How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[YoursTrue]

JW... I included them because they believe that Jesus was ‘pre-existent’ as an Angel... and trinity defines pre-existence as ‘God’ (Having no beginning!’.

I don’t hold to JW doctrine and fine their philosophy stressful, demanding, and invasive in personal life.

Jesus is not "God" as most people might consider God. He is the Son of God, who came from heaven, fulfilled the scriptures about the Messiah as well as "Mighty God" written in Isaiah. Do you believe that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree. In fact, even though Esau was the elder son and stood to benefit from primogeniture, Jacob ended up receiving the blessing of inheritance. In the Episcopal Church, there is a “presiding Bishop.” That person enjoys a primacy of honor, but not of power. S/he is first among equals. In fact, in General Convention, there are two houses that vote: a House of Bishops and a House of Commons, comprised of a mixture of clergy and lay. One house cannot overpower the other. We find this sort of organic equality everywhere. In many churches, there is a “hierarchy of equality” in ministry, in which power is distributed equally between pastor, administrator, and team organizer. No, I’m afraid I disagree with your assessment.

Hello, sojourner. I was doing a little research on the subject of "Most High." Along with scripture as well as the Hebrew. When someone is described as the Most High, there is a Hebrew term for it and it can be quite interesting . Psalm 89:27 offers one such use of the word and I'd like to discuss this with you.

 

[Soapy]

What do you believe about Jesus then? Was he in heaven with God before he came to earth? How do you view it?

Hmm... I’d like to say that I’ve written EXTENSIVELY about this in several of my posts - so I’m amazed that you are asking!

I don’t copy/paste my text (only scripture quotes) so can I suggest you read back a few posts to see what I’ve said. If you don’t wish to do this then please ask me again to state it...

Badically:

• God created a man, Adam, to oversee his great creation: the physical world and an ecological system of living plants, animals, insects, microbes, bacteria... that perfectly cycle the system
• Adam’s body was created from the ‘dust of the earth’ (inert chemical material: atoms and molecules)
• This body was not ‘living’ until it was enlivened when God ‘blew the breath of life into [the body]’ by means of God’s Holy Spirit... ‘and the man became a LIVING SOUL’
• This man, this living soul, knew no sin in its holiness and the man dutifully followed the spirit of God in all his ways: attribution and definition of ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38 and Romans 8:14)
• But Adam, the man, was tempted to sin and fell away from being ‘son of God’. God was angry and desired to destroy mankind he had created. But relented saying that IF ANOTHER HOLY SON could be found and GIVE HIS PURE AND HOLY BLOOD in sacrifice then this would stone for the sin of Adam: a SECOND Adam - a second Holy and sinless MAN ...
• Until such a man is found and fulfils the redemption requirements, ALL MANKIND IS CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DEATH because of the sin of Adam
• Given time, no such man was found so God put into action the CONTINGENCY he had proposed from the beginning: Salvation by the ‘SEED OF A WOMAN’...
• The egg of a woman is LIFELESS... Spiritually it is therefore SINLESS. Inert material cannot sin. In humanity, it is ENLIVENED by the [spiritually sinful] SPERM from a man. This is PROCREATION : Flesh from flesh... SPIRIT DOES NOT PROCREATE!!
• But the SEED OF THE WOMAN, Mary, was not enlivened by the sperm of a man.. it was enlivened by the holy spirit of almighty God:
  • “The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)
• This ‘overshadowing’ of the seed in Mary is the same as the ‘blew the breath of life into the [lifeless body] of the first man, Adam
• You will notice that Jesus is called, ‘The Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45). What does it mean to be an ‘Adam’. Well, clearly, in its raw state it is to be ‘Sinless and Holy’. And see that Jesus is also ‘Son of God’.. just as the FIRST ADAM WAS!!!
• God required the pure and holy blood of a pure and sinless and holy man... A ‘GOD’ coming down from Heaven pretending to be human cannot in any sense fulfil the requirements of Almighty God
• God would not save mankind by pretentiousness - that would not be righteous

And be it known, again, we need to STOP THINKING of the term ‘Son of God’ as some kind of personal label for Jesus. It is a GENERAL LABEL, a title, for ANYONE, for EVERYONE, in Spirit or flesh, who DOES THE WORKS OF THE FATHER.

As stated previously, the first Adam DID follow the Spirit of God, do the works of the Father... until he sinned by falling to temptation. Adam was rightly stated as being (initially) ‘Son of God’.

Likewise, the holy and heavenly Angels are called, ‘Son of God’ because they absolutely follow and do all things that the Father commands them to do.

Notice that these SPIRIT sons of God are CREATIONS of God... Adam was a FLESH CREATION of God. The Second/Last Adam was ALSO A FLESH CREATION of God.

The trinitarian viewpoint is tortuous in that it cannot answer how or why Jesus, as they say he is almighty God, is REWARDED with the rulership over creation... Surely a reward of kingship over a physical world that is so so so greatly LIMITED in contrast to limitless Heaven, is a DEMOTION from what he already ruled over... there is no sense in Jesus’ rulership in the seat of his forefather, King David.

Now if Jesus is a fleshly MAN, then rulership over fleshly creation is absolutely the greatest REWARD for his achievements and sacrifice - even under the greatest temptation of acquiring the rulership by worshipping Satan and thus avoiding the penalty of DEATH (a sinless man dying is beyond thought - death is a given in sinful flesh!!)

As a last, I would caution every reader in trusting in verses in scriptures that APPEAR to claim that Jesus ‘Came down from Heaven’... these are FALSE VERSES devised or modified by the trinitarian translators who were ORDERED to change passages to BETTER make it appear that trinity was ensconced in the scriptures. You can EASILY counter these verses by reference to AT LEAST TWO OTHER verses that state nothing like that. For instance:
- ‘no one has gone up to heaven who did not first descend from heaven’
This is false... the verse is speaking of no one going into heaven who did not first DIE... who did not first go to the GRAVE.
We know this because Jesus FIRST DIED before he ascending into Heaven... Why would it speak of PEOPLE ‘coming down from Heaven’ if it was only really meant to say, ‘Jesus’? Otherwise there must have been MORE than one coming down... but no! It meant ‘Descend into the grave’: ‘to die’!!

Also, Jesus ONLY claimed he was ‘GOING TO THE FATHER...’. He did not say he was ‘Going BACK to the Father’.

Many times it is said that Jesus was ‘SENT [from God] / [from the Father]’. Do not be fooled. This is NOT ‘Sent from Heaven’... it means ‘Sent into the WORLD’ (sent to “OPPOSE EVIL”). Note that Jesus was only SENT after he was BAPTISED with the Holy Spirit of God : Anointed with the ‘Oil of Gladness’. This anointing made him ‘Christ’...

• “God made this Jesus TO BE both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)

All things that are Jesus are given to him by GOD. He was APPOINTED to be Christ. Isaiah 42:1 says it absolutely:

• "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”
  
• “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased” ...

And, “Today I have become to him, a Father, and he has become to me, a Son”. What do you read and infer from this verse: Yes, it’s an ADOPTION STATEMENT.

Note also that Jesus did nothing of miraculousness UNTIL AFTER he was anointed and tested in the wilderness. And passed the test... AFTER THAT he was SENT BY GOD ‘To do good’ in the world. As Jesus says to the disciples AFTER their ‘Anointing with Holy Spirit’:

• “Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:21-22)
• “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:18)

Oh... so much more.., I can’t stop writing... ask me more, please!!

 

[Soapy]

Jesus is not "God" as most people might consider God. He is the Son of God, who came from heaven, fulfilled the scriptures about the Messiah as well as "Mighty God" written in Isaiah. Do you believe that?

As I have requested from sojourner: ‘what is your definition of “God”?’

‘God’ is a TITLE ... it is the title of a MONARCH, a ruler, but specifying a SPIRITUAL Monarch... a DEITY.

‘Deity’ is the PERSON: ‘God’ is the TITLE.

This is why there can be ‘Many Lords and many GODS’. Scriptures has OUR GOD saying that he is ‘THE GOD OF ALL [who are called] GODS’. So even our ALMIGHTY GOD does not deny that OTHERS are called GODS... that others are ENTITLED as “GOD”s.

We are so used to calling our almighty a Deity, YHWH: the Father, “God”, that we have turned the TITLE into a NAME. We refuse to use his NAME (YHWH) our if fear of mispronouncing it... I ASSURE YOU, YHWH is not concerned with the pronunciation but that you use WHATEVER INTERPRETATION in HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, and REVERENCE.

In saying so, and defining the word, ‘God’, you will quickly realise how Trinitarians have hijacked the word ‘God’ to claim that Jesus is ‘GOD’...
Yes, because they set the prophecy of Jesus’ RULERSHIP ahead of his achievements. Thus they call him ‘God’ BEFORE his appointment AT THE END OF TIME... and in wrongful order:

• Jesus SHALL BE[come] ‘MIGHTY GOD’ over CREATION only

BUT:

• YHWH was/is/always-will-be ETERNALLY ‘GOD’ over HEAVEN

You already know that ‘Creation’ is but a ‘ROOM’ in the ‘MANSION’ of Heaven.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm... I’d like to say that I’ve written EXTENSIVELY about this in several of my posts - so I’m amazed that you are asking!

Please don't be, I apologize, as I usually don't read very long texts, however, I will try getting through yours. Usually a sentence or short paragraph should do.

I don’t copy/paste my text (only scripture quotes) so can I suggest you read back a few posts to see what I’ve said. If you don’t wish to do this then please ask me again to state it...

Badically:

• God created a man, Adam, to oversee his great creation: the physical world and an ecological system of living plants, animals, insects, microbes, bacteria... that perfectly cycle the system
• Adam’s body was created from the ‘dust of the earth’ (inert chemical material: atoms and molecules)
• This body was not ‘living’ until it was enlivened when God ‘blew the breath of life into [the body]’ by means of God’s Holy Spirit... ‘and the man became a LIVING SOUL’
• This man, this living soul, knew no sin in its holiness and the man dutifully followed the spirit of God in all his ways: attribution and definition of ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38 and Romans 8:14)
• But Adam, the man, was tempted to sin and fell away from being ‘son of God’. God was angry and desired to destroy mankind he had created. But relented saying that IF ANOTHER HOLY SON could be found and GIVE HIS PURE AND HOLY BLOOD in sacrifice then this would stone for the sin of Adam: a SECOND Adam - a second Holy and sinless MAN ...
• Until such a man is found and fulfils the redemption requirements, ALL MANKIND IS CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DEATH because of the sin of Adam
• Given time, no such man was found so God put into action the CONTINGENCY he had proposed from the beginning: Salvation by the ‘SEED OF A WOMAN’...
• The egg of a woman is LIFELESS... Spiritually it is therefore SINLESS. Inert material cannot sin. In humanity, it is ENLIVENED by the [spiritually sinful] SPERM from a man. This is PROCREATION : Flesh from flesh... SPIRIT DOES NOT PROCREATE!!
• But the SEED OF THE WOMAN, Mary, was not enlivened by the sperm of a man.. it was enlivened by the holy spirit of almighty God:
  • “The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)
• This ‘overshadowing’ of the seed in Mary is the same as the ‘blew the breath of life into the [lifeless body] of the first man, Adam
• You will notice that Jesus is called, ‘The Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45). What does it mean to be an ‘Adam’. Well, clearly, in its raw state it is to be ‘Sinless and Holy’. And see that Jesus is also ‘Son of God’.. just as the FIRST ADAM WAS!!!
• God required the pure and holy blood of a pure and sinless and holy man... A ‘GOD’ coming down from Heaven pretending to be human cannot in any sense fulfil the requirements of Almighty God
• God would not save mankind by pretentiousness - that would not be righteous

And be it known, again, we need to STOP THINKING of the term ‘Son of God’ as some kind of personal label for Jesus. It is a GENERAL LABEL, a title, for ANYONE, for EVERYONE, in Spirit or flesh, who DOES THE WORKS OF THE FATHER.

As stated previously, the first Adam DID follow the Spirit of God, do the works of the Father... until he sinned by falling to temptation. Adam was rightly stated as being (initially) ‘Son of God’.

Likewise, the holy and heavenly Angels are called, ‘Son of God’ because they absolutely follow and do all things that the Father commands them to do.

Notice that these SPIRIT sons of God are CREATIONS of God... Adam was a FLESH CREATION of God. The Second/Last Adam was ALSO A FLESH CREATION of God.

The trinitarian viewpoint is tortuous in that it cannot answer how or why Jesus, as they say he is almighty God, is REWARDED with the rulership over creation... Surely a reward of kingship over a physical world that is so so so greatly LIMITED in contrast to limitless Heaven, is a DEMOTION from what he already ruled over... there is no sense in Jesus’ rulership in the seat of his forefather, King David.

Now if Jesus is a fleshly MAN, then rulership over fleshly creation is absolutely the greatest REWARD for his achievements and sacrifice - even under the greatest temptation of acquiring the rulership by worshipping Satan and thus avoiding the penalty of DEATH (a sinless man dying is beyond thought - death is a given in sinful flesh!!)

As a last, I would caution every reader in trusting in verses in scriptures that APPEAR to claim that Jesus ‘Came down from Heaven’... these are FALSE VERSES devised or modified by the trinitarian translators who were ORDERED to change passages to BETTER make it appear that trinity was ensconced in the scriptures. You can EASILY counter these verses by reference to AT LEAST TWO OTHER verses that state nothing like that. For instance:
- ‘no one has gone up to heaven who did not first descend from heaven’
This is false... the verse is speaking of no one going into heaven who did not first DIE... who did not first go to the GRAVE.
We know this because Jesus FIRST DIED before he ascending into Heaven... Why would it speak of PEOPLE ‘coming down from Heaven’ if it was only really meant to say, ‘Jesus’? Otherwise there must have been MORE than one coming down... but no! It meant ‘Descend into the grave’: ‘to die’!!

Also, Jesus ONLY claimed he was ‘GOING TO THE FATHER...’. He did not say he was ‘Going BACK to the Father’.

Many times it is said that Jesus was ‘SENT [from God] / [from the Father]’. Do not be fooled. This is NOT ‘Sent from Heaven’... it means ‘Sent into the WORLD’ (sent to “OPPOSE EVIL”). Note that Jesus was only SENT after he was BAPTISED with the Holy Spirit of God : Anointed with the ‘Oil of Gladness’. This anointing made him ‘Christ’...

• “God made this Jesus TO BE both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)

All things that are Jesus are given to him by GOD. He was APPOINTED to be Christ. Isaiah 42:1 says it absolutely:

• "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”
  
• “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased” ...

And, “Today I have become to him, a Father, and he has become to me, a Son”. What do you read and infer from this verse: Yes, it’s an ADOPTION STATEMENT.

Note also that Jesus did nothing of miraculousness UNTIL AFTER he was anointed and tested in the wilderness. And passed the test... AFTER THAT he was SENT BY GOD ‘To do good’ in the world. As Jesus says to the disciples AFTER their ‘Anointing with Holy Spirit’:

• “Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:21-22)
• “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:18)

Oh... so much more.., I can’t stop writing... ask me more, please!!

My question to you is this: and forgive me if you've answered it and I missed it, What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5.)

 

[Soapy]

Please don't be, I apologize, as I usually don't read very long texts, however, I will try getting through yours. Usually a sentence or short paragraph should do.


My question to you is this: and forgive me if you've answered it and I missed it, What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5.)

I’m sorry to say but if you are relying on one sentence answers to your questions then you will never hear the truth in fullness. Ones like sojourner (and virtually all Trinitarians) relish short UNCONNECTED sentences about their belief. The reason is that short sentences rarely contain more than one claim and are often remote from other sentences asked before... this way they can make a claim in one sentence and DENY IT or make a DIFFERENT claim in another... the reader more often does not remember or realise the disconnect and ploughs on in ignorance with just the latest sentence presented by the fallacy speaker. This is tantamount to TWO-DIMENSIONAL debating. ... there is no FEEDBACK to previous claims...

Three dimensional debating links previous sentences or claims and is fuller in information, claims, and linked references.

How do you understand the journey of the Israelites and the love and punishment inflicted on them by God and the hope of salvation ... if you only read one sentence at a time?

I hope you are able to read this far:::

As for the verse you ask me to explain.. I already answers it but I will answer again:

• There is no evidence of a claim from anyone in scriptures that Jesus was pre-existent
• There is no claim BY JESUS that he was pre-existent, in fact, prophesy has God saying concerning Jesus saying:
  • “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)(Isaiah 42:1)
  • which is also prophesied in the verse ‘Out of Egypt I have called my Son’ (Hosea 11:1)
• Matthew 1:18 declares that Mary:
  • “was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”
  • And, of course, we have scriptures declaring the voice of the angel Gabriel: ‘"The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’ (Luke 1:35)
• I draw you attention to the emphasised words in thats declaration: ‘WILL BE CALLED’... not ‘IS CALLED’!!
• It is AFTER he is born that Jesus BECOMES ‘The Son of God’ because he proves himself as being loyal and dutiful to his Father God
• The Glory that is spoken of ... do you know that it is to be ruler over creation? The world was created to be ruled by one from creation just as the spirit heaven is ruled by a spirit deity
• Because trinity desires to make Jesus RULER before his time they try to alter verses and text to say Jesus was pre-existent. Note that in the temptation in the wilderness, Satan declares that he was the owner (Steward) and could relinquish it to whom he will. You note that Jesus KNEW it would be his IF he fulfilled his role as Son of God. He knew he COULD ACQUIRE it from Satan by worshipping Satan without going through the pain, humiliation, and suffering, and DEATH. But happily, he declined the temptation. Did Jesus say it was his before it was created? Did Jesus speak of pleasure he had with his Father that he desired to regain???
• The glory was that which was awaiting THE ONE who proved himself to be complete ‘Son of God’.. Do you read that King David was God’s beloved but that David fell by killing Uriah and taking his wife as his own?
• Does any scripture other than the one you quote speak of Jesus ‘having glory before the creation of the world’...? No! And that is the LITMUS TEST... Scriptures always qualifies itself.., it does do also to DISQUALIFY corrupted text... Find THREE texts that states a situation or two that disqualifies an erroneous one:
  1. Jesus said he was ‘going TO the Father’
  2. Jesus says: ‘I am coming to you, Father..!’
  3. Jesus was in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the earth:
     1. “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.“ (Luke 17:24) just as:
        
     2. “For he chose us (Apostles) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.“ (Ephesians 1:6)
     3. So if you wish to claim pre-existence for Jesus (1) then you must also claim pre-existence for the Apostles (2)!

As a question... what do you say is the Glory that Jesus is supposed to have had with God from before the foundation of the earth that Jesus is supposed to be asking God to give him ‘back’?

In fact, when, how, and WHY did he ‘Lose it’?
If you are claiming Phil 2 then you are wildly mistaken as this is not what Phil 2 is speaking of... and, there is no other even seeming verse that claims Jesus ‘lost glory’ in heaven. Is that not strange to you that such an incredible event goes unscripted for our knowledge and belief?

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m sorry to say but if you are relying on one sentence answers to your questions then you will never hear the truth in fullness. Ones like sojourner (and virtually all Trinitarians) relish short UNCONNECTED sentences about their belief. The reason is that short sentences rarely contain more than one claim and are often remote from other sentences asked before... this way they can make a claim in one sentence and DENY IT or make a DIFFERENT claim in another... the reader more often does not remember or realise the disconnect and ploughs on in ignorance with just the latest sentence presented by the fallacy speaker. This is tantamount to TWO-DIMENSIONAL debating. ... there is no FEEDBACK to previous claims...

Three dimensional debating links previous sentences or claims and is fuller in information, claims, and linked references.

How do you understand the journey of the Israelites and the love and punishment inflicted on them by God and the hope of salvation ... if you only read one sentence at a time?

I hope you are able to read this far:::

As for the verse you ask me to explain.. I already answers it but I will answer again:

• There is no evidence of a claim from anyone in scriptures that Jesus was pre-existent
• There is no claim BY JESUS that he was pre-existent, in fact, prophesy has God saying concerning Jesus saying:
  • “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)(Isaiah 42:1)
  • which is also prophesied in the verse ‘Out of Egypt I have called my Son’ (Hosea 11:1)
• Matthew 1:18 declares that Mary:
  • “was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”
  • And, of course, we have scriptures declaring the voice of the angel Gabriel: ‘"The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’ (Luke 1:35)
• I draw you attention to the emphasised words in thats declaration: ‘WILL BE CALLED’... not ‘IS CALLED’!!
• It is AFTER he is born that Jesus BECOMES ‘The Son of God’ because he proves himself as being loyal and dutiful to his Father God
• The Glory that is spoken of ... do you know that it is to be ruler over creation? The world was created to be ruled by one from creation just as the spirit heaven is ruled by a spirit deity
• Because trinity desires to make Jesus RULER before his time they try to alter verses and text to say Jesus was pre-existent. Note that in the temptation in the wilderness, Satan declares that he was the owner (Steward) and could relinquish it to whom he will. You note that Jesus KNEW it would be his IF he fulfilled his role as Son of God. He knew he COULD ACQUIRE it from Satan by worshipping Satan without going through the pain, humiliation, and suffering, and DEATH. But happily, he declined the temptation. Did Jesus say it was his before it was created? Did Jesus speak of pleasure he had with his Father that he desired to regain???
• The glory was that which was awaiting THE ONE who proved himself to be complete ‘Son of God’.. Do you read that King David was God’s beloved but that David fell by killing Uriah and taking his wife as his own?
• Does any scripture other than the one you quote speak of Jesus ‘having glory before the creation of the world’...? No! And that is the LITMUS TEST... Scriptures always qualifies itself.., it does do also to DISQUALIFY corrupted text... Find THREE texts that states a situation or two that disqualifies an erroneous one:
  1. Jesus said he was ‘going TO the Father’
  2. Jesus says: ‘I am coming to you, Father..!’
  3. Jesus was in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the earth:
     1. “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.“ (Luke 17:24) just as:
        
     2. “For he chose us (Apostles) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.“ (Ephesians 1:6)
     3. So if you wish to claim pre-existence for Jesus (1) then you must also claim pre-existence for the Apostles (2)!

As a question... what do you say is the Glory that Jesus is supposed to have had with God from before the foundation of the earth that Jesus is supposed to be asking God to give him ‘back’?

In fact, when, how, and WHY did he ‘Lose it’?
If you are claiming Phil 2 then you are wildly mistaken as this is not what Phil 2 is speaking of... and, there is no other even seeming verse that claims Jesus ‘lost glory’ in heaven. Is that not strange to you that such an incredible event goes unscripted for our knowledge and belief?

I'm asking how you understand Jesus statement at John 17:5. .
"And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed." What does that mean to you?

 

[sojourner]

That is correct. (They were not equals.) You are free to disagree but facts are facts

In fact, the story is told in order to show equity — that a younger son would inherit. It evens the playing field.

Sojourner is here clearly redefining the word ‘Equal’.

Esau was a Hunter. Was a Jacob an equal Hunter?
Isaacs mother helped him to ‘get hairy’ LIKE his brother... he was NOT his brother hence the word ‘like’.

See above. I’m afraid it’s you who are redefining “equal.”

sojourner claims this as ‘first among equals’... but in truth, he doesn’t know what it means nor that it is hogwash.

More twisting and misdirection on your part.

he doesn’t know how to define ‘GOD’.

“Defining” God isn’t the issue. Putting forth theological propositions about God is the issue. This is simply more of your twisting and misdirection — seems to be your favorite ploy in debate to make yourself seem knowledgeable, when you’re really not at all.

If we use his definition then the three DEITIES are DIVINE.

See above. More twisting and deceit. I wonder what Biblical character it is who engages in those tactics?

tut tut tut... Trinity destroying itself (but in conceitedly, only because sojourner fouls up... other trinity believers are more cautious and wouldn’t expose the fallacy so greatly... Besides, bringing down one flimsy pillar of trinity fallacy in one isolated forum doesn’t change the massive towering pillars built up in, say, the Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Christadelphian, Oneness, Methodist, JW, Mormon, ... and every ‘Jesus is God’ ideology believing ‘Church’.

See above.

In sojourner's defense, he has been taught by seminarians, so the teaching may be convincing. For some.

I was taught by scholars — not necessarily seminarians. That being said, if you insist on falling into the childish game of dismissing scholarship, this debate is over — not because you’re right, but because willful ignorance can’t be equitably dealt with. Get your act together.

I wouldn’t offer a defence for him. He’s adult enough to understand when whatever he has been taught is not cogent

you’re projecting.

For obvious instance, he says that ‘Lord’ is a substitute for ‘God’... hold on.. did he ever use the word ‘Substitute’?? Do you see what I’m talking about... PEDANTRY... An honest person would accept ‘Substitute’ for ‘Interchangeable’ but sojourner would play on pedantry to claim he didn’t say that ‘Lord’ was a SUBSTITUTE for ‘God’... he only said ‘Lord’ was INTERCHANGEABLE with ‘God’... and you know this is just to draw the controversy and his wrongness away from the highlight of being wrong, misinformed, in ignorance, arrogance, or just plain disingenuousness!

See above.

Deliberate and purposeful misdirection is not worthy of a defence of ignorance and was-subjected-to-false-teaching.

See above.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm... I’d like to say that I’ve written EXTENSIVELY about this in several of my posts - so I’m amazed that you are asking!

I don’t copy/paste my text (only scripture quotes) so can I suggest you read back a few posts to see what I’ve said. If you don’t wish to do this then please ask me again to state it...

Badically:

• God created a man, Adam, to oversee his great creation: the physical world and an ecological system of living plants, animals, insects, microbes, bacteria... that perfectly cycle the system
• Adam’s body was created from the ‘dust of the earth’ (inert chemical material: atoms and molecules)
• This body was not ‘living’ until it was enlivened when God ‘blew the breath of life into [the body]’ by means of God’s Holy Spirit... ‘and the man became a LIVING SOUL’
• This man, this living soul, knew no sin in its holiness and the man dutifully followed the spirit of God in all his ways: attribution and definition of ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38 and Romans 8:14)
• But Adam, the man, was tempted to sin and fell away from being ‘son of God’. God was angry and desired to destroy mankind he had created. But relented saying that IF ANOTHER HOLY SON could be found and GIVE HIS PURE AND HOLY BLOOD in sacrifice then this would stone for the sin of Adam: a SECOND Adam - a second Holy and sinless MAN ...
• Until such a man is found and fulfils the redemption requirements, ALL MANKIND IS CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DEATH because of the sin of Adam
• Given time, no such man was found so God put into action the CONTINGENCY he had proposed from the beginning: Salvation by the ‘SEED OF A WOMAN’...
• The egg of a woman is LIFELESS... Spiritually it is therefore SINLESS. Inert material cannot sin. In humanity, it is ENLIVENED by the [spiritually sinful] SPERM from a man. This is PROCREATION : Flesh from flesh... SPIRIT DOES NOT PROCREATE!!
• But the SEED OF THE WOMAN, Mary, was not enlivened by the sperm of a man.. it was enlivened by the holy spirit of almighty God:
  • “The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)
• This ‘overshadowing’ of the seed in Mary is the same as the ‘blew the breath of life into the [lifeless body] of the first man, Adam
• You will notice that Jesus is called, ‘The Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45). What does it mean to be an ‘Adam’. Well, clearly, in its raw state it is to be ‘Sinless and Holy’. And see that Jesus is also ‘Son of God’.. just as the FIRST ADAM WAS!!!
• God required the pure and holy blood of a pure and sinless and holy man... A ‘GOD’ coming down from Heaven pretending to be human cannot in any sense fulfil the requirements of Almighty God
• God would not save mankind by pretentiousness - that would not be righteous

And be it known, again, we need to STOP THINKING of the term ‘Son of God’ as some kind of personal label for Jesus. It is a GENERAL LABEL, a title, for ANYONE, for EVERYONE, in Spirit or flesh, who DOES THE WORKS OF THE FATHER.

As stated previously, the first Adam DID follow the Spirit of God, do the works of the Father... until he sinned by falling to temptation. Adam was rightly stated as being (initially) ‘Son of God’.

Likewise, the holy and heavenly Angels are called, ‘Son of God’ because they absolutely follow and do all things that the Father commands them to do.

Notice that these SPIRIT sons of God are CREATIONS of God... Adam was a FLESH CREATION of God. The Second/Last Adam was ALSO A FLESH CREATION of God.

The trinitarian viewpoint is tortuous in that it cannot answer how or why Jesus, as they say he is almighty God, is REWARDED with the rulership over creation... Surely a reward of kingship over a physical world that is so so so greatly LIMITED in contrast to limitless Heaven, is a DEMOTION from what he already ruled over... there is no sense in Jesus’ rulership in the seat of his forefather, King David.

Now if Jesus is a fleshly MAN, then rulership over fleshly creation is absolutely the greatest REWARD for his achievements and sacrifice - even under the greatest temptation of acquiring the rulership by worshipping Satan and thus avoiding the penalty of DEATH (a sinless man dying is beyond thought - death is a given in sinful flesh!!)

As a last, I would caution every reader in trusting in verses in scriptures that APPEAR to claim that Jesus ‘Came down from Heaven’... these are FALSE VERSES devised or modified by the trinitarian translators who were ORDERED to change passages to BETTER make it appear that trinity was ensconced in the scriptures. You can EASILY counter these verses by reference to AT LEAST TWO OTHER verses that state nothing like that. For instance:
- ‘no one has gone up to heaven who did not first descend from heaven’
This is false... the verse is speaking of no one going into heaven who did not first DIE... who did not first go to the GRAVE.
We know this because Jesus FIRST DIED before he ascending into Heaven... Why would it speak of PEOPLE ‘coming down from Heaven’ if it was only really meant to say, ‘Jesus’? Otherwise there must have been MORE than one coming down... but no! It meant ‘Descend into the grave’: ‘to die’!!

Also, Jesus ONLY claimed he was ‘GOING TO THE FATHER...’. He did not say he was ‘Going BACK to the Father’.

Many times it is said that Jesus was ‘SENT [from God] / [from the Father]’. Do not be fooled. This is NOT ‘Sent from Heaven’... it means ‘Sent into the WORLD’ (sent to “OPPOSE EVIL”). Note that Jesus was only SENT after he was BAPTISED with the Holy Spirit of God : Anointed with the ‘Oil of Gladness’. This anointing made him ‘Christ’...

• “God made this Jesus TO BE both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)

All things that are Jesus are given to him by GOD. He was APPOINTED to be Christ. Isaiah 42:1 says it absolutely:

• "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.”
  
• “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased” ...

And, “Today I have become to him, a Father, and he has become to me, a Son”. What do you read and infer from this verse: Yes, it’s an ADOPTION STATEMENT.

Note also that Jesus did nothing of miraculousness UNTIL AFTER he was anointed and tested in the wilderness. And passed the test... AFTER THAT he was SENT BY GOD ‘To do good’ in the world. As Jesus says to the disciples AFTER their ‘Anointing with Holy Spirit’:

• “Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:21-22)
• “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:18)

Oh... so much more.., I can’t stop writing... ask me more, please!!

This is the biggest load of insubstantial theological horse crap I’ve seen in a while, supported only by conspiracy theory that the parts of the Bible refuting it are wrong because translators were forced to bend to some unnamed agenda.

‘Nuff said about your posts and your agenda. We’re done here. One can’t deal with willful ignorance such as is displayed in your posts. It’s just so much theological balloon juice masquerading as actual fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

In fact, the story is told in order to show equity — that a younger son would inherit. It evens the playing field.


See above. I’m afraid it’s you who are redefining “equal.”


More twisting and misdirection on your part.

“Defining” God isn’t the issue. Putting forth theological propositions about God is the issue. This is simply more of your twisting and misdirection — seems to be your favorite ploy in debate to make yourself seem knowledgeable, when you’re really not at all.

See above. More twisting and deceit. I wonder what Biblical character it is who engages in those tactics?


See above.
I was taught by scholars — not necessarily seminarians. That being said, if you insist on falling into the childish game of dismissing scholarship, this debate is over — not because you’re right, but because willful ignorance can’t be equitably dealt with. Get your act together.

you’re projecting.


See above.

See above.

Not all scholars agree.

 

[YoursTrue]

In fact, the story is told in order to show equity — that a younger son would inherit. It evens the playing field.

The playing field? Yes, thanks for conversation.

 

[sojourner]

Not all scholars agree.

No, they don’t, which just goes to show that we don’t have either the information or the perspective to define God. Scholars know that. That’s why theology is about propositions and not definitions. Scholars know that there are any number of theological constructions that are legitimate. Some here are blithely unaware of these facts and pass uninformed and unnecessary judgment upon constructions they neither like nor understand. They treat them as ontological proofs instead of what they are: theological propositions. Then they pass judgment on those who deign to disagree with their petty “analyses” of constructions they’re not prepared to deal with on any rational level.

For one who is neither a scholar nor a theologian to masquerade as a pundit with regard to Biblical and theological matters robs communities like this one of information and the freedom to question and expand sensibilities.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they don’t, which just goes to show that we don’t have either the information or the perspective to define God. Scholars know that. That’s why theology is about propositions and not definitions. Scholars know that there are any number of theological constructions that are legitimate. Some here are blithely unaware of these facts and pass uninformed and unnecessary judgment upon constructions they neither like nor understand. They treat them as ontological proofs instead of what they are: theological propositions. Then they pass judgment on those who deign to disagree with their petty “analyses” of constructions they’re not prepared to deal with on any rational level.

For one who is neither a scholar nor a theologian to masquerade as a pundit with regard to Biblical and theological matters robs communities like this one of information and the freedom to question and expand sensibilities.

I can look into things, read commentaries, see what others are saying and check my viewpoint. You say theology is about propositions and not definitions. As I said, I may look at definition of "Most High." (I'm allowed, am I not, to look at definitions of word and do my own pursuit if I desire?)
"Most High" generally means topmost as to place or position. The Hebrew word (elyon) is used with reference to Jehovah as “Most High,” but is also applied to other persons or things: For example, the Messianic King Christ Jesus is above other earthly kings. I hope you agree with that. Psalm 89:20 and 27 help to understand this. Verse 20: "I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him." and verse 27 says, ""I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth." While there are kings, they are not all equal because verse 27 says of the firstborn that he will be the highest of the kings of the earth. This is also relating to the usage of "Most High" in Hebrew (elyon).

 

[Soapy]

I'm asking how you understand Jesus statement at John 17:5. .
"And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed." What does that mean to you?

I’m sorry, did I not answer this already? Were you not satisfied with what I wrote in near fullness?

I see you SPECIFICALLY want to know what it means to me. I do t understand why my answer hasn’t satisfied you.

But I’m always happy to answer because it is my duty to do so.

• Jesus, in a previous verse, stated that he had completed the works that is Father had given him to do...
• He knew that Glory was awaiting the one who completed this work...
• He asked the Father to glorify him with that glory

That’s it! That’s what it means to me.
———————————————

Now that should raise a load of questions from you but I think I have already answered them:

1. What GLORY did Jesus have WITH the Father?
2. If Jesus was therefore pre-existent, how did he LOSE THE GLORY he had with the Father? (you define this is 1) above
3. What exactly DID Jesus do while in heaven before the world was?
4. Where is this written in the Old Testament scriptures?
5. Jesus is not described as ‘God’ in the Old Testament - not even an Angel... so WHAT WAS JESUS’ personage and position WITH GOD?
6. Certainly, God gave NO GLORY TO ANY OTHER ... and stated that there was Not other [God] beside him’... GOD’s glory was ALL GOD’s OWN, he says
7. Certainly, the GLORY WAS WITH GOD. It was with God to GIVE TO HIM WHO ACHIEVED... in fact we read that Jesus asked that the Apostles (all believers?) should SHARE IN THAT SAME GLORY
8. And we know that Jesus, finally, achieved the glory of being SEATED ATTHE RIGHT HAND NEXT TO GOD in Heaven (the seat of glory is the right hand seat... nothing is said about the left hand seat!)

I hope you see now that John 17:5 makes no sense as it is written - it has no scriptural support and presents difficulties of reason.

There is only one outlet for it and that is trinitarianistic pre-existence of Jesus. But under even feeble examination that can also be proved completely problematic:

• If Jesus were tri-person God in heaven then where is the third person he ALSO had glory with?
• If Jesus were God in heaven then how did he lose the glory - given that God is IMMUTABLE?
• How could ONE PART of a co-equal Godship RECEIVE GLORY from another - like with sojourner, doesn’t that destroy the definitions of ‘EQUAL’ and ‘Co-Equal’?
• If Jesus were 100% God in heaven and 100% man on earth, YET STILL GOD 100% at the same time... YET didn’t know certain necessary things... oh dear!!!!!
• When this God-man was taken up to heaven, did he RESUME his god-position? Doesn’t seem like it - certainly not a Couple-equal’ position.., in fact Jesus was MADE to be ‘Lord and Messiah’ - which IS NOT ‘God’? And GIVEN Power and Authority to rule for a thousand years... after which that power and authority he HANDED BACK TO GOD... so he was ONLY GOD FOR A WHILE? A TRUE GOD doesn’t change... a true God ‘Just is’ (“I AM”: YHWH)

But I guess you know all this. So, please, what do you think now?

 

[Soapy]

This is the biggest load of insubstantial theological horse crap I’ve seen in a while, supported only by conspiracy theory that the parts of the Bible refuting it are wrong because translators were forced to bend to some unnamed agenda.

‘Nuff said about your posts and your agenda. We’re done here. One can’t deal with willful ignorance such as is displayed in your posts. It’s just so much theological balloon juice masquerading as actual fact.

Hark the heralds, Angels sing
Boohoo to the losing king
Throw you crown upon the floor
You’ve been outed - say no more!

Sojourner, it would help matters a lot if you could only express what exactly your doctrine is and what you are defending rather than just be dismissive of what I’m saying to you.

All your responses are just, ‘Ain’t true’, ‘you’re lying’, ‘you twisted what I said’ (PARAPHRASED ALL)

Why don’t YOU say what you mean??

You keep showing us that you hold to them doctrine’ but under scrutiny you claim you DON’T hold to the doctrine... which is it?

Show me a DOCTRINE that you believe in (or not believe in...!) so I know what you are talking about... how about that, eh?

 

[Soapy]

I can look into things, read commentaries, see what others are saying and check my viewpoint. You say theology is about propositions and not definitions. As I said, I may look at definition of "Most High." (I'm allowed, am I not, to look at definitions of word and do my own pursuit if I desire?)
"Most High" generally means topmost as to place or position. The Hebrew word (elyon) is used with reference to Jehovah as “Most High,” but is also applied to other persons or things: For example, the Messianic King Christ Jesus is above other earthly kings. I hope you agree with that. Psalm 89:20 and 27 help to understand this. Verse 20: "I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him." and verse 27 says, ""I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth." While there are kings, they are not all equal because verse 27 says of the firstborn that he will be the highest of the kings of the earth. This is also relating to the usage of "Most High" in Hebrew (elyon).

I think I might have started this request for sojourner to ‘define “God”’... but what I was asking for was the definition of the WORD (or term), “God”.

I was CERTAINLY NOT asking for a definition of the ALMIGHTY GOD: YHWH: The Father...

It seems to me that sojourner is obfuscating... he knows that to define the WORD, ‘God’ WOULD present deep difficulties so he claims that “God” cannot he ‘fully’ defined.

I once asked a child to layout his family chart... I even spoke to him about his family (it’s ok, I know the child, and it wasn’t private - it was an exercise!). He said he couldn’t do it ... i was surprised because I thought it was an excellent way to find out about relatives he KNEW OF but hadn’t dialogued with despite their local proximity to each other. However, on further requests, it turns out his reason for not being ‘able to do it’ was that... He didn’t know ALL his relatives!!!!

He wouldn’t start laying out the chart because he thought he needed to know EVERYONE first????

Sojourner doesn’t need to know ALL DEFINITIONS of GOD in order to present a definition of GOD...

The child was AFRAID of exposing his ignorance of his family tree even though they were close cousins, etc.

But why is sojourner not answering to the definition of the word or term, ‘God’... why hasn’t he changed the question to attempt at defining OUR GOD (or HIS TRI-PERSON GOD) and then saying it isn’t possible...

Isn’t it HE who is changing position of the football posts and then refusing to acknowledge the goal?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think I might have started this request for sojourner to ‘define “God”’... but what I was asking for was the definition of the WORD (or term), “God”.

I was CERTAINLY NOT asking for a definition of the ALMIGHTY GOD: YHWH: The Father...

It seems to me that sojourner is obfuscating... he knows that to define the WORD, ‘God’ WOULD present deep difficulties so he claims that “God” cannot he ‘fully’ defined.

I once asked a child to layout his family chart... I even spoke to him about his family (it’s ok, I know the child, and it wasn’t private - it was an exercise!). He said he couldn’t do it ... i was surprised because I thought it was an excellent way to find out about relatives he KNEW OF but hadn’t dialogued with despite their local proximity to each other. However, on further requests, it turns out his reason for not being ‘able to do it’ was that... He didn’t know ALL his relatives!!!!

He wouldn’t start laying out the chart because he thought he needed to know EVERYONE first????

Sojourner doesn’t need to know ALL DEFINITIONS of GOD in order to present a definition of GOD...

The child was AFRAID of exposing his ignorance of his family tree even though they were close cousins, etc.

But why is sojourner not answering to the definition of the word or term, ‘God’... why hasn’t he changed the question to attempt at defining OUR GOD (or HIS TRI-PERSON GOD) and then saying it isn’t possible...

Isn’t it HE who is changing position of the football posts and then refusing to acknowledge the goal?

Here's what I think, and sojourner can correct me if I'm wrong. Sojourner has apparently studied with scholars who promote the trinity theory. and feels there is justification for it. Some also feel there is no justification to disagree with that theory, and that's where I'm going to leave it for now. Thanks and have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m sorry, did I not answer this already? Were you not satisfied with what I wrote in near fullness?

I see you SPECIFICALLY want to know what it means to me. I do t understand why my answer hasn’t satisfied you.

But I’m always happy to answer because it is my duty to do so.

• Jesus, in a previous verse, stated that he had completed the works that is Father had given him to do...
• He knew that Glory was awaiting the one who completed this work...
• He asked the Father to glorify him with that glory

That’s it! That’s what it means to me.
———————————————

Now that should raise a load of questions from you but I think I have already answered them:

1. What GLORY did Jesus have WITH the Father?
2. If Jesus was therefore pre-existent, how did he LOSE THE GLORY he had with the Father? (you define this is 1) above
3. What exactly DID Jesus do while in heaven before the world was?
4. Where is this written in the Old Testament scriptures?
5. Jesus is not described as ‘God’ in the Old Testament - not even an Angel... so WHAT WAS JESUS’ personage and position WITH GOD?
6. Certainly, God gave NO GLORY TO ANY OTHER ... and stated that there was Not other [God] beside him’... GOD’s glory was ALL GOD’s OWN, he says
7. Certainly, the GLORY WAS WITH GOD. It was with God to GIVE TO HIM WHO ACHIEVED... in fact we read that Jesus asked that the Apostles (all believers?) should SHARE IN THAT SAME GLORY
8. And we know that Jesus, finally, achieved the glory of being SEATED ATTHE RIGHT HAND NEXT TO GOD in Heaven (the seat of glory is the right hand seat... nothing is said about the left hand seat!)

I hope you see now that John 17:5 makes no sense as it is written - it has no scriptural support and presents difficulties of reason.

There is only one outlet for it and that is trinitarianistic pre-existence of Jesus. But under even feeble examination that can also be proved completely problematic:

• If Jesus were tri-person God in heaven then where is the third person he ALSO had glory with?
• If Jesus were God in heaven then how did he lose the glory - given that God is IMMUTABLE?
• How could ONE PART of a co-equal Godship RECEIVE GLORY from another - like with sojourner, doesn’t that destroy the definitions of ‘EQUAL’ and ‘Co-Equal’?
• If Jesus were 100% God in heaven and 100% man on earth, YET STILL GOD 100% at the same time... YET didn’t know certain necessary things... oh dear!!!!!
• When this God-man was taken up to heaven, did he RESUME his god-position? Doesn’t seem like it - certainly not a Couple-equal’ position.., in fact Jesus was MADE to be ‘Lord and Messiah’ - which IS NOT ‘God’? And GIVEN Power and Authority to rule for a thousand years... after which that power and authority he HANDED BACK TO GOD... so he was ONLY GOD FOR A WHILE? A TRUE GOD doesn’t change... a true God ‘Just is’ (“I AM”: YHWH)

But I guess you know all this. So, please, what do you think now?

I think you believe that Jesus was not in heaven as a spirit person before he came to the earth.

 

[Soapy]

I think you believe that Jesus was not in heaven as a spirit person before he came to the earth.

I think that’s what I’ve been saying throughout ALL my posts from day one till now with no change or modifications. It’s strange that with all my extensive posts in detail, you have not picked up on that.

Even the Apostles stated that Jesus was ‘Man’ and made no allusion to anything to do with ‘being in Heaven from before time’.

I wonder if you are JW? I know JW believe Jesus was an Angel in Heaven next to God... but you need to consider that SATAN (or the Angel that came to be named so - actually, ‘Satan’ is a TITLE but we’ll run with as is!) is described as the most beautiful and most powerful and intelligent of all God’s angels... so much so that Satan felt HE TOO should be worshipped by mankind ... the start of his downfall.

So then you ask, if Satan is mentioned in the O.T., why is the (second?) greatest Angel NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.

Now, some people claim Jesus was the ‘ANGEL OF THE LORD’ mentioned a few times but close examination does not hold up such a theory. I know also that JW think Jesus was MICHAEL the ArchAngel but that doesn’t work either.. when it’s said that Jesus will return WITH AN ARCHANGEL’s cry you need to note that you don’t describe someone as having an archangel’s cry IF THEY ARE AN ARCHANGEL... the accolade refers to ANOTHER who has a cry and shout LIKE THAT OF AN ARCHANGEL.

So once again, nothing in scriptures, old or New Testament, proclaims Jesus as having pre-existence. All the ATTEMPTS to make Jesus appears so are found groundless or with false evidence: Trinitarians are the worse culprits. JW are simply mistaken.

The truth is that the child that was born as per the prophesies was ANOTHER ADAM... born in the same manner as the first:

• The dust of the earth for Adam’s body is equivalent to the inert egg of the Virgin
• The holy spirit of God enlivened the dust/egg body
• Both Adam and Jesus are called ‘Son of God’
• Both were holy and sinless (Adam, at least up until he sinned)
• Jesus is called ‘The Last Adam’... ‘Adam’ was originally ‘sinless and holy IMAGE OF GOD’
• Jesus is described as ‘Image of God’... just as Adam WAS!!!
• The point and purpose of the ‘First Man’ was that he would be ‘The Father of all mankind’
• Adam sinned and lost his place because now all mankind is sinful in the flesh
• Jesus WILL BECOME the new ‘Father of’ the new SINLESS MAN after the judgement at the end of time. This is an ETERNAL FATHERSHIP so Jesus is rightly prophesied as SHALL BE ‘ETERNAL FATHER’
• And the Father is HEAD of his household... KING AND RULER of his PHYSICAL realm
• IT MAKES NO SENSE that a SPIRIT PERSON should be ruler over a physical realm... I don’t mean like God is ruler over us because God is ruler over ALL THINGS physical and spiritual but that God has appointed ‘this man Jesus that you know to be both Lord and Christ... to be his High Priest and be King over his creation...
• For any pre-existent Jesus this WOULD mean a DEMOTION from Heavenly status to head of humanity...
  • Heavenly status BEATS head of humanity hands down!!!!
• But if Jesus is man in flesh then became HEAD OF MANKIND ... wow... now that is a worthy Glory!!!

 

[Soapy]

Here's what I think, and sojourner can correct me if I'm wrong. Sojourner has apparently studied with scholars who promote the trinity theory. and feels there is justification for it. Some also feel there is no justification to disagree with that theory, and that's where I'm going to leave it for now. Thanks and have a good evening.

Im confused... why are you debating with sojourner if this is your stance?

Are you just filling up your time or wanting to get to the truth of scriptures..?

You obviously don’t believe in trinity but are floundering in exactly what you do believe. I saw you move towards the truth previously but you appear to be trying NOT TO UPSET sojourner by offering hi excuses for his clearly unscriptural ideology which he cannot even define for our debate purposes.

And remember that is is a DEBATE thread - not a DISCUSSION thread!! You don’t feel ‘sorry’ for your antagonist in a DEBATE!