

[Asyncritus]

John 8:57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus' own words.

Before Abraham was, I am what?

And how long before Abraham am He talking about?

 

[John Zain]

The only thing I disagree with in your post is on the question of
God sending Jesus into the world from a pre-existing state.

Okay, I've been too busy to follow all of this extraneous conversation, but ...
what do you think the verses about "the Word became flesh" are all about?
Obviously, since this "Word" became something else, He(it) must have pre-existed.
Or have you guys been around this flagpole a hundred times?

 

[Asyncritus]

Okay, I've been too busy to follow all of this extraneous conversation, but ...
what do you think the verses about "the Word became flesh" are all about?
Obviously, since this "Word" became something else, He(it) must have pre-existed.
Or have you guys been around this flagpole a hundred times?

It's very simple John.

The prophecies about Him were fulfilled.

There's a lot about the Word of God in the OT. Many times it simply means God's purpose expressed in words like:

Ex 9:20 He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses:

Ge 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Nu 3:16 And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.

Nu 15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

Nu 22:18 And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.

We could go on, but it is pretty obvious that it means 'what God said, intended, wanted' and so on.

So the 'word made flesh' means that what God wanted, intended, prophesied, desired to happen, was embodied in Christ.

Simple, isn't it?