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/
It is not speculation to reject any notion whatsoever that the Holy Spirit or the Father procreated WITH Mary. To suggest such a thing is to suggest that the Father actually mingled HIS SEED with that of Mary. Sorry, that is rank heresy and blasphemy.
Procreation by a miracle is still procreation . You said miracle yourself .
!
But, He did not procreate with a mortal woman, Hawkman. Talk about speculation. The Infinite Father procreating with a mortal woman to produce.......what? A Demi-God? Half man and half ETERNAL DEITY?Procreation by a miracle is still procreation . You said miracle yourself .
Anyway , welcome to the forum
Yes, and Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation because God is his father and as such he is the ONLY begotten. Jesus is a human, The Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.
Yes, it is.
You seem to be locked into your own logic.
The gradual development of the erroneous doctrine of the Trinity can be traced through the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The development of the Catholic Church was the development of the Apostate Church not God's true church. The true church was persecuted by the Catholic Church.
Jesus is seated at the right hand of God the Father, but he has been given the Holy Spirit without measure and as such he is able to:
There is no such contradictory statement found in the Scriptures. It is a feeble Trinitarian attempt to accomodate the Bible term "begotten".
I hope all goes well as it could be severe. I live well below the normal cyclone areas along the east coast of Australia, and it is also rare to have severe storms in Newcastle NSW.
Yes, she was a mortal woman.I thought Mary was a mortal woman ?
You said:
Yet Mary asked How and the answer given is clear to me.
Yes, nothing there about the seed of God impregnating Mary. She was a virgin and it was her seed alone which produced the humanity of Christ.
She conceived by the HS not sperm of any other. So, God was Jesus's Father and Jesus is called the Son of God. I believe it is stated HE was fully human. Doesn't genesis state the seed of the women in some translations. Gensis 3:15
The titles Son of Man and Son of God firstly relate to the nativity where Jesus is a descendant of Adam and his fallen nature through Mary and he is the Son of God because God the Father used His Power, the Holy Spirit to become the father of Jesus. God is the Creator, and Jesus is the New Creation. Yes God can speak things into existence, but he can also create using his intelligent power, the Holy Spirit.
There is no real answer to a contradiction and an impossibility. I try to avoid corrupting my mind with such concepts.
Yes, God the Father gave Jesus his power, The Holy Spirit.
I wasn't asking if he was, I was pointing out that that is fallaciously begging the question; it is an error in reasoning.
Of course, but that doesn't actually address anything. You're avoiding directly answering anything.
You're dodging to avoid John 8:23-24, the context of which is pretty clear.
And, yet, Jesus is claiming to have actually existed, as he does numerous times. That is the problem for your position.
Which must be taken in context of the rest of John 1, the rest of John, and the rest of the NT. This is probably the main problem with anti-Trinitarians--ignoring context and focusing on a single verse at a time. It's like taking one piece of a puzzle at a time, looking at it, throwing it aside, and each time coming to a conclusion about the whole picture, without ever bothering to assemble the puzzle. There seems to be an actual inability to take the whole revelation in Scripture and put it all together in one coherent understanding.
You keep saying such, but haven't provided a single proof. It's all just opinion.
I will continue to stand by my statement.
Yes, it is fanciful.
I suggest that Jesus is giving a different perspective to what you claim regarding John 8:58. They deliberately ignored what he said in the following and then attempted to muddy the waters.
"I am he" is part of the theme recorded in John's Gospel as to whether Jesus is the Christ.
I consider that "only begotten" refers to the narratives in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.
Philippians 2:11.
Even though it's irrational. I'm not surprised, such is the anti-Trinitarian position.
Which, again, doesn't actually address anything. More unreasonableness.
And, yet, you provide no alternative explanation for what Jesus said, never mind one that takes the context into account. It is telling that you left out verse 57, which is essential to understanding what Jesus said in verse 58:
It can be and that is certainly the central theme of John's gospel, but it doesn't follow that every instance of "I am" should be read as "I am he." In John's gospel the deity of Jesus is central to his identity as the Christ, beginning from verse 1.
Which is hard to sustain when one considers the following regarding John 1:18:
Now your argument is circular, another fallacy. I'm not surprised you don't believe in the Trinity when you're using so much poor reasoning and are unable to provide any substantial understanding of the texts in question. Par for the course from the anti-Trinitarian side of things.
The larger context is that there was a gradual buildup of tension and anxiety by the Jewish rulers, and in John 7 and 8 this had developed into open hostility. They had tried to arrest him during the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7, and they had tried to entrap him the next day in John 8 and then they argued with him about who is the true seed of Abraham. Jesus in immediate context of John 8:58 states the following:
The immediate context of John 8:58 is John 8:24 and John 8:28 where exactly the same words are used and where the question is whether or not Jesus is the Christ.
Yes, I know and I agree, except for one not so small thing. You purposely left out John 8:57, which has everything to do with verse 58.
Yes, Jesus was speaking of his own preexistence. Again, it is the only thing that makes sense grammatically and contextually. As I stated, Jesus's statement in John 8:58 is in direct response to the question in the verse that immediately precedes it. It has nothing directly to do with verse 56.
As is the question in verse 57, which you seem to want to leave out. It isn't just a question as to whether or not Jesus is the Christ. That question was brought up the previous day, in chapter 7, but it doesn't arise in chapter 8. Chapter 8 does bring up the question of identity though, which Jesus clearly gives in verses 23 and 58, and in the many that mention his Father. Do you not agree that a son is always the same nature as his father?
I suggest that you read the whole Gospel of John, in which Jesus claims to be God with the Father and the Holy Spirit with his seven "I AM" statements that identify him as the God of Moses' burning bush in Exodus 3 and 4. A liberal commentator who doesn't believe in Jesus as God or the Trinity said after studying the book thoroughly that John believed in the Trinity.
They attempted to hijack the discussion with verse 57. They failed to try to understand what Jesus was saying, and this was typical of all their reaction to Jesus' teaching and miracles. Jesus did not allow himself to be diverted, he continued on with his subject and claim, as well as answering their question.
This is similar to his antagonists, they did not understand his words. They were trying to entangle him, like the goat in Genesis 22. But Jesus is not only the antitype of the goat offered as a burnt offering, but also the antitype of Isaac, who voluntarily submitted himself to his father's will. Jesus' time of being held captive had not yet arrived, and even this would be as a result of his own voluntary submission to the Father's will, not the power of his adversaries.
You cannot create another God. You negate the concept of father/son. Jesus is the firstborn of the New Creation. Jesus was human nature, the Son of God, with Mary his mother and God the Father as his father Luke 1:34-35. He is now exalted, but still a human.
Did you consider Tyndale's translation and the RV and RSV margins that give the future tense:
