Jesus - First Born?

[Soapy]

So, at the end of the day, as a Unitarian I would be unable to answer a basic question of logic in any meaningful way, and no way to explain the illogic of why a "Son of God" would be a man anymore than why a "Son of Dog" would be a frog.

‘Son of God’ means:

• ‘He who fully does the Will of God’
• “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” (Romans 8:14)
• “the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

Jesus ‘received’ the spirit of God and thus was ‘adopted’ to Sonship and by that he cried out at his last breath: ‘Abba, Father’:

• ‘You are my Son; This day I have become your Father’… most certainly an adoption declaration!

The reason you think it’s illogical for ‘Son of God’ to mean ‘a man’ is because you desire to not think in the right way.

Jesus ‘fully does the Will of God’, therefore God SANCTIFIED HIM (Set him aside for greatness) by anointing him with the holiest of oils: the Spirit of God:

• ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ (Luke 4:18-19)
• 37You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
  39“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:37-43)

GOD ANOINTED JESUS OF NAZARETH with the Holy Spirit and power.

GOD RAISED JESUS OF NAZARETH from the dead on the third day.

GOD APPOINTED JESUS OF NAZARETH to judge of the living and the dead.

OESTE, what part of what is written above causes confusion in your mind?

In your response, please do not consider any Modalism stance. Just consider what is written - A MAN, JESUS OF NAZARETH, EMPOWERED BY GOD at his anointing (acts 10:38) with the Spirit of God And with THE POWER OF GOD who thence from THAT POINT ON went around healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, making the lame to walk and [temporarily] raising up some whom were considered ‘dead’. Consider that only Lazarus was TRULY DEAD (the others were maybe just in a coma for which Jesus told the people the person ‘is only sleeping!’. And, in raising up Lazarus Jesus gave ALL THE GLORY TO GOD - not himself! He says that what he did was BECAUSE OF GOD WORKING THROUGH HIM - GOD WAS WITH HIM!! He did not claim the resurrection as his own doing.

 

[amazing grace]

What do you think “Son of God” means ??

While "Son of" can mean offspring, I think in this context "Son of Man" means "of the order of man", and "Son of God" means "of the order of God". The term "Son of God" does NOT mean "of the order of Man", and "Son of Man" does NOT mean "of the order of God".

It’s really that simple.

Both titles describe the nature of Jesus. We went through this before, with the thought experiment I posted earlier (#124), which resulted in a post of yours being removed. Here it is again:

The only begotten son of frog is frog.​

​

The only begotten son of dog is dog.​

​

The only begotten son of man is man.​

​

The only begotten son of God is _____?​

‘Son of God’ means:

• ‘He who fully does the Will of God’

The reason you think it’s illogical for ‘Son of God’ to mean ‘a man’ is because you desire to not think in the right way.

Jesus ‘fully does the Will of God’, therefore God SANCTIFIED HIM (Set him aside for greatness) by anointing him with the holiest of oils: the Spirit of God:

• ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ (Luke 4:18-19)

I think his/her point is: "The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:12)
And then also with the animals - "And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:29)
So - The only begotten son of a frog is a frog; The only begotten son of a dog is a dog; The only begotten son of a man is a man;
His/her conclusion: The only begotten son of God is God. Needless to say, I don't believe their so-called logic works!

Jesus was prophesied to come from "the seed (offspring) of the woman". (Gen. 3:15) "after its kind" = human being, a man.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring (his seed). It does not say "And to offsprings, (seed)" referring to many but referring to one, "And to your offspring, (seed)" who is Christ. (Gal. 3:16) "after its kind" = human being, a man.
And if we look at 1 Cor. 15, (yes, I understand it is in reference to the resurrection but there is within this context another point to this subject) - But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish . . . . each kind of seed its own body - what kind of body did Jesus Christ have? The body of a human being, a body that contains everything that animates a human being to be a living being - emotions, thoughts, a will of their own, etc. So, IMO, the conclusion would be: The only begotten son of a God is a man.

 

[Soapy]

Yes the plain meanings of the texts are denied because of pre existing beliefs and then the texts are twisted to mean something else.
The pre existing beliefs are held so tightly that for Soapy, he is willing to say that the Bible text was changed by trinitarians and also to say that Jesus actually sinned in the pages of the gospel.
With amazing grace, he/she thinks that his/her teachers know more about Bible than anyone else and is willing to come up with very strange interpretations indeed to justify pre held beliefs.
I did stop replying at one point and may do it again. It hurts to bang my head against a brick wall and it can be a time waster, but I have more of an understanding of the unitarian beliefs now.
It is amazing how the same misinterpretations of passages crop up in a variety of non orthodox teachings, but just combined in different ways to make variations of wrong doctrines.

Brian2, Jesus is a man EMPOWERED BY GOD.

The scriptures tells you so… that is what the anointing with holy oil is about.

Do you see that before Jesus was anointed ‘with Holy Spirit and power’ he did not do anything of the great deeds that he did afterwards?

Do you read where the prophets say that GOD would empower the messiah to do good and release those under the spell of sin?

Do you read that Jesus died sinless - the only man who was born so, lived so, and died so? And within that and because of that God appointed him HEIR TO ALL THINGS.

God GRANTED him not only to be judge over all mankind - Mano-o-Mano - but also to judge the angels.

I see you twist my words and try to say that Jesus sinned and yet I just said Jesus did not sin. So what’s the issue? My point was in terms of the relative term ‘GOOD’, in which Jesus told a man to effectively NOT CALL ME GOOD SO Jesus SHOULD LAUD HIMSELF… DO NOT CALL HIM ‘GOOD’, ONLY GOD IS ‘GOOD’!
God was not have been RIOTOUSLY ANGRY at the men violating the temple. He would have dealt with them in his own time. Jesus TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO ACT AGAINST THEM. Was that ‘GOOD’? When Jesus was about to bd taken into custody the night before he would die, Peter took a sword and cut off the ear of a man in trying to defend Jesus. Was that a CONDEMNABLE SIN? No! Jesus ‘told him off’ but then simple mended the man’s ear…:

• THERE ARE SINS THAT LEAD TO DEATH AND THERE ARE SINS THAT DO NOT LEAD TO DEATH!!

Jesus taking two acts to heal some men is not a SIN. If merely shows that Jesus, even Jesus, has some aspect of failings. GOD would not have needed two acts to heal them… THATS THE POINT!!

Jesus breaking down and asking GOD if there could be another way… is that not a weakness… and yet GOD HAS NO WEAKNESS?

Brian2, why do you fail to understand simple realities? Oh… you do understand, you understand but in trying to set them in a trinitarian setting THEY DO NOT WORK so you frustrate yourself ‘banging your head against a wall!’.

I understand your frustration…truly I do… You know the truth but cannot accept it. I warned you: ‘Better to not reply than to reply with irreverent claims!’.

“Jesus Christ” is the personal name with title of the anointed messiah. Jesus Christ was anointed BY GOD, that is where he earned the title ‘Christ’ (‘The Anointed one’).

“YHWH” is the personal name of the ONLY TRUE GOD. It’s MEANING is ‘I am’ extrapolated to ‘I who never change’: ‘He is the same yesterday, as today, as tomorrow’.

YHWH is PERFECT and therefore CANNOT CHANGE to anything else…

What is greater than perfection?

What is beyond perfection?

How can perfection set itself less than so! Impossible!

Yet you are claiming that Jesus - even as Jesus Christ - WAS GOD (YHWH) who made himself IMPERFECT but was STILL PERFECT!!!?

No, Brian2! Scriptures tells us that GOD MADE Jesus TO BE PERFECT… Jesus GREW to be so - not ALWAYS WAS SO! Being sinless does not mean perfect!! Adam, the first man, was also born SINLESS but was not perfect either. But the first Adam was seduced into sinning. God REPLACED THE FIRST ADAM with another: the Second and LAST ADAM… a sinless man who OVERCAME SIN all his life!!

Tell me, Brian2, what was Jesus’ REWARD for his holy work and sacrifice?

What is the point of GOD appointing Jesus Christ to be seated on the throne of an earthly king and ancestor: King David, as the scriptures prophesy:

• “I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor on the throne of Israel.’” (1 Kings 9:5)
• “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32-33)

 

[Brian2]

Can you explain what exactly the verse here means.

Explain:

1. What is the form of God
2. Did not count equality with God as something to be grasped

Isn’t ‘Grasping’ meaning ‘reaching out to take hold of’. So the verse, to me, says Jesus did not think of reaching out to take hold of equality with God!!!

But you say Jesus WAS EQUAL to God!

Jesus was the exact imprint of the nature/essence of God, equal in nature to His Father.
"Grasp" can mean to hold on to something that you already have or to grab in order to violently take.
Jesus already had equality with God in His nature so Jesus did not want to violently take that. In fact Jesus as a man still had that same nature.
The pre human Son of God could have reached out to violently take equality of authority, by saying that He would not become a man and suffer and die for humans and to obey His Father.

And, ‘in the form of God’ only means that Jesus had the power of God - which was when he was anointed with the spirit of God…

So, though Jesus had the power of God, he did not think to reach out to grasp equality with God… BUT INSTEAD set himself as a man of no reputation and took the form of a servant.

So are you saying that Jesus decided to take the form of a servant by becoming a man after He was baptised.
What was Jesus before He was baptised, if not a man?

 

[Brian2]

This is a typical trinitarian deceitful question.

How can anyone produce a verse saying Jesus didn’t pre-exist if there was no pre-existence.

Good point. There are however verses that say Jesus did pre exist in heaven with God.
Showing that Jesus did not pre exist in heaven with God seems to be an exercise in finding the best way to try to show that these passages (where Jesus is shown to pre exist in heaven with God) are wrong.

It is the same as a trinitarian asking for a proof verse that Jesus did not call himself ‘God’.

Well, since no one ever thought Jesus was ‘God’ there would never be a verse DISCLAIMING Jesus saying he was not ‘God’.

This type of ‘Prove the negative’ is only used when the asker knows he is being deceiving! There is no other reason for such ‘reverse logic’!!!

Of course there was a reason for such "reverse logic". @amazing grace had said that the best thing to do is start from plain verses and let them show you what the less plain verses mean.
amazing grace however (and you I suppose) have to work from plain verses and show that they are wrong and then go to the not so plain verses having already shown (in your imagination) that Jesus did not come from heaven where He lived with God.

 

[Brian2]

If something comes from heaven, does it not come from God? I can't help it if "came from God" carries the same meaning as "from heaven" and since it carries the same meaning I am not twisting and making it mean something else.

Jesus came from heaven means that He was in heaven with or even in God. I would say that it does not mean that He was non existent in heaven in the mind of God.
If it could be said that Jesus came from heaven and that this means He was non existen in the mind of God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then the same thing can be said about the first Adam who was also with God in heaven, non existent in His mind. In fact it can be said for everyone, we all came from heaven, non existent in God's mind.
But no it cannot be said for the first Adam and for anyone else except the Son who came from heaven.

1 Cor. 15:42 So, it is with the resurrection from the dead. Then verses 42b, 44 is what happens to the natural body: sown perishable, sown in dishonor, sown in weakness. How it becomes a spiritual body: it is RAISED imperishable, raised in glory, raised in power. - [44b] If there is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (Jesus being raised = the spiritual body) But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural THEN the spiritual. And actually this proves that Jesus did not preexist as a "spirit" because the natural comes first THEN the spiritual.

It does not matter how many times I tell you, you insist that " the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." has the word "became",,,,,,,,,,,, but in the original Greek it does not have that word.
It is speaking about what the first Adam became and what the last Adam was. We, in our earthly body, take after the first Adam and we in our resurrection take after the last Adam, who came from heaven and was a life giving spirit there.
And for US the natural came first and then the spiritual will come.
This also IS the case with the human Jesus. He, as a man on earth, had a natural body made from dirt, then in the resurrection He had the spiritual resurrection body.
So including "became" where it does not exist is not a good move if you want to find out what the passage means.

Now still in the context of the resurrection: "The first man was of the earth - perishable, dishonored, weak; the second man - imperishable, raised in glory, raised in power - is from heaven, i.e. Jesus received his spiritual body from God. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven, i.e. sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body.

If you go back to 1 Cor. 15:35 - "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" - But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body . . . the rest of 1 Cor. explains that question asked.

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
The second Adam is Jesus the man who was walking the earth 2000 years ago, He was from heaven but His body was on the earth and His resurrection body was not from heaven but was His old body which had been transformed into His resurrection body.
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.
The same body is transformed. Jesus body was raised but was transformed.

"For the true bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
Does the verse say that Jesus was in heaven? How did Jesus "come down from heaven"? In the same manner as manna came from heaven; i.e. from God, God sent manna to the Israelites - God gave the true bread from heaven; the true bread was sent by God.
In anyway does that change the meaning from what is read? Only to those who believe in the preexistence of Christ.

So you teaches that Jesus had no pre existence and was not from heaven, when the scriptures teach that He is from heaven and pre existed with God before the world began. So believing that Jesus pre existed in heaven with God is scriptural. So believing that Jesus is the bread that came from heaven is nothing more or less than what the other scriptures teach about where Jesus came from,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, without denying them and twisting.
With the manna in the wilderness, it was sent by God but fell from the sky, not from heaven where God is.

Yep, this verse can be used and is used to prove the Trinity doctrine. But there is a way to understand it also from a Unitarian perspective. Jesus was praying that he would have the glory the Old Testament foretold, which had been in God's foreknowledge since before the world began, and which future glory would come into concretion. Remember, just two verses before in this same prayer Jesus says "this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (Jesus could not have prayed that while at the same time thinking he was God too.)

Of course Jesus, who had become a humble man, lower than the angels, could long for and pray for the glory He had in heaven with God before the world began.

and then later in this same prayer he prays for the ones who would believe in him and for his disciples, "the glory that you have given me I have given to them". When was Jesus glorified - upon his resurrection and ascension? Before he poured out the promised Holy Spirit on Pentecost?

Jesus, before He was even crucified, says that He has given the disciples the glory that God had given Him.
How had He done that? By teaching them the truth in the words that God had given Him to teach them, so that they might be one as He and God were one.
What was needed still was the promised Holy Spirit that they could all share and so be in reality the one body of Christ.

Yes, Jesus was in the image of God and IF he was God there would be no reason for him to grasp at equality with God. He emptied himself of any reputation he could have drawn from (king, messiah) but stayed humble as God's chosen servant being born in the likeness of men.

You are reading it from the pov of Jesus having become the Son of God, the Christ, at His baptism. The truth is that Jesus was the Son of God and Christ and Lord at His birth. (Luke 2:11)(Luke 1:31-35)
Jesus was of equal nature with God His Father and so equal to God, but His Father was above Him in authority and the Son could have refused to come to earth as a man and suffer and die, in that way taking it all before being given it by His Father. (But of course in doing that He would have shown that He did not have the same nature as His Father).
Phil 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
So taking the plain meaning, He decided to become a man and became a man.

Does it say: In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God? Who is twisting and changing the meaning?

In the beginning means before creation, and that includes the creation of time. So "In the beginning" means in eternity, and the Word was there and with the God, and the Word was God (meaning exactly like the God He was with---------- and as I have said before, that means being alive--------if the Word was not alive the Word was not like God)
Then it goes on to say that through this Word all things were made.
So I suppose you deny that there was life in this Word, and so think that it was not really like God, God.
But the Word was alive and through Him all things have been made and this Word was the Son through whom all things were made (Heb 1) and was the one who came to earth as a man and to His own and who had made the world but the world did not recognise Him.

I pointed out clear and concise points NOT because I did not think you did not agree with those passages but it is those clear and concise passages that are contradictory to the other passages you keep bringing up.

No they don't contradict my beliefs or other passages I keep bringing up unless you misunderstand my beliefs and the passages I keep bringing up.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, Jesus is a man EMPOWERED BY GOD.

The scriptures tells you so… that is what the anointing with holy oil is about.

Do you see that before Jesus was anointed ‘with Holy Spirit and power’ he did not do anything of the great deeds that he did afterwards?

Do you read where the prophets say that GOD would empower the messiah to do good and release those under the spell of sin?

Do you read that Jesus died sinless - the only man who was born so, lived so, and died so? And within that and because of that God appointed him HEIR TO ALL THINGS.

God GRANTED him not only to be judge over all mankind - Mano-o-Mano - but also to judge the angels.

I see you twist my words and try to say that Jesus sinned and yet I just said Jesus did not sin. So what’s the issue? My point was in terms of the relative term ‘GOOD’, in which Jesus told a man to effectively NOT CALL ME GOOD SO Jesus SHOULD LAUD HIMSELF… DO NOT CALL HIM ‘GOOD’, ONLY GOD IS ‘GOOD’!
God was not have been RIOTOUSLY ANGRY at the men violating the temple. He would have dealt with them in his own time. Jesus TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO ACT AGAINST THEM. Was that ‘GOOD’? When Jesus was about to bd taken into custody the night before he would die, Peter took a sword and cut off the ear of a man in trying to defend Jesus. Was that a CONDEMNABLE SIN? No! Jesus ‘told him off’ but then simple mended the man’s ear…:

• THERE ARE SINS THAT LEAD TO DEATH AND THERE ARE SINS THAT DO NOT LEAD TO DEATH!!

Jesus taking two acts to heal some men is not a SIN. If merely shows that Jesus, even Jesus, has some aspect of failings. GOD would not have needed two acts to heal them… THATS THE POINT!!

Jesus breaking down and asking GOD if there could be another way… is that not a weakness… and yet GOD HAS NO WEAKNESS?

Brian2, why do you fail to understand simple realities? Oh… you do understand, you understand but in trying to set them in a trinitarian setting THEY DO NOT WORK so you frustrate yourself ‘banging your head against a wall!’.

I understand your frustration…truly I do… You know the truth but cannot accept it. I warned you: ‘Better to not reply than to reply with irreverent claims!’.

“Jesus Christ” is the personal name with title of the anointed messiah. Jesus Christ was anointed BY GOD, that is where he earned the title ‘Christ’ (‘The Anointed one’).

“YHWH” is the personal name of the ONLY TRUE GOD. It’s MEANING is ‘I am’ extrapolated to ‘I who never change’: ‘He is the same yesterday, as today, as tomorrow’.

YHWH is PERFECT and therefore CANNOT CHANGE to anything else…

What is greater than perfection?

What is beyond perfection?

How can perfection set itself less than so! Impossible!

Yet you are claiming that Jesus - even as Jesus Christ - WAS GOD (YHWH) who made himself IMPERFECT but was STILL PERFECT!!!?

No, Brian2! Scriptures tells us that GOD MADE Jesus TO BE PERFECT… Jesus GREW to be so - not ALWAYS WAS SO! Being sinless does not mean perfect!! Adam, the first man, was also born SINLESS but was not perfect either. But the first Adam was seduced into sinning. God REPLACED THE FIRST ADAM with another: the Second and LAST ADAM… a sinless man who OVERCAME SIN all his life!!

Tell me, Brian2, what was Jesus’ REWARD for his holy work and sacrifice?

What is the point of GOD appointing Jesus Christ to be seated on the throne of an earthly king and ancestor: King David, as the scriptures prophesy:

• “I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor on the throne of Israel.’” (1 Kings 9:5)
• “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32-33)

I already know that you deny that some of the scriptures are genuine. You have to say this about the scriptures because they do not agree with your doctrines.
Then you even have to say that the sinless Lamb of God was a sinner and excuse that and even want to use your interpretation of Jesus sins and faults as evidence that Jesus was not good and was not God.
OK that is where your beliefs lead.

 

[Brian2]

But isn't it true that one cannot see God and live? The angel of the LORD/God is an angel. The angel of the LORD/God is/was NOT Jesus (which is what you want to say - why not just say it!). In some cases, people "saw" the angel of the LORD/God and lived - if they lived then the angel was NOT God - they saw the messenger of God. They did not see the Almighty God who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.

The 70 elders saw God and lived. (Ex 24) It is that you cannot see the full glory of God and live. If God hides His glory or face then you can see Him and live (Ex 33:22)
If the glory of God is hidden by a physical body then we can see Him.
They saw the messenger of God and the messenger was God but hidden by another likeness.

If I say that Mark 10 distinguishes God from Jesus that is what is meant. I am in no way saying that Jesus was not sinless but I do say that Jesus was not EXACTLY like God his Father - in that slight reproof Jesus was not indicating he was God or else he would have complimented the man on his perception, as he did Peter when he asked Peter "Who do you say that I am?".

The man was not saying that Jesus was God. No need to compliment him for anything. Jesus was merely pointing out the only God is good, and since we know that Jesus was good, we also can see that Jesus was saying (to us) that He was God.

Only God is good
Jesus is good
Jesus is God.
If that is not logical to you, so be it.
If you think that Jesus is not good then so be it.
So you want a sinless Jesus but a Jesus who is not good, OK, that is your understanding.

It's not the fact that it "includes idols" - idols are the to "whom can you compare me"; "who is like me", etc. that God is using as the comparison.

Did you even read the 11 verses in quoted. They are not all about idols. They are saying that nobody is like God.
But we know that Jesus is exactly like God

It doesn't matter how long ago it was - This is what he told the Pharisees: You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one (according to the flesh). Yet even if I judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father (God) who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself and the Father (God) who sent me bears witness about me.
It is God his Father who has GIVEN all judgment to the Son - If the Son were God, then what is the purpose of God giving God all judgment?

It is the Father who has the authority to say who judges everyone. The Son judges everyone justly and in accordance with the will of God.
YHWH is coming to judge the earth (Ps 98:9, Ps 96:13 etc)
Is that going to be the Father who is coming to do the judging or is that going to be the Son.
Does that mean that the Son is also called YHWH?

I don't deny scripture for my beliefs. The body/tent is the outside covering which contains a person's breath, emotions, thoughts, all that animates the body. When the body dies, what animates the body also dies and there is nothing left of that person, i.e. the person is dead.
I haven't and I don't deny Matt. 10:28. I don't need to add to what I have already said I believe the verse to say.
As for Revelation - it is a vision of the future and "souls" is use in the same sense as in 1 Peter 3:20 "when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls (KJV), people (ESV) were saved, i.e. in the ark. In Revelation, by way of John's vision, he saw people, the ones who had been beheaded for the witness of Christ, the martyrs.

You deny what Matthew 10:28 says and afaik have not explained the meaning of Matt 10:28.
Matt 10:28 must mean that other than the body there is another part to a person, a spiritual part that Jesus calls a soul. Jesus tells us that this soul does not die at the death of the body. You say that both the body and soul die at the death of the body.

I am not changing the words of God - comes from heaven is the same thing as saying something came from God. For instance, the manna - God gave them bread from heaven to eat. Who gave them the bread and where did it come from? I am the living bread that came down from heaven . . . As the living Father (God) has sent me . . . Jesus came down from heaven - who sent him? If it comes from God it comes from heaven in that God sent it.

The manna in Moses day was sent by God but not from heaven where God is. The word for heaven is the same as the word for sky (I think this is the same in the Hebrew and Greek), the manna fell from the sky. That was symbolic of the real bread from God, Jesus who came from heaven. And yes, sent by God, but as Jesus said, He came from heaven,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, iow He was not created in the womb of Mary, He was brought from heaven and placed in the womb of Mary in the body that God was preparing for Him.

Jesus could not be sent from heaven or from God if he came into existence in the womb of Mary? That is what you think even though that is exactly what scripture says happened? Jesus wasn't sitting around in heaven waiting for the opportunity to be sent, i.e. born.

Where does scripture say that Jesus was not with God in heaven. You tell me that this is what scripture tells us but all you can do is show me places that say that Jesus did pre exist in heaven with God and made all things in the beginning etc and then go about saying "It might look as if it is saying that Jesus pre existed in heaven with God and made all things, but really that is not true".
IOWs don't listen to what God has told us.
Who should I trust, the God breathed scriptures or you?
And the worst part about it is that you cannot see that is what you are doing.

 

[amazing grace]

Of course there was a reason for such "reverse logic". @amazing grace had said that the best thing to do is start from plain verses and let them show you what the less plain verses mean.
amazing grace however (and you I suppose) have to work from plain verses and show that they are wrong and then go to the not so plain verses having already shown (in your imagination) that Jesus did not come from heaven where He lived with God.

This is what I said: I was taught that the unclear verses should be taken in light of the clear concise verses.
I NEVER said that "plain verses were wrong". I NEVER said that any scripture is wrong.

 

[amazing grace]

The 70 elders saw God and lived. (Ex 24) It is that you cannot see the full glory of God and live. If God hides His glory or face then you can see Him and live (Ex 33:22)
If the glory of God is hidden by a physical body then we can see Him.
They saw the messenger of God and the messenger was God but hidden by another likeness.

The 70 elders stood in the presence of God - the glory of God within the cloud.
If I send someone to do something for me or in my stead, i.e. a messenger/agent then obviously I am not the one sent.

The man was not saying that Jesus was God. No need to compliment him for anything. Jesus was merely pointing out the only God is good, and since we know that Jesus was good, we also can see that Jesus was saying (to us) that He was God.

Only God is good
Jesus is good
Jesus is God.
If that is not logical to you, so be it.
If you think that Jesus is not good then so be it.
So you want a sinless Jesus but a Jesus who is not good, OK, that is your understanding.

Jesus was not telling the man he was/is God nor was he telling 'us' he was/is God.
I NEVER said Jesus was not "good".

Did you even read the 11 verses in quoted. They are not all about idols. They are saying that nobody is like God.
But we know that Jesus is exactly like God

I read the complete context - Did you?
Isaiah 40 - To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? AN IDOL! A craftsman cases it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains. He who is too impoverished for an offering chooses wood that will not rot; he seeks out a skillful craftsman to set up an idol that will not move. Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is HE who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers . . . God goes into the things he has done and then reiterates - To whom then will you compare me that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
In Isaiah 46, God is comparing himself to "other gods" - the very first verse contains two names of Babylonian gods . . . To whom will you liken me and make me equal and compare me, that we may be alike? Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmint, and he makes it into a god: then they fall down and worship! They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries to it, it does not answer or save him from his trouble. Then God reminds them "for I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is none like me, (re. another god)

It is the Father who has the authority to say who judges everyone. The Son judges everyone justly and in accordance with the will of God.
YHWH is coming to judge the earth (Ps 98:9, Ps 96:13 etc)
Is that going to be the Father who is coming to do the judging or is that going to be the Son.
Does that mean that the Son is also called YHWH?

God is going to judge the earth through His Christ, His anointed King which is the same as saying "for he comes to judge the earth" because HE has GIVEN that authority to His Son, His Christ, His anointed King.

You deny what Matthew 10:28 says and afaik have not explained the meaning of Matt 10:28.
Matt 10:28 must mean that other than the body there is another part to a person, a spiritual part that Jesus calls a soul. Jesus tells us that this soul does not die at the death of the body. You say that both the body and soul die at the death of the body.

I don't see where Jesus said that the soul does not die at the death of the body. IMHO - I see that Jesus is teaching them not to fear losing their life by the hands of men as they go about preaching the Kingdom/gospel - that their salvation and the salvation of others is more important, but they should fear God who judges and can destroy both body and soul in the second death.
So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (10:32)
I explained that the body is the flesh, the soul is the breath life and there is the spirit of man within man - body, soul, and spirit. This makes up a whole person and when that person dies - he is dead - he has no breath, nor spirit that animates his body. Upon resurrection, the person is revived, given life and must give account of what he has done - If he is judged righteous - eternal life; if he is judged unrighteous - the second death. thrown into the lake of fire.

The manna in Moses day was sent by God but not from heaven where God is. The word for heaven is the same as the word for sky (I think this is the same in the Hebrew and Greek), the manna fell from the sky. That was symbolic of the real bread from God, Jesus who came from heaven. And yes, sent by God, but as Jesus said, He came from heaven,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, iow He was not created in the womb of Mary, He was brought from heaven and placed in the womb of Mary in the body that God was preparing for Him.

Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He (God) gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
"The manna fell from the sky" so following the same logic - "Jesus fell from the sky into the womb of Mary"?

Where does scripture say that Jesus was not with God in heaven. You tell me that this is what scripture tells us but all you can do is show me places that say that Jesus did pre exist in heaven with God and made all things in the beginning etc and then go about saying "It might look as if it is saying that Jesus pre existed in heaven with God and made all things, but really that is not true".
IOWs don't listen to what God has told us.
Who should I trust, the God breathed scriptures or you?
And the worst part about it is that you cannot see that is what you are doing.

I believe that Jesus pre-existed in the foreknowledge (mind, thoughts, plan) of God - not a literal pre-existence. As in - This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God . . . .

I have NEVER told anyone not to listen to God or what He has told us.
I haven't asked you NOT to trust the God-breathed scriptures.
What is being done in the discussion is you giving your perspective of the Triune God then in response I give my perspective within the concept of what I believe to be true monotheism - One means one - God is one and we shall have no other gods before Him, besides Him; He alone is God.

 

[amazing grace]

Jesus came from heaven means that He was in heaven with or even in God. I would say that it does not mean that He was non existent in heaven in the mind of God.
If it could be said that Jesus came from heaven and that this means He was non existen in the mind of God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then the same thing can be said about the first Adam who was also with God in heaven, non existent in His mind. In fact it can be said for everyone, we all came from heaven, non existent in God's mind.
But no it cannot be said for the first Adam and for anyone else except the Son who came from heaven.

I believe that Jesus pre-existed in the foreknowledge (mind, thoughts, plan) of God - not a literal pre-existence. As in - This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God . . . .

It does not matter how many times I tell you, you insist that " the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." has the word "became",,,,,,,,,,,, but in the original Greek it does not have that word.
It is speaking about what the first Adam became and what the last Adam was. We, in our earthly body, take after the first Adam and we in our resurrection take after the last Adam, who came from heaven and was a life giving spirit there.
And for US the natural came first and then the spiritual will come.
This also IS the case with the human Jesus. He, as a man on earth, had a natural body made from dirt, then in the resurrection He had the spiritual resurrection body.
So including "became" where it does not exist is not a good move if you want to find out what the passage means.

Using "became" in connection with Jesus only carries the same thought throughout the verse which is why many translations have the word "became". Adam was not a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him = he became a living soul. In the same sense - Jesus was not a life-giving spirit until God raised him from the dead; i.e. gave him life then he became a life-giving spirit. All this is in connection with the resurrection of the dead: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself . . . Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out: those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
The second Adam is Jesus the man who was walking the earth 2000 years ago, He was from heaven but His body was on the earth and His resurrection body was not from heaven but was His old body which had been transformed into His resurrection body.
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.
The same body is transformed. Jesus body was raised but was transformed.

I know that the second Adam is Jesus; I know that he was sent by God, that he came from God (as in God in heaven). Yes, Jesus was given a new spiritual body the same as all human beings upon resurrection - so I guess I am not understanding your point?

So you teaches that Jesus had no pre existence and was not from heaven, when the scriptures teach that He is from heaven and pre existed with God before the world began. So believing that Jesus pre existed in heaven with God is scriptural. So believing that Jesus is the bread that came from heaven is nothing more or less than what the other scriptures teach about where Jesus came from,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, without denying them and twisting.
With the manna in the wilderness, it was sent by God but fell from the sky, not from heaven where God is.

I have not taught that Jesus had NO pre-existence but I have said he did not literally pre-exist.
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He (God) gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ . . .Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Of course, this is all metaphorical) The point is: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Then we have: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. So, the "bread from heaven" (manna) was from God being sent by God to the Israelites. In the same sense - the bread of life came down from heaven was from God being sent by God. These are all parallel terms!

Of course Jesus, who had become a humble man, lower than the angels, could long for and pray for the glory He had in heaven with God before the world began.

Jesus, before He was even crucified, says that He has given the disciples the glory that God had given Him.
How had He done that? By teaching them the truth in the words that God had given Him to teach them, so that they might be one as He and God were one.
What was needed still was the promised Holy Spirit that they could all share and so be in reality the one body of Christ.

You are reading it from the pov of Jesus having become the Son of God, the Christ, at His baptism. The truth is that Jesus was the Son of God and Christ and Lord at His birth. (Luke 2:11)(Luke 1:31-35)
Jesus was of equal nature with God His Father and so equal to God, but His Father was above Him in authority and the Son could have refused to come to earth as a man and suffer and die, in that way taking it all before being given it by His Father. (But of course in doing that He would have shown that He did not have the same nature as His Father).
Phil 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
So taking the plain meaning, He decided to become a man and became a man.

Okay . . . I am to believe that Jesus decided to become a man and became a man? I can't understand that Jesus, being God's only Son, God's anointed King, God's Christ did not rely upon his reputation as having that status but remained humble in the service to others being born in the likeness of men and in relation to this - we are also to have this mind of humility and service to others?

In the beginning means before creation, and that includes the creation of time. So "In the beginning" means in eternity, and the Word was there and with the God, and the Word was God (meaning exactly like the God He was with---------- and as I have said before, that means being alive--------if the Word was not alive the Word was not like God)
Then it goes on to say that through this Word all things were made.
So I suppose you deny that there was life in this Word, and so think that it was not really like God, God.
But the Word was alive and through Him all things have been made and this Word was the Son through whom all things were made (Heb 1) and was the one who came to earth as a man and to His own and who had made the world but the world did not recognise Him.

It's all in the definition of what one believes "the word" is. This word became flesh; i.e. the incarnate word of God.

No they don't contradict my beliefs or other passages I keep bringing up unless you misunderstand my beliefs and the passages I keep bringing up.

God gave his only Son: nope, Jesus decided to become a man and became a man.
God gave his only Son: nope, God became a man and came down from heaven.
When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman: nope, Jesus existed eternally.
ETC.

 

[Soapy]

Good point. There are however verses that say Jesus did pre exist in heaven with God.
Showing that Jesus did not pre exist in heaven with God seems to be an exercise in finding the best way to try to show that these passages (where Jesus is shown to pre exist in heaven with God) are wrong.



Of course there was a reason for such "reverse logic". @amazing grace had said that the best thing to do is start from plain verses and let them show you what the less plain verses mean.
amazing grace however (and you I suppose) have to work from plain verses and show that they are wrong and then go to the not so plain verses having already shown (in your imagination) that Jesus did not come from heaven where He lived with God.

Your very last words, ‘He lived with God’, are the proof of the error that you claim as your fact.

- Jesus cannot be God if he was with God
- How was Jesus with God if God was alone

 

[Soapy]

I believe that Jesus pre-existed in the foreknowledge (mind, thoughts, plan) of God - not a literal pre-existence. As in - This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God . . . .

Using "became" in connection with Jesus only carries the same thought throughout the verse which is why many translations have the word "became". Adam was not a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him = he became a living soul. In the same sense - Jesus was not a life-giving spirit until God raised him from the dead; i.e. gave him life then he became a life-giving spirit. All this is in connection with the resurrection of the dead: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself . . . Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out: those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

I know that the second Adam is Jesus; I know that he was sent by God, that he came from God (as in God in heaven). Yes, Jesus was given a new spiritual body the same as all human beings upon resurrection - so I guess I am not understanding your point?

I have not taught that Jesus had NO pre-existence but I have said he did not literally pre-exist.
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He (God) gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ . . .Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Of course, this is all metaphorical) The point is: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Then we have: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. So, the "bread from heaven" (manna) was from God being sent by God to the Israelites. In the same sense - the bread of life came down from heaven was from God being sent by God. These are all parallel terms!

Okay . . . I am to believe that Jesus decided to become a man and became a man? I can't understand that Jesus, being God's only Son, God's anointed King, God's Christ did not rely upon his reputation as having that status but remained humble in the service to others being born in the likeness of men and in relation to this - we are also to have this mind of humility and service to others?

It's all in the definition of what one believes "the word" is. This word became flesh; i.e. the incarnate word of God.

God gave his only Son: nope, Jesus decided to become a man and became a man.
God gave his only Son: nope, God became a man and came down from heaven.
When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman: nope, Jesus existed eternally.
ETC.

You are right. THE MESSIAH was in the mind of God. If you stop naming the messiah and use the title of the ‘Seed of the woman’ then there is less chance of Trinitarians saying that ‘JESUS’ was pre-existent WITH GOD… although, since God was alone before creation, I fail to see how any other living entity was WITH HIM and yet he was alone.

For sure God foretold that there would be a messiah and the Jews were avidly seeking his coming. Therefore you are right that the messiah was in the foreknowledge of God, prophesied throughout the whole Old Testament scriptures.

The messiah came to be in the child born to the Virgin Mary. The Angel told her that the child to be born from her he WOULD BE GREAT AND WOULD BE CALLED ‘The Son of the God most high’. Note the FUTURE TENSE used. And, indeed, the messiah DID BECOME GREAT and came to be called ‘The Son of God’ 30 years after his birth.

It is to be noted that this messiah did nothing of greatness nor ‘Son of God’-ish until AFTER he was ‘anointed with Holy Spirit and power’ at his baptism wherein GOD spoke from Heaven saying: ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased’, this announcing the one whom he commanded the Angel Gabriel to tell the virgin she must call him, ‘Jesus’, for he will save his people. And we know already that ‘Jesus’ is just the Greek firm of ‘Joshua’ which itself is ‘YESHUA’ in Hebrew. And, of course, Joshua was the one who ‘Saved the Israelites’ into the land GOD promised the Israelites. God tells things before they happen - like here where a ‘Joshua’ saves as the future ‘Joshua’ also saves!

 

[Brian2]

This is what I said: I was taught that the unclear verses should be taken in light of the clear concise verses.
I NEVER said that "plain verses were wrong". I NEVER said that any scripture is wrong.

We no doubt have different ideas of what clear, plain verses are.
Imo one such verse is Jesus saying that He wanted to be glorified with His Father in heaven like He was with His Father before the earth existed. (John 17:5)
I don't know how a non existent Jesus could have any glory at all.
I suppose that to you this verse must be one of the unclear verses that need to be interpreted in light of the clear concise verses. After all, you do interpret that verse to not mean what it clearly says.
The trouble is that you have no clear verses that are your light to interpet that verse. All you have are the unclear verses, the ones that you say do not mean what they plainly say.
Maybe you aren't saying that any verses are "wrong" but imo it certainly looks that way when you take what I see as plain verses and say they do not mean what the plain reading of them tells us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and you have none of your own "plain" verses to show us that Jesus did not pre exist.
I'm sorry, even when I want to be conciliatory I cannot help but condemn your beliefs about the pre existence of Jesus and the lack of any way that you get to them.
Surely it must be time for me to stop and let maybe @Oeste continue. But I think he is probably smarter than me and may not want to carry on the discussion about this for as long as I have.
Maybe I will continue for a while on the subject of death but stop on the person of Jesus and His pre existence............. in heaven................. with the Father.

 

[Brian2]

Your very last words, ‘He lived with God’, are the proof of the error that you claim as your fact.

- Jesus cannot be God if he was with God
- How was Jesus with God if God was alone

Jesus can be God in the trinitarian sense if He was with God.
In a trinitarian sense of 3 persons in the one God, God can be alone but with 3 persons there.
It is just like "How can the Son have laid the foundations of the earth and spread out the heavens (Heb 1:10-12 etc) if YHWH did this alone (Isa 44:24 etc)?" He can do it if there is a trinity and the Son is as much YHWH as the Father is.
This is certainly a better option than to claim that some scriptures must have been added by trinitarians.

I also used to look at the language used in the New Testament (such as, was with God, was sent from God, glory to Jesus and to God etc) and see it as evidence that the trinity was not true and that Jesus was not God.
I ended up realising that this language was like that to distinguish between Jesus and God. If they were both called "God" through the NT then the idea of Oneness Pentecostalism would have been seen more.
But Jesus is mostly shown to be God through more round about or subtle ways, usually not directly saying "Jesus is God".

 

[Brian2]

The 70 elders stood in the presence of God - the glory of God within the cloud.
If I send someone to do something for me or in my stead, i.e. a messenger/agent then obviously I am not the one sent.

Ex 24:9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.
Yes the one sent is not the one who sends. It is in a trinitarian sense of a 3 persons in the one God that this is possible and the Father and Son are both called YHWH.

Jesus was not telling the man he was/is God nor was he telling 'us' he was/is God.
I NEVER said Jesus was not "good".

If Jesus was "good" then He is God. Isn't that what Jesus said, just like saying that if someone kills the body they cannot kill the soul means that the soul lives on after the death of the body.

I read the complete context - Did you?
Isaiah 40 - To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? AN IDOL! A craftsman cases it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains. He who is too impoverished for an offering chooses wood that will not rot; he seeks out a skillful craftsman to set up an idol that will not move. Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is HE who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers . . . God goes into the things he has done and then reiterates - To whom then will you compare me that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
In Isaiah 46, God is comparing himself to "other gods" - the very first verse contains two names of Babylonian gods . . . To whom will you liken me and make me equal and compare me, that we may be alike? Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmint, and he makes it into a god: then they fall down and worship! They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries to it, it does not answer or save him from his trouble. Then God reminds them "for I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is none like me, (re. another god)

Maybe you should read the Psalms in the 11 verse I gave.

God is going to judge the earth through His Christ, His anointed King which is the same as saying "for he comes to judge the earth" because HE has GIVEN that authority to His Son, His Christ, His anointed King.

So saying "YHWH is coming to judge the earth" is the same as saying "Jesus is coming to judge the earth". Hmmm we agree.

I don't see where Jesus said that the soul does not die at the death of the body. IMHO - I see that Jesus is teaching them not to fear losing their life by the hands of men as they go about preaching the Kingdom/gospel - that their salvation and the salvation of others is more important, but they should fear God who judges and can destroy both body and soul in the second death.
So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (10:32)
I explained that the body is the flesh, the soul is the breath life and there is the spirit of man within man - body, soul, and spirit. This makes up a whole person and when that person dies - he is dead - he has no breath, nor spirit that animates his body. Upon resurrection, the person is revived, given life and must give account of what he has done - If he is judged righteous - eternal life; if he is judged unrighteous - the second death. thrown into the lake of fire.

All I was asking was about Matt 10:28, and specifically the bit that you refuse to even mention.
Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
So at the death of the body of Jesus, His soul was not killed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, iow His soul was still living.
Is it that you think that for us humans the only thing that is alive is the body and to soul is a non living thing?
I see the soul (as spoken about in the NT esp) as being the essence of a person, the part that preserves the person so that a body can be revived by the soul re entering the body, or any body for that matter. If the soul of a person made a wooded body alive, that would be a resurrection into a wooded body. Without this soul (the continuance of the person) to enter and make the body alive again, there cannot be a resurrection of the person,,,,,,,,,,, all there can be is making a copy of the person. It will be the actual person who is judge when Jesus returns however and then both the body and the soul might be destroyed in Gehenna. That is the second death and is the final stage in the dying of a person.

One means one - God is one and we shall have no other gods before Him, besides Him; He alone is God.

One means One of course but One can mean a compound one, meaning 2 or more things united to make the one.

 

[amazing grace]

We no doubt have different ideas of what clear, plain verses are.
Imo one such verse is Jesus saying that He wanted to be glorified with His Father in heaven like He was with His Father before the earth existed. (John 17:5)
I don't know how a non existent Jesus could have any glory at all.
I suppose that to you this verse must be one of the unclear verses that need to be interpreted in light of the clear concise verses. After all, you do interpret that verse to not mean what it clearly says.
The trouble is that you have no clear verses that are your light to interpet that verse. All you have are the unclear verses, the ones that you say do not mean what they plainly say.
Maybe you aren't saying that any verses are "wrong" but imo it certainly looks that way when you take what I see as plain verses and say they do not mean what the plain reading of them tells us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and you have none of your own "plain" verses to show us that Jesus did not pre exist.
I'm sorry, even when I want to be conciliatory I cannot help but condemn your beliefs about the pre existence of Jesus and the lack of any way that you get to them.
Surely it must be time for me to stop and let maybe @Oeste continue. But I think he is probably smarter than me and may not want to carry on the discussion about this for as long as I have.
Maybe I will continue for a while on the subject of death but stop on the person of Jesus and His pre existence............. in heaven................. with the Father.

Why didn't God tell us in clear and concise words that He was coming to earth as a man especially if our salvation hinged upon that?
As in for instance John 3:16 could have said "For I so loved the world that I gave myself that whoever believes in me should not perish but have eternal life." - Why isn't it plainly stated?

I don't believe that anyone pre-exist their birth. Since I don't believe that Jesus pre-existed, I believe that the glory Jesus had with his Father, with God, was foreknown and thus prophesied throughout the OT - that is the glory Jesus was talking about - the glory which he was to receive. Yes, it is described as having that glory in the past, but there are instances where the Bible presents future events that are so certain to happen as if they have already happened.

What you see as plain verses to you seem clear and plain because you read the trinity doctrine INTO the verses you quote then I turn around and read them from a total monotheism, unitarian perspective.

 

[Brian2]

I believe that Jesus pre-existed in the foreknowledge (mind, thoughts, plan) of God - not a literal pre-existence. As in - This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God . . . .

Yes God knew that Jesus would be delivered up.

Using "became" in connection with Jesus only carries the same thought throughout the verse which is why many translations have the word "became". Adam was not a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him = he became a living soul. In the same sense - Jesus was not a life-giving spirit until God raised him from the dead; i.e. gave him life then he became a life-giving spirit. All this is in connection with the resurrection of the dead: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself . . . Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out: those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

Since the word "became" does not exist in relation to the second Adam (Jesus) so it is good to not interpret the passage as needing it, and so adding it. It changes the meaning.
The passage is not talking about a resurrection of the first Adam so why say it is talking about a resurrection of the second Adam?

Okay . . . I am to believe that Jesus decided to become a man and became a man? I can't understand that Jesus, being God's only Son, God's anointed King, God's Christ did not rely upon his reputation as having that status but remained humble in the service to others being born in the likeness of men and in relation to this - we are also to have this mind of humility and service to others?

Jesus humility was to God, His equal. That is how Jesus is a good example of humility with our equals. Jesus could have said, "No, I think it best if I don't become a man and suffer" but no, He bowed to the will of God and became a man and servant of God.

It's all in the definition of what one believes "the word" is. This word became flesh; i.e. the incarnate word of God.

If the Word was like God then the Word was alive with the God. His existence was therefore real. The Word could not be qualitatively like God if the Word was not alive.
This means that it is best to get our definition of the Word and what/who it is, from the text and not make up our mind beforehand and allow that to blind us to what the text tells us.
The text is telling us that the Word is qualitatively like God and so is alive, is a real person and not a thing or plan only existing in the mind of God.

God gave his only Son: nope, Jesus decided to become a man and became a man.

Nope, Jesus decided to obey when God sent Him.

God gave his only Son: nope, God became a man and came down from heaven.

Nope, God sent His only Son to become a man and He obeyed and came and was begotten on earth as a man.

When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman: nope, Jesus existed eternally.
ETC.

The living Word was with God and was God from eternity and the living Word, the Son of God who comes from God, was sent to become a Jewish man and when the fulness of time had come, God sent His only begotten Son, the spotless Lamb, to be baptised and to then redeem those under the law. (Gal 4:4,5)

 

[Soapy]

Jesus can be God in the trinitarian sense if He was with God.
In a trinitarian sense of 3 persons in the one God, God can be alone but with 3 persons there.
It is just like "How can the Son have laid the foundations of the earth and spread out the heavens (Heb 1:10-12 etc) if YHWH did this alone (Isa 44:24 etc)?" He can do it if there is a trinity and the Son is as much YHWH as the Father is.
This is certainly a better option than to claim that some scriptures must have been added by trinitarians.

No, Brian2, the better option is that God is ONE BEING and was alone in Heaven as that one being. And He, and He alone, spread out the heavens and the earth is the work of His hands.

Mankind is his greatest creation as He imaged Himself in man. Jesus Christ is destined to become His greatest and most believed ‘Son’… an Heir to Himself.

How can Jesus Christ be Heir to God if he, Jesus, IS GOD?

The purpose of the messiah being foretold and foreknown in the mind of God is that he should come into being, live an exemplary life, perform all that God sent him to do, put himself into the way of the sacrificial lamb, die for the salvation of mankind (‘You must name him, ‘Jesus’, for he shall save his people: the spiritual Israelites), be raised up again, taken up to Heaven, be seated NEXT TO GOD at His right hand - the right hand of power, be made to rule over creation until all creation is brought back under the power of God whence he, Jesus, HANDS BACK THE RULERSHIP TO GOD. After this, Jesus is given charge of the judgement of the world and sets aside those destined for everlasting life (wherein Jesus Christ in thence called ‘Everlasting Father’ since he grants everlasting life to whom he pleases) and everlasting death (destruction of the spirit) of those whom are judge wicked by him.
After this, Jesus Christ RULES OVER CREATION ETERNALLY along with the Elect, those from the first resurrection, who occupy the ‘Stations’ previously occupied by holy angels: ‘For the world to come will by no means be ruled by angels’). The seat of rulership for Jesus Christ is the ethereal throne of King David, Jesus’ ancestor. Indeed, how can Jesus be God if David, a man, is Jesus’ forefather??
Remember that it is a MAN that is coming back with the clouds… Remember that it is a MAN that will rule over creation! Yes, GOD is SPIRIT and rules over the SPIRIT REALM… JESUS is MAN, a physical being, and will rule over the physical, the CREATED WORLD. It hardly makes sense that there are TWO GODS, one ruling over the Spiritual Realm, and another ruling over the physical?

I also used to look at the language used in the New Testament (such as, was with God, was sent from God, glory to Jesus and to God etc) and see it as evidence that the trinity was not true and that Jesus was not God.
I ended up realising that this language was like that to distinguish between Jesus and God. If they were both called "God" through the NT then the idea of Oneness Pentecostalism would have been seen more.
But Jesus is mostly shown to be God through more round about or subtle ways, usually not directly saying "Jesus is God".

I’m happy to head you say that ‘Jesus is not God’. That’s one step towards truth. I have previously called you “trinitarian” but now things change with that declaration. What label should apply to your belief?

You correctly identified ‘The Father’ as being ‘YHWH’… That’s wonderful - Kudos to you!!

But then you go and spoil it all by calling Jesus Christ ‘YHWH’… How? Why? Oooh Brian2, Brian2…!!!

‘Oneness Pentecostal’ … THEY believe that God expressed himself as ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ at different times and as facets of each.
I’m not sure how or who you are applying the label and belief of Oneness Pentecostal but I am not a believer in it (nor Oneness Apostolic, for that matter!)

 

[Soapy]

Why didn't God tell us in clear and concise words that He was coming to earth as a man especially if our salvation hinged upon that?
As in for instance John 3:16 could have said "For I so loved the world that I gave myself that whoever believes in me should not perish but have eternal life." - Why isn't it plainly stated?

I don't believe that anyone pre-exist their birth. Since I don't believe that Jesus pre-existed, I believe that the glory Jesus had with his Father, with God, was foreknown and thus prophesied throughout the OT - that is the glory Jesus was talking about - the glory which he was to receive. Yes, it is described as having that glory in the past, but there are instances where the Bible presents future events that are so certain to happen as if they have already happened.

What you see as plain verses to you seem clear and plain because you read the trinity doctrine INTO the verses you quote then I turn around and read them from a total monotheism, unitarian perspective.

Thank you got echoing my thoughts on the matters you outlined.

I, too, say that Jesus was speaking as thought it had already happened. Like a great athlete who, AFTER he has won the race, says:

• ‘Give me now, the glory that was mine from before I ran the race (I knew I would win!)’

The Glory WAS THERE AWAITING he who would win the race…

Trinitarians, et al, do not ever say what they mean by ‘The Glory that was mine’. I ask and ask and ask but receive only deceptive responses … deceptions from those who claim to be Holy Spirit filled???!!!!! Do they not understand what it means to ‘Grieve the Spirit of God’?

The Spirit of God is Truth!!!

If truth is grieved … wow! There is no hope!!!

• If three persons makes one person then our mathematics is in disarray and reality is s distortion
• If ‘Equal to an entity’ means ‘IS that entity’ then logic and common sense is an illusion
• If Jesus is ‘With God’ ... at God’s right hand… and Jesus IS GOD… That’s TWO GODS… Paganism rules the roost
• If ‘Immortal Omniscient Omnipotent’ God can become mortal limited knowledge less than even angels’ Man then God is a not truthful… and we know that God is incapable of lying

Truth is grieved but it appears they have no conscience or realisation of what they are saying and doing to the word of the almighty God: YHWH.