Jesus - First Born?

[blü 2]

I believe that the gospels, all four gospels, portray one Jesus. The synoptic (to veiw together) gospels, Matt., Mark, and Luke share a similar view of the Lord's life and contain much overlapping information in their narrative accounts of the life of Jesus whereas John presents a unique and independent view of Christ as the Son of God with less of its material paralleled in any of the Synoptics.

There is a fourfold pattern or paradigm in presented in these gospels - In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a King; in Mark - he is portrayed as a servant, in Luke - he is portrayed as man; and in John - he is portrayed as a Son. These terms or portrayals of the Messiah are reflected in OT depictions of the "Branch" from the OT.

I respect your right to believe as seems best to you, but this is a debate forum, so I feel free to make the point ─ none of your comments address the fact that there is an incompatible variety of Jesuses in the NT. It's clear from the scholarship that Mark is the first gospel written ─ indeed, you only have to consider it to see how everything falls into place around it. Internal evidence dates it to around 75 CE, better than 40 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, and like all NT authors, the author of Mark never met an historical Jesus, so he's writing down and arranging his personal understanding of the stories. A decade or so later come Matthew and Luke, and two decades or so later John. There are four distinct traditions there, though Matthew and Luke show the closest similarity (and who knows how many other traditions never got written down?)

And Mark's human Jesus is the starting point and template for the magical Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, giving us the synoptics, and John is last and most distinct.

From my point of view the gospels are interesting documents about a character, an apocalypse-conscious time in history, and a sales program that captured popular appeal among pagans, which Paul saw more clearly than the conservative Jewish wing, apparently led by James.

To try to blend dissimilar records of history into a forced narrative, however desired, is anathema to me. I appreciate that from a Christian perspective that view is bad for sales (so Paul would never agree with me).

 

[Soapy]

In timelessness there is no "before". The life that the Son has comes from His Father.

The life that the Son has comes from the Father…

Yes! The Son is born from God, who is the Father:

• “The Spirit of the Father will overshadow you [the Virgin Mary] and therefore child to be born WILL BE CALLED ‘the Son of the God Most High’”

And this ‘Son of [God]’ is signified in many verses including this one:

• “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:2)

which tallies with:

• “Here is my Servant in whom I delight; My Chosen One on whom I will put my Spirit and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isaiah 42:1)

which, itself tallies with:

• ‘And I myself [John the Baptist] did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” (John 1:33-34)

Be careful here with this last statement: It is ALMIGHTY GOD who calls Jesus ‘The Man’. We may argue over words claimed to be said or not said or misinterpreted or modified BY Jesus but be ever so timid where it is GOD whose words are put to the test. Remember that there is a sin that is unforgivable.

I was (re-)reading about how the trinitarian church forced the great scientist, Galileo Galilei, to recant his claim that the Earth was not the centre of the universe but rather the heavens were Solar-Centric‘ - as also claimed by Copernicus. The trinitarian church had to set out an apology for its grave error and mistreatment of those who supported what the church called, a Heretical belief’, and Galileo specifically.
When will the church realise that its ‘Jesus-is-God’ rhetoric is as wrong as its claims against Galileo? That GOD; The Father, and He alone, is the centre of our worship as His ‘Chosen One’ on whom He put His Spirit, Jesus Christ, told us:

• “Worship the Father and to Him alone show sacred service”

 

[Brian2]

I believe that Jesus is the bread that came from God:

• ‘The bread of God is he who comes from God and gives life to the world’

God sent Jesus to be the giver of life to those who were in spiritual hunger.

Your argument is that Jesus IS GOD who was SENT BY GOD from Heaven.

You cherrypick when you want Jesus to be God and when you don’t want him to be God. In another place you say that Jesus - who you imply is God in Heaven - might have been anointed to become Christ while in Heaven and then came to be born on earth as a man.
Well, what nonsense that is.

The pre human Jesus was the Son of God who was sent by His Father as Christ to earth from heaven. When He was born He was already Christ and Lord. (Luke 2:9)

 

[Brian2]

I’m glad you are starting to see that the book of John is attempting to set a stage but has made grievous errors in its attempt.

But, Brian2, there are plenty more errors in the book of John - which is why this book has ALWAYS BEEN ‘standout different’.. something not quite right!!

Yes I know you have to deny parts of the Bible in your belief system, or you would not have those beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

The Jews of that time would have understood it to mean "plan" or "purpose" - that plan put forth in Gen. 3:15---a "seed" of a woman who would destroy the works of the Devil. This plan of God for the salvation of man finally “became flesh” in Jesus Christ.

That plan was/is the Son of God who was alive with God in heaven and came to earth to be a man and etc.

 

[Brian2]

When will the church realise that its ‘Jesus-is-God’ rhetoric is as wrong as its claims against Galileo? That GOD; The Father, and He alone, is the centre of our worship as His ‘Chosen One’ on whom He put His Spirit, Jesus Christ, told us:

• “Worship the Father and to Him alone show sacred service”

Careful about misquoting.

 

[Soapy]

The pre human Jesus was the Son of God who was sent by His Father as Christ to earth from heaven. When He was born He was already Christ and Lord. (Luke 2:9)

There’s no such thing as a ‘Pre-Human’ Jesus, EXCEPT as @AmazingGrace says, and the scriptures state, God PRE-DESTINED him to be the Messiah, the prophesied ‘SEED OF A WOMAN’.

 

[Soapy]

Careful about misquoting.

Careful about misquoting.

God told John the Baptist that the MAN on whom the spirit descends upon will be he who baptizes with the Sacred Spirit.

John says that he believes that man is God’s chosen one. The ‘Chosen One’ GOD mentioned being His ‘Servant’ (Isaiah 42:1). God said He would put his spirit upon that Servant and as a result that Chosen One would do great deeds.

You are saying that the Chosen One was God, himself. How does that work? God declares himself as His own chosen Servant and puts His Holy Spirit upon Himself???

Then God is supposed to have declared that He is pleased with Himself!!!

 

[Brian2]

(sigh) being "one thing" - God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God. Yes, we are all members, individually, in one body - if there are fifty members - there are fifty individuals - not one individual; i.e. "NOT ONE THING". Your arm is part of your singular body and your leg is part of your singular body but your arm is not your leg nor your leg your arm.

(sigh) One body is one thing. We are distinct and we are united as one. Both are true.

I believe that Adam was part of a creation that God declared to be "very good". His "seed" therefore was perfectly designed to reproduce "fruit after its kind" making Adam "genetically flawless". But by his action of sinning, all their offspring would carry that "imperfection" of a "sin nature". (Romans 5:12) So, if Jesus was born of a man and woman, he would have carried that "sin nature". As the First Adam was in the beginning, the Last Adam, to be the Redeemer of mankind, would have to start with a sinless nature, i.e. without the sin nature.

I don't think that our genetics is what causes us to sin or that Jesus needed flawless genetics in order not to sin.

I see no definite article in the phrases: was with God and was God in the KJV or ESV.
The word - the plan and purpose of God was with God and was God - that word became flesh in and through the Son of God, Jesus Christ - the Living Word of God, who came from God and was sent by God via conception and birth. I don't believe that I have ever seen the expression "Son of the God" . . . .

We do see things like Heb 1 where we read things about the Son.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
And there are many other things about the Son and what God has said about Him.
In John 1:1 it reads. "In the beginning was THE Word and THE Word was with THE God, and THE Word was God.
I have read that "THE Word" shows that this Word was a person and not just a thing, and this is reinforced with John 1:4 "In Him was life". He was alive, the living Word.

Mary is the mother of Jesus of Nazareth who was conceived via the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High - God's creative power.

The Holy Spirit had to do a physical adjustment to fertilise the egg of Mary. The Word however came from heaven, as we are told, and became a man.

"become" or "has become" is supplied from the context. The first human, Adam, “became” a living soul when God took his body that was formed from the ground and breathed life into it - Here in 1 Cor 15:45, Jesus Christ has become a “life-giving spirit.” When God raised Jesus from the dead, the “last Adam” had a spirit-powered body and the authority to give eternal life to people.

1Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The context is the resurrection and that we bear the image of the first adam and will bear the image of the last adam. The natural first and then the spiritual.
In the Greek there is nothing that says "the last Adam became"
That word is not there. It is just saying whose image we will have, the image of the man who came from heaven.
But I suppose it is fine to see Jesus now as a life giving Spirit, which He is, BUT also realise that He has a glorified and immortal body of flesh and bone. (so "became" is probably acceptable in the translation even if it is not in the Greek.

 

[Brian2]

There’s no such thing as a ‘Pre-Human’ Jesus, EXCEPT as @AmazingGrace says, and the scriptures state, God PRE-DESTINED him to be the Messiah, the prophesied ‘SEED OF A WOMAN’.

Yes the pre human Jesus was pre destined to be the Messiah.

 

[Brian2]

You are saying that the Chosen One was God, himself. How does that work? God declares himself as His own chosen Servant and puts His Holy Spirit upon Himself???

Then God is supposed to have declared that He is pleased with Himself!!!

You keep misrepresenting what I am saying.
You deny parts of the Bible, saying they are not God's Word but just additions by trinitarians.
Then you mock what I say by misrepresenting it as if you have not been corrected 1000 times about those things.

 

[Soapy]

You keep misrepresenting what I am saying.
You deny parts of the Bible, saying they are not God's Word but just additions by trinitarians.
Then you mock what I say by misrepresenting it as if you have not been corrected 1000 times about those things.

No Brian2, it is you just realising the truth of what you are saying. There’s no misrepresentation: You says Jesus is God… when I show you how ridiculous that is you claim I’m misrepresenting what you said.

You even say that Jesus is a man in heaven - while being God - at the right hand of God?

The martyr, Stephen, looking in vision into Heaven, saw GOD seated on His throne and Jesus STANDING at His right hand.

What do you say to that?

Paul, taken up to Heaven in vision, saw ‘He who sat on the throne’ presenting a scroll to Jesus, a Lamb looking as though slaughtered! And this lamb is standing among other humans - the 24 glorified Elders.

Daniel, in a night vision, saw ‘One like the Son of Man’ being brought before ‘The Ancient of Days’.
If your Jesus-God is eternal from before creation then he, too, should be an ‘ancient of days’… but he is not - He is presented as a glorified human Being.

What do you say to that?

 

[amazing grace]

I respect your right to believe as seems best to you, but this is a debate forum, so I feel free to make the point ─ none of your comments address the fact that there is an incompatible variety of Jesuses in the NT. It's clear from the scholarship that Mark is the first gospel written ─ indeed, you only have to consider it to see how everything falls into place around it. Internal evidence dates it to around 75 CE, better than 40 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, and like all NT authors, the author of Mark never met an historical Jesus, so he's writing down and arranging his personal understanding of the stories. A decade or so later come Matthew and Luke, and two decades or so later John. There are four distinct traditions there, though Matthew and Luke show the closest similarity (and who knows how many other traditions never got written down?)

And Mark's human Jesus is the starting point and template for the magical Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, giving us the synoptics, and John is last and most distinct.

From my point of view the gospels are interesting documents about a character, an apocalypse-conscious time in history, and a sales program that captured popular appeal among pagans, which Paul saw more clearly than the conservative Jewish wing, apparently led by James.

To try to blend dissimilar records of history into a forced narrative, however desired, is anathema to me. I appreciate that from a Christian perspective that view is bad for sales (so Paul would never agree with me).

Thank you and I also respect your right to believe as seems best to you. You were surely free to make your point as I was mine. I see one Jesus portrayed in different ways by different authors guided by the Spirit of God; aka the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your information.

 

[amazing grace]

(sigh) One body is one thing. We are distinct and we are united as one. Both are true.

The body of Christ is ONE with individual members who are distinct from one another, physically separate yet spiritually connected. The spiritual connection, i.e. being baptized in one Spirit" is what unites them in the ONE body of Christ yet they are still physically separate.

According to the Oxford Dictionary "distinct" means “recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type”, “physically separate”, “readily distinguishable by the senses”, and “so clearly apparent as to be unmistakable”. Merriam-Webster2 defines it as “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same : separate” and “presenting a clear unmistakable impression”.

And that is enough of hashing out what being ONE with another means.

I don't think that our genetics is what causes us to sin or that Jesus needed flawless genetics in order not to sin.

I don't think you are understanding what I mean so I will try to explain to the best of my ability. When I say "genetically flawless" or "genetically flawed", I am not speaking of DNA, chromosomes, etc. Adam's bloodline was genetically flawless - (he was created with no sin nature) and if he had not sinned, his genealogy would have remained genetically flawless, with no sin nature. But mankind's bloodline became "genetically flawed" as a result of Adam's sin - the sin nature was transferred from Adam to all humanity.

We do see things like Heb 1 where we read things about the Son.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
And there are many other things about the Son and what God has said about Him.
In John 1:1 it reads. "In the beginning was THE Word and THE Word was with THE God, and THE Word was God.
I have read that "THE Word" shows that this Word was a person and not just a thing, and this is reinforced with John 1:4 "In Him was life". He was alive, the living Word.

The questions would be: 1) the beginning of what? 2) What "world" is being created? the world at the beginning of all time as in the "heavens and the earth" that will eventually pass away or the "new heavens and earth" in which righteousness will dwell?
Again, the living word did not become the living word until "the word became flesh".
Which translation says "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God?

The Holy Spirit had to do a physical adjustment to fertilise the egg of Mary. The Word however came from heaven, as we are told, and became a man.

"had to do a physical adjustment to fertilize the egg of Mary" - what exactly does that mean? Why couldn't God through the power of His Spirit miraculously fertilize Mary's egg? Jesus came from heaven, came from God, sent by God via birth, as all humanity begins life. Although, Mary not knowing a man - God created what was necessary to unite with Mary's egg for fertilization and conception to take place. Jesus was actually God's Son.

1Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The context is the resurrection and that we bear the image of the first adam and will bear the image of the last adam. The natural first and then the spiritual.
In the Greek there is nothing that says "the last Adam became"
That word is not there. It is just saying whose image we will have, the image of the man who came from heaven.
But I suppose it is fine to see Jesus now as a life giving Spirit, which He is, BUT also realise that He has a glorified and immortal body of flesh and bone. (so "became" is probably acceptable in the translation even if it is not in the Greek.

KJV - The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. ESV - The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit - "was made" = "became" - both translations are correct. The Greek word for "was made" is ginomai meaning to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being; to become, be made. KJV shows that "was made" was added concerning the last Adam and it's just to complete and carry the thought through.

The first man was from the earth - created by God out of the dust of the ground
The second man is from heaven - from God, sent by God - created by God through conception and birth.
"as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven" - who are those who are of heaven but those who have believed in Jesus Christ, the Messiah and will be raised to eternal life
- just as we have born the image of the man of dust - flesh; we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven - Jesus now dwells at the right hand of God in his glorified resurrected body and we shall also bear his image when we receive our glorified resurrected body.

 

[amazing grace]

deleted double post

 

[Brian2]

The body of Christ is ONE with individual members who are distinct from one another, physically separate yet spiritually connected. The spiritual connection, i.e. being baptized in one Spirit" is what unites them in the ONE body of Christ yet they are still physically separate.

According to the Oxford Dictionary "distinct" means “recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type”, “physically separate”, “readily distinguishable by the senses”, and “so clearly apparent as to be unmistakable”. Merriam-Webster2 defines it as “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same : separate” and “presenting a clear unmistakable impression”.

And that is enough of hashing out what being ONE with another means.

The Father and Son are distinct and united as one thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and are in harmony.
The body of Christ are members who are distinct from each other and united in the one Spirit,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but have not reached the stage of complete harmony with each other.

I don't think you are understanding what I mean so I will try to explain to the best of my ability. When I say "genetically flawless" or "genetically flawed", I am not speaking of DNA, chromosomes, etc. Adam's bloodline was genetically flawless - (he was created with no sin nature) and if he had not sinned, his genealogy would have remained genetically flawless, with no sin nature. But mankind's bloodline became "genetically flawed" as a result of Adam's sin - the sin nature was transferred from Adam to all humanity.

Yes, but I don't see the problem as a physical one and so do not see any need for a genetically flawless Christ. He had the carnal nature from Mary and was able to overcome it.
I presume you are talking about some sort of original sin which leaves us vulnerable.

The questions would be: 1) the beginning of what? 2) What "world" is being created? the world at the beginning of all time as in the "heavens and the earth" that will eventually pass away or the "new heavens and earth" in which righteousness will dwell?
Again, the living word did not become the living word until "the word became flesh".
Which translation says "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God?

Heb 1:2 is speaking about the creation of this world. It is in the past tense, so the Son was there creating this world with the Father.
The living word had life in Him when He was there with the God in the beginning.
It is the Greek which has "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God". It does not translate to English that well but that is what it says.
The Son was with the God (the Father) and was God. The meaning of the last God is argued. The JW have "a god", many trinitarians say it means that the Word was God alongside "the God". Many say that it means that the Word was everything "the God " was. (similar to "the image of the invisible God" etc)

"had to do a physical adjustment to fertilize the egg of Mary" - what exactly does that mean? Why couldn't God through the power of His Spirit miraculously fertilize Mary's egg? Jesus came from heaven, came from God, sent by God via birth, as all humanity begins life. Although, Mary not knowing a man - God created what was necessary to unite with Mary's egg for fertilization and conception to take place. Jesus was actually God's Son.

The Spirit did miraculously fertilize the egg. That is what I was saying. That was the physical part and the spiritual part was putting the life of the Word into that fertilized egg.
But NO, all humanity does not begin life sent from God. The life of Adam came from the breathe of God. The life of Eve came from Adam. The life of all other humans came from the life of Adam and Eve being passed down to others.

KJV - The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. ESV - The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit - "was made" = "became" - both translations are correct. The Greek word for "was made" is ginomai meaning to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being; to become, be made. KJV shows that "was made" was added concerning the last Adam and it's just to complete and carry the thought through.

That is carrying one line of thought through but the more accurate line would be that Adam became a living soul and that Jesus was/is a life giving spirit and we have the image in the resurrection of Jesus, the man from heaven. The natural first and then the spiritual. That is the more accurate way to think of it since nothing in the Greek says that the second Adam became anything.

The first man was from the earth - created by God out of the dust of the ground
The second man is from heaven - from God, sent by God - created by God through conception and birth.
"as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven" - who are those who are of heaven but those who have believed in Jesus Christ, the Messiah and will be raised to eternal life

If the second man if from heaven, then the second man is from heaven.
You may as well say that the first man and everyone is from heaven-created by God from dirt (as the second Adam was and everyone's body is) and given life from God.
The first Adam and everyone else has life from God in your interpretation, so we are all from heaven, from God.

- just as we have born the image of the man of dust - flesh; we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven - Jesus now dwells at the right hand of God in his glorified resurrected body and we shall also bear his image when we receive our glorified resurrected body.

Our spirit has new life now and our mind is being transformed now but yes we wait for the resurrection to be perfected and receive the glorified resurrected body, the spiritual body, one that is controlled by our spirit.

 

[amazing grace]

The Father and Son are distinct and united as one thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and are in harmony.
The body of Christ are members who are distinct from each other and united in the one Spirit,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but have not reached the stage of complete harmony with each other.

The Father, i.e. is the one true God. Jesus Christ is not God nor God the Son nor God in the flesh but the Son of God.

Yes, but I don't see the problem as a physical one and so do not see any need for a genetically flawless Christ. He had the carnal nature from Mary and was able to overcome it.
I presume you are talking about some sort of original sin which leaves us vulnerable.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---15) For if many died through one man's trespass,, much more have thecgrace of God and the free gift by grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. . . 19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many shall be made righteous. - This is how we inherited the sin nature from Adam and is why Jesus could not come from normal procreation but was created by God perfect sinless bloodline and then He had to remain in perfect obedience to God his Father in order to ransom and reconcile mankind back to God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Adam, the first man screwed up and placed us under the judgment of death. Jesus Christ, the second man ransomed us from that judgment and gave us eternal life through belief in him.

Heb 1:2 is speaking about the creation of this world. It is in the past tense, so the Son was there creating this world with the Father.
The living word had life in Him when He was there with the God in the beginning.
It is the Greek which has "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God". It does not translate to English that well but that is what it says.
The Son was with the God (the Father) and was God. The meaning of the last God is argued. The JW have "a god", many trinitarians say it means that the Word was God alongside "the God". Many say that it means that the Word was everything "the God " was. (similar to "the image of the invisible God" etc)

I don't believe your understanding is correct.

The Spirit did miraculously fertilize the egg. That is what I was saying. That was the physical part and the spiritual part was putting the life of the Word into that fertilized egg.
But NO, all humanity does not begin life sent from God. The life of Adam came from the breathe of God. The life of Eve came from Adam. The life of all other humans came from the life of Adam and Eve being passed down to others.

Jesus was to come from "the seed if the woman" - in Genesis "seed produces after it's on kind". God miraculously supplied (created) what was needed for her to conceive. Jesus was conceived and born as a real complete human being - like his brothers in every respect.

That is carrying one line of thought through but the more accurate line would be that Adam became a living soul and that Jesus was/is a life giving spirit and we have the image in the resurrection of Jesus, the man from heaven. The natural first and then the spiritual. That is the more accurate way to think of it since nothing in the Greek says that the second Adam became anything.

It just has to do with proper grammar. Jesus did become a life giving spirit for he was sown a natural body and was raised a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:44) and because he is now a life giving spirit for he will raise us up, and as we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven; the man sent by God, the man who came from God.

If the second man if from heaven, then the second man is from heaven.
You may as well say that the first man and everyone is from heaven-created by God from dirt (as the second Adam was and everyone's body is) and given life from God.
The first Adam and everyone else has life from God in your interpretation, so we are all from heaven, from God.

Nope not close to what I said.

Our spirit has new life now and our mind is being transformed now but yes we wait for the resurrection to be perfected and receive the glorified resurrected body, the spiritual body, one that is controlled by our spirit.

Yes, we are a new creation through the new birth but we are not yet perfected and won't be until we have been resurrected and if alive when Christ returns, we will be transformed.

 

[Soapy]

The Father, i.e. is the one true God. Jesus Christ is not God nor God the Son nor God in the flesh but the Son of God.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---15) For if many died through one man's trespass,, much more have thecgrace of God and the free gift by grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. . . 19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many shall be made righteous. - This is how we inherited the sin nature from Adam and is why Jesus could not come from normal procreation but was created by God perfect sinless bloodline and then He had to remain in perfect obedience to God his Father in order to ransom and reconcile mankind back to God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Adam, the first man screwed up and placed us under the judgment of death. Jesus Christ, the second man ransomed us from that judgment and gave us eternal life through belief in him.

I don't believe your understanding is correct.

Jesus was to come from "the seed if the woman" - in Genesis "seed produces after it's on kind". God miraculously supplied (created) what was needed for her to conceive. Jesus was conceived and born as a real complete human being - like his brothers in every respect.

It just has to do with proper grammar. Jesus did become a life giving spirit for he was sown a natural body and was raised a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:44) and because he is now a life giving spirit for he will raise us up, and as we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven; the man sent by God, the man who came from God.

Nope not close to what I said.

Yes, we are a new creation through the new birth but we are not yet perfected and won't be until we have been resurrected and if alive when Christ returns, we will be transformed.

In general I like what I’m hearing from you - it’s quite refreshing to see truth posted in this forum instead of constant trinitarian fallacy or misrepresented ideologies.

There are a few additions I’d like to show you:

The pre human Jesus was the Son and as such was subject to the Father. He could have wanted to be on the same level of authority as His Father, but decided that He would do as His Father wanted and put aside what He did have, the equality with God that He did have already

That was evidently a ‘Brian2’ miscreation. If there is any truth in a trinity of co-equal entities then none can be greater or lesser than another (which again points at a trinity circular falseness!). But Brian2 clearly states that in his belief there was disparity between the Father and ‘the Son’… though scriptures in the Old Testament makes no reference to a ‘Son’ in existent with the Father before creation. The first mention of ‘Son’ is in reference to the created angels. It would be interesting to actually get an answer from a trinitarian, or Brian2 in any case, as to what ‘SON’ means in reference to the Spirit realm. And also what ‘Father’ means in the same regard as these are crucial definitions that have not been set out as yet. Brian2 says the Son is subordinate to the Father - which is true in both the Spirit, and the physical, realms: The angels of God are certainly in subordination to their creator: God… The Father… ‘He that gives life’, ‘He that brings into being’…!!!

Bear in mind, always, though, that each time a false ideology is corrected it gives the poster of the false ideology a heads up on where their false ideology is being exposed and therefore enables them to construct an alternate false ideology - sadly, maybe actually based on the truth which then makes it harder to see the new fallacy that is then expressed.

Keeping track of previous claims is the only way to point out ever changing false ideologies of posters but that’s quite difficult without putting in huge amounts of administrative effort.

Also, bear in mind that making a claim of a trinitarian false belief (ideology) to one trinitarian, can easily be dismissed as ‘Not my claim’ to another trinitarian. This constant ‘shifting Sands’ of trinity ideology is exactly why trinity has stood the waves of legitimate attacks on its body of false claims by believers - They just invent a new claim and ask you to believe the new one for that instance.

The Father, i.e. is the one true God. Jesus Christ is not God nor God the Son nor God in the flesh but the Son of God.

That is completely true.

The Father is ‘The One True God’. Jesus says we must worship ‘The one true God’ who is the Father, and to him only we must show sacred service. There is no other that we must worship so all claims that we must worship Jesus Christ are obvious deceptive claims that are aimed at undermining the God’s commands and Jesus’ statements.

But to those who claim that Jesus ‘accepted worship’, that is absolutely untrue. And this is a good way to show we must be alert to mistranslations and additions and subtractions (though how do we show a subtraction?) from the scriptures. In this case the word deliberately used when disciples or HONORERS of Jesus BOWED down to him IN PUBLIC is wrongly ‘Translated’ as ‘Worship’ when in fact it should properly be ‘OBEISANCE’. Obeisance is the bending of the knee, bowing down, in presentation before ONE OF MASTERLY worth. This would be such as a Priest, a great Teacher, a Judge, a King… and we know this happens a lot in the Old Testament as if was a natural way to greet a dignatory. If you think about it, the Jews were seeking ways to say Jesus had blasphemed and therefore they could stone him. What better thing than to report that Jesus had been ‘WORSHIPPED’ in deference to the fact that only God should be worshipped. Yet no action was taken as it was witnessed… why? Because it was not WORSHIP that was given to, nor received by, Jesus. As for the obvious trinity comeback: ‘Why didn’t Jesus refuse the WORSHIP’? It’s because it wasn’t worship!!
Why, when presented with this reality, why do Trinitarians continue to believe the mistranslation and the misinterpretations (yes, I do know why!)

Jesus was to come from "the seed [of] the woman" - in Genesis "seed produces after it's on kind". God miraculously supplied (created) what was needed for her to conceive. Jesus was conceived and born as a real complete human being - like his brothers in every respect.

Jesus was indeed a real human being but with a pure spirit straight from God by means of the Spirit of God. I say ‘Spirit of God’ since ‘Holy Spirit’ kind of distances the Spirit FROM GOD and feeds the trinitarian view that IT IS a separate person from God - that it is NOT the Father’s holy Spirit.

Every child conceived from his human parent carries a spiritually damaged, or SIN, SPIRIT through the Father’s sperm which is what GIVES LIFE to the egg in the woman.

Jesus’s life came from the pure SPIRIT (the Spirit of God) and therefore did not carry that defect. Trinitarians do not discuss what it means that ‘The Spirit of God will overshadow [her] and therefore THE CHILD TO BE BORN WILL BE HOLY… and called the Son of the God most high’.

‘Will be called’ - not ‘IS CALLED’. Trinitarians have s really bad habit of taking what is future and presenting it as present. You get this with claims of ‘Jesus on earth possesses all that the Father possesses’… NO! It was after Jesus died, was resurrected, raised up to Heaven, and seated next to God that God put all things into his hands - FOR A TIME… whereafter Jesus HANDS IT BACK…

Something that is held only for a period of time is not the full possession of the holder.

Why then did Joseph not remain ruler of Egypt even after the famine was over!!

Why then did Mordeciah not remain ruler of Persia even after the day of Purim?

Jesus’ possession for eternity is the created world - a rulership from the eternal throne of king David which Jesus occupies AT THE END OF the current time. The possession of all things by Jesus spoken of by Trinitarians is the Father’s kingdom - which includes Heaven. Hence Jesus judges all that is in the kingdom which includes angels. In the new world there are no angels in governmentship over the created world because Jesus and his ‘brothers, heirs also to God’ will do the administrative rulership over creation. God; the Father, Will and always does, rule over Heaven in the same way that though Joseph ruled Egypt FOR A TIME, Pharoah WAS STILL overall ruler… and king Xerxes did not stop being king even as Mordeciah ruled Persia FOR A TIME.

 

[amazing grace]

In general I like what I’m hearing from you - it’s quite refreshing to see truth posted in this forum instead of constant trinitarian fallacy or misrepresented ideologies.

There are a few additions I’d like to show you:

That was evidently a ‘Brian2’ miscreation. If there is any truth in a trinity of co-equal entities then none can be greater or lesser than another (which again points at a trinity circular falseness!). But Brian2 clearly states that in his belief there was disparity between the Father and ‘the Son’… though scriptures in the Old Testament makes no reference to a ‘Son’ in existent with the Father before creation. The first mention of ‘Son’ is in reference to the created angels. It would be interesting to actually get an answer from a trinitarian, or Brian2 in any case, as to what ‘SON’ means in reference to the Spirit realm. And also what ‘Father’ means in the same regard as these are crucial definitions that have not been set out as yet. Brian2 says the Son is subordinate to the Father - which is true in both the Spirit, and the physical, realms: The angels of God are certainly in subordination to their creator: God… The Father… ‘He that gives life’, ‘He that brings into being’…!!!

Bear in mind, always, though, that each time a false ideology is corrected it gives the poster of the false ideology a heads up on where their false ideology is being exposed and therefore enables them to construct an alternate false ideology - sadly, maybe actually based on the truth which then makes it harder to see the new fallacy that is then expressed.

Keeping track of previous claims is the only way to point out ever changing false ideologies of posters but that’s quite difficult without putting in huge amounts of administrative effort.

Also, bear in mind that making a claim of a trinitarian false belief (ideology) to one trinitarian, can easily be dismissed as ‘Not my claim’ to another trinitarian. This constant ‘shifting Sands’ of trinity ideology is exactly why trinity has stood the waves of legitimate attacks on its body of false claims by believers - They just invent a new claim and ask you to believe the new one for that instance.

Yes, I see it all the time - I can address a matter - it may or may not be directly addressed in return or another subject is brought up all together to deter the direction of the conversation. I also noticed that questions directed to them are hardly ever answered. But then again, this subject and debate has been going on for a long, long time! But people can only go as far as they have been taught and they don't understand that they devalue the concept of Jesus Christ placing him in the position of "God" - for nothing is impossible for God - so the accomplishments of Jesus' walk of righteousness are meaningless. But for a man to do what Jesus did is not only a great accomplishment worthy of everlasting merit, it also sets a legitimate standard for what we too can do as we follow his example of faith in his God.

That is completely true.

The Father is ‘The One True God’. Jesus says we must worship ‘The one true God’ who is the Father, and to him only we must show sacred service. There is no other that we must worship so all claims that we must worship Jesus Christ are obvious deceptive claims that are aimed at undermining the God’s commands and Jesus’ statements.

But to those who claim that Jesus ‘accepted worship’, that is absolutely untrue. And this is a good way to show we must be alert to mistranslations and additions and subtractions (though how do we show a subtraction?) from the scriptures. In this case the word deliberately used when disciples or HONORERS of Jesus BOWED down to him IN PUBLIC is wrongly ‘Translated’ as ‘Worship’ when in fact it should properly be ‘OBEISANCE’. Obeisance is the bending of the knee, bowing down, in presentation before ONE OF MASTERLY worth. This would be such as a Priest, a great Teacher, a Judge, a King… and we know this happens a lot in the Old Testament as if was a natural way to greet a dignatory. If you think about it, the Jews were seeking ways to say Jesus had blasphemed and therefore they could stone him. What better thing than to report that Jesus had been ‘WORSHIPPED’ in deference to the fact that only God should be worshipped. Yet no action was taken as it was witnessed… why? Because it was not WORSHIP that was given to, nor received by, Jesus. As for the obvious trinity comeback: ‘Why didn’t Jesus refuse the WORSHIP’? It’s because it wasn’t worship!!
Why, when presented with this reality, why do Trinitarians continue to believe the mistranslation and the misinterpretations (yes, I do know why!)

I agree with the concept of "worship" you have presented.

Jesus was indeed a real human being but with a pure spirit straight from God by means of the Spirit of God. I say ‘Spirit of God’ since ‘Holy Spirit’ kind of distances the Spirit FROM GOD and feeds the trinitarian view that IT IS a separate person from God - that it is NOT the Father’s holy Spirit.

Every child conceived from his human parent carries a spiritually damaged, or SIN, SPIRIT through the Father’s sperm which is what GIVES LIFE to the egg in the woman.

Jesus’s life came from the pure SPIRIT (the Spirit of God) and therefore did not carry that defect. Trinitarians do not discuss what it means that ‘The Spirit of God will overshadow [her] and therefore THE CHILD TO BE BORN WILL BE HOLY… and called the Son of the God most high’.

‘Will be called’ - not ‘IS CALLED’. Trinitarians have s really bad habit of taking what is future and presenting it as present. You get this with claims of ‘Jesus on earth possesses all that the Father possesses’… NO! It was after Jesus died, was resurrected, raised up to Heaven, and seated next to God that God put all things into his hands - FOR A TIME… whereafter Jesus HANDS IT BACK…

I also believe that Jesus was a real human being created by God's power - His Spirit - in order that Jesus would have a pure "blood line" not inheriting the sin nature from Adam as all other humans who are created by a man and woman do. (Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood ....) In conception between a man and woman - DNA, chromosomes, etc. make up the child conceived - none of that passed from God to Mary so God miraculously placed with Mary's egg that which was needed for the egg to conceive making Jesus His only begotten Son. I believe when he was baptized, he received the "Spirit without measure" (John 3:34) to empower him in his ministry upon earth.

Something that is held only for a period of time is not the full possession of the holder.

Why then did Joseph not remain ruler of Egypt even after the famine was over!!

Why then did Mordeciah not remain ruler of Persia even after the day of Purim?

Jesus’ possession for eternity is the created world - a rulership from the eternal throne of king David which Jesus occupies AT THE END OF the current time. The possession of all things by Jesus spoken of by Trinitarians is the Father’s kingdom - which includes Heaven. Hence Jesus judges all that is in the kingdom which includes angels. In the new world there are no angels in governmentship over the created world because Jesus and his ‘brothers, heirs also to God’ will do the administrative rulership over creation. God; the Father, Will and always does, rule over Heaven in the same way that though Joseph ruled Egypt FOR A TIME, Pharoah WAS STILL overall ruler… and king Xerxes did not stop being king even as Mordeciah ruled Persia FOR A TIME.

IMO, what I gather from scripture - Jesus inherited Kingdom will be the Millennial Kingdom where he will rule for 1,000 years then he will turn the Kingdom which will be the new heavens and earth, over to God for eternity.

 

[Soapy]

Yes, I see it all the time - I can address a matter - it may or may not be directly addressed in return or another subject is brought up all together to deter the direction of the conversation. I also noticed that questions directed to them are hardly ever answered. But then again, this subject and debate has been going on for a long, long time! But people can only go as far as they have been taught and they don't understand that they devalue the concept of Jesus Christ placing him in the position of "God" - for nothing is impossible for God - so the accomplishments of Jesus' walk of righteousness are meaningless. But for a man to do what Jesus did is not only a great accomplishment worthy of everlasting merit, it also sets a legitimate standard for what we too can do as we follow his example of faith in his God.

I agree with the concept of "worship" you have presented.

I’m so glad there’s so much we agree on. But there are areas where we disagree - or do not yet agree.

I also believe that Jesus was a real human being created by God's power - His Spirit - in order that Jesus would have a pure "blood line" not inheriting the sin nature from Adam as all other humans who are created by a man and woman do. (Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood ....) In conception between a man and woman - DNA, chromosomes, etc. make up the child conceived - none of that passed from God to Mary so God miraculously placed with Mary's egg that which was needed for the egg to conceive making Jesus His only begotten Son. I believe when he was baptized, he received the "Spirit without measure" (John 3:34) to empower him in his ministry upon earth.

The aspect of being sin and sinlessness, I believe, doesn’t have any dealings with DNA nor Chromosones.

It is the desire to gain something that we do not possess or something greater than we already possess. Hence the first sin was concerning gaining the knowledge of Good and Bad. It’s not to say that Adam and Eve would never have done anything bad by their own knowledge but that I’m not knowing good or bad, God would have forgiven them. But Satan put it into the kind of (firstly, Eve) that God had lied to Adam that if he sought to know good and bad THEY would die - but Satan lied that it would be an IMMEDIATE DEATH. Hence when Eve showed herself to Adam thag she had eaten and not died he too ate - instead of ‘berating’ Eve for going against the command of God.

Take also Satan. He desired to be worshipped by mankind as God was worshipped by mankind. He desired to gain something that was not his entitlement.

Take Cain. He desired praise from God although his presentations were not of the quality that God desired.

There are many more:
King Saul, in desiring to know if he should fight the Philistines, did not wait for God’s guidance through the prophet Samuel but instead sought what was not his to seek: Information from an evil source; the Witch of Endor.
David, though vastly gifted by God, sought the wife of another man so hotly that he designed a way for the man to be killed so ‘legally’ he could possess her as a widow.

But Jesus Christ resisted the desire of gain by means of abusing the holy powers God had anointed him with. Though starving and weak from hunger, Jesus refused to turn the stones to bread and save himself.

Again, Jesus resisted the desire of gain glory by jumping off the top of the temple and not hurting himself, and also did not bow to the glory of gaining all the kingdoms of the world by ‘simply WORSHIPPING’ Satan.

I would not say DNA or Chromosones dictate desire for false gain. I would put it down more to something mindful and therefore ‘of the Spirit of a person’. Therefore, the Spirit of a child is from the Spirit of the Father (it is his sperm that ENLIVENS the egg in the woman) - and therefore the ‘sin spirit’ is passed onto the child… hence when the Spirit of God enlivens the egg there is no contamination of the child spiritually since the holy Spirit is pure.

But this does not make the child from God an immediate ‘Son OF God’. The Sonship is by REMAINING SINLESS and doing the works of God (evidently if one is doing the works of God then one is sinless!!)

It should also be evident that Adam, in the day of his creation and up until he sinned, WAS THE ONLY HUMAN SON OF GOD. But, after sinning, he was no longer entitled to that title, hence now Jesus Christ is rightfully stated as ‘The Only Son of God’ since he remains sinless and is fully doing the works of God.

IMO, what I gather from scripture - Jesus inherited Kingdom will be the Millennial Kingdom where he will rule for 1,000 years then he will turn the Kingdom which will be the new heavens and earth, over to God for eternity.

I don’t think that is what scriptures says. The rulership of Jesus Christ over the created world is an EVERLASTING rulership. Scriptures certainly states that the throne of king David will be an eternal throne upon which an offspring of David will be eternally seated.
This eternal throne is not in Heaven and angels are not administrators with Jesus as they were with God. Almighty God, will STILL be God over the Heavenly realm. The new Heavens and the new earth possibly mean ‘a new galaxy or star system’ or just a new ruling administrative line up… who knows? I will look further into this aspect.