Jesus - First Born?

[amazing grace]

That is on His own merits. He had and has the same nature as God His Father.
That is something that you also should believe if you believe Heb 1:3.
So Jesus being exactly like His Father enabled Him to not sin.
No need for and theory that Jesus did not having something you call a "sin nature" because His Father was God.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. The power via the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of God, received at his baptism enabled him to not sin.
Romans 5 tells how sin entered the world and death by sin - through one man, Adam = sin nature. Then by one man's (Jesus) obedience many are made righteous.

That is a bit confusing for me. Are you saying that Jesus was not Lord and Christ at His birth but was made Lord and Christ at His resurrection?
How about at His Baptism, I thought you believed that is when He became Christ.
Jesus is certainly called the Christ, the Son of God by Peter and even by Himself.

Nope. Simply pointing out that one is his birth announcement - Messiah the Lord. The other showing that after successfully completing the task God had sent him to do, God made him both Lord and Messiah.
I don't believe I said He became Christ at his baptism, but I did say that he was anointed with Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of God, at his baptism to empower him to walk out his life in obedience to God his Father.

Malachi 3:1 tells us that Jesus is the Lord who will come to His temple.
If that means the Temple in Jerusalem then Jesus is God if it is His Temple.
If that means the He will come to His body (as in John 2:19-22) that would mean that He pre existed and then came to His body.
So anyway it means that He was Lord before and at His birth, and of course He was Lord after His resurrection also when He was told to sit at the right hand of God (Psalm 110--The LORD said to my Lord). He is even the Lord of David even when David is His Father.

Yes, a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah - and when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman.
The announcement in Luke 2:11 did not announce the birth God.
Who were they looking for? God in the flesh? What did they ask John? - "Are you THE Prophet?" they were looking for a man to come, the prophet God told Moses about who would be like him (Moses), one that He would raise up from among his brothers.

It is important imo to preserve the integrity of all the scriptures if possible and to let our theology show that integrity and to not deny some scriptures because of out beliefs.
So anyway we know that Jesus was Christ and Lord before the resurrection and so what Acts 2:36 means in the context of the resurrection is that by the resurrection Jesus was shown to be both Lord and Christ, the things that He had claimed in life when He said He was the Christ, the Son of God. (The Son of God of course being the Lord from heaven and not just a human creation by God)
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ in the sight of everyone despite their beliefs about Jesus. Peter was declaring the truth of what He saw, the risen Christ, and what He knew that meant.

Yes, it is important to preserve the integrity of all the scriptures to our best ability and not read our theology INTO the scripture.

 

[blü 2]

So where did sin come from?

Where did bad behavior come from? Competition is built into evolution. The ability to survive and breed is affected the individual's place in the peck order, so humans, in the past notably men but not only, these days more women. So you can get to the top by being born to the right couple, or by being the best performer in a particular field eg leading groups of people in war, or in hunting, or in getting some substantial enterprise done &c.

And as between tribes there's competition, for lands, access to water, access to hunting, access to resources and to markets. What do you do when you might starve? When your neighbor tribe disrespects you (the chief) or you (the tribe), how do you handle it?

And if you're in the group, and it's a large group, more than say 500 (some have said 200) then you have fringe dwellers, people with birth defects, wounded, crippled, not very bright, who may well end up on the fringes, living on the scraps, and thinking of the best ways to steal.

And so on. Even in our evolved morality there are conflicts. We're all born with moral tendencies, stronger in some than in others and excepting the occasional psychopath, so we instinctively act for child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. How do the first three stack up against respect for authority or loyalty to the group? As you can see, discord is possible within the one individual all down the line, As well, we have an evolved conscience, and an evolved capacity for empathy. On top of that we have our learnt morality, the customary way to deal with people older, younger, same sex, opposite sex, family or friend or outside, the various kinds of authority of the police officer, the doctor, the teacher, how to observe coming of age, pairing off, the birth of children, the death of people, how to excrete, how to dine together, on and on.

So being a human comes with a whole lot of moral equipment but a capacity for winners and losers too. How do you diagnose the great many cases of violence against women, for example? It isn't 'sin', it is wrong, it is criminal, but why is it so common and how best to tackle it?

And that's just one question out of thousands. Doing right and doing wrong are aspects of being alive, how you were brought up, where you are on the peck order.

And in there is both good and bad ─ built into the system, not because of any Fall nonsense.

 

[Brian2]

A miraculous Y-chromosome when God is stated to be the father is God's chromosome. What else could it be? Yours?

Yes true, and it is a Y-Chromosome that God would have produced somehow since the Bible tells us that God prepared a body for Jesus. However the Bible also tells us that God is spirit and that means that God is not flesh and blood and bone, so the God is not the biological source of the Y-Chromosome except in terms of God having created it, as opposed to having biologically produced it.

They didn't know anything was wrong. God had deliberately denied them knowledge of good and evil. They therefore had no notion that disobedience was wrong, nor could they gain it until after they'd eaten the fruit.

The name "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil" does not tell us that.
It does suggest that A@E were moral beings and so would have understood that disobeying what God had commanded was something God did not want them to do and would at least lead to the consequences that God had promised,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even if they might not have known to call their actions "evil", they would have know everything about it except the name "evil".

I didn't write the story but I did read it, and that's exactly and expressly built into the story.

Nor in the story are they ever accused of disobedience or indeed of 'sin' of any kind. You've read Genesis 3:22-23 by now so you know why they were kicked out of the Garden and you know it wasn't for sin or for disobedience or anything of the kind.

I seems built into the story that they did not know much about good and evil if anything, but as I said they knew they should not be eating the fruit.
I know why their access to the tree of life was cut off, so that they would not live forever.
This not living forever is of course given as the consequences of eating the fruit even from the start, when God told them not to eat it.
Gen 3:22-23 is no more than God making sure this consequence was carried out.
It also shows that the reason God did not want them to live forever is because they knew good and evil.
It seems silly to suggest that God was scared of them taking over His position or anything, BUT what we have since seen of the consequences of A@E eating the fruit and learning about good and evil, shows us that people who keep doing evil in their lives should not be allowed to live forever.

It means that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil before they ate and they had knowledge of good and evil after they ate (though why wearing no clothes is 'evil' has to be explained in terms of the story's cultural background).

In the story there was no cultural background and so the clothes bit is just something that was a consequence of them eating the fruit. It could have been a guilt thing, wanting to hide from God, and it could have been that they were ashamed, as Adam said, they did not know how to handle all this knowledge of good and evil and the feelings that it gave them and started by hiding and covering themselves up and hiding their guilt maybe.

Ain't rocket science. The tangle only arises when Christians, failing to check out whether Paul was correct or not, try to wish their own story on it ─ which as I keep pointing out, simply isn't there.

It is later that we find out the definition of sin is to disobey the commands of God and even though the word does not appear in the story, that is what happened.

No it doesn't show that, it doesn't say that, and it doesn't imply that.

There is NOTHING to support the claim that 'sin' or a 'fall' occurred. It's NOT in the story. Christians are trying to wish it on the story but IT'S NOT THERE to be wished.

Of course it's there and they did fall from God's grace and ended up on their *** out of the garden of paradise and having to work for a living and give birth in hard work and sorrows.

I see no basis for such an inference, and nothing in the story supports it. On the exact contrary they get kicked out to prevent them doing exactly and specifically that.

You must mean that God did not now want them to eat of it since they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Initially that would not have been the case, and at the right time the tree of life would have fruited for them. Why do you think that God put the tree there? So that He could say they could not eat it's fruit? That would be a strange reason.

That's like saying if the giant had caught Jack before he chopped down the beanstalk, the world would now be full of giants.

The world is full of people who sin.

And one last point ─ it's GOOD that humans know the difference between good and evil so what Eve did was heroic, even though that was not her intention.

Why would a just god punish anyone for doing mankind a major favor, even if it's only in a tale?

All the things that God put on A@E after they ate are probably things that have helped us to mature and grow as people. I don't think laying around in a paradise picking fruit to eat was going to help us mature.
But we have see the consequences of A@E eating the fruit, and the world is less pretty for them.
Actually resisting any temptation to eat the fruit and filling the earth with offspring who did the same etc would probably end up with the world and people in a better situation than it has found itself.
You seem to think that God had no intention of bringing A@E to maturity as humans, and had no intention of teaching them about good and evil at the appropriate times.

 

[Soapy]

Where did bad behavior come from? Competition is built into evolution. The ability to survive and breed is affected the individual's place in the peck order, so humans, in the past notably men but not only, these days more women. So you can get to the top by being born to the right couple, or by being the best performer in a particular field eg leading groups of people in war, or in hunting, or in getting some substantial enterprise done &c.

And as between tribes there's competition, for lands, access to water, access to hunting, access to resources and to markets. What do you do when you might starve? When your neighbor tribe disrespects you (the chief) or you (the tribe), how do you handle it?

And if you're in the group, and it's a large group, more than say 500 (some have said 200) then you have fringe dwellers, people with birth defects, wounded, crippled, not very bright, who may well end up on the fringes, living on the scraps, and thinking of the best ways to steal.

And so on. Even in our evolved morality there are conflicts. We're all born with moral tendencies, stronger in some than in others and excepting the occasional psychopath, so we instinctively act for child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. How do the first three stack up against respect for authority or loyalty to the group? As you can see, discord is possible within the one individual all down the line, As well, we have an evolved conscience, and an evolved capacity for empathy. On top of that we have our learnt morality, the customary way to deal with people older, younger, same sex, opposite sex, family or friend or outside, the various kinds of authority of the police officer, the doctor, the teacher, how to observe coming of age, pairing off, the birth of children, the death of people, how to excrete, how to dine together, on and on.

So being a human comes with a whole lot of moral equipment but a capacity for winners and losers too. How do you diagnose the great many cases of violence against women, for example? It isn't 'sin', it is wrong, it is criminal, but why is it so common and how best to tackle it?

And that's just one question out of thousands. Doing right and doing wrong are aspects of being alive, how you were brought up, where you are on the peck order.

And in there is both good and bad ─ built into the system, not because of any Fall nonsense.

The first ‘wrong’ was in Adam eating the forbidden fruit AGAINST the COMMAND of God.

Your idea would apply to Eve, to whom the command WAS NOT GIVEN. Adam was meant to keep the commandment and reach it to all his offspring after him. So, although Eve first defied ‘the commandment’, it was STILL down to Adam to have said ‘No!’ to her!

And after that, Cain did not listen when God warned him to bring THE BEST of his produce to Him.

Defiance against righteousness is sinful in any language and to any people whether there is a given law or not!

 

[Brian2]

Man sinned against God and yet God atoned for the sin of man who caused the sin?!!??!!!)

Great isn't it. God paid the price we could not pay, in order to redeem us and give us what we did not deserve.

• (The Son of God, if he is God, is ruler over HEAVEN… which is an infinitely greater kingdom than THE CREATED WORLD. How would it be a REWARD, for a majestic selfless act, to receive the rulership over an infinitely smaller kingdom that is limited in ability, having to confirm to limiting laws of physics - yet HEAVEN is completely unrestricted!)

and the Son of God becomes the Son of Man: God becomes man and lives in his own creation as ruler over his own creation!

God loves the world and sent His Son so that we might have eternal life.
I don't think that makes the Father of Son or Holy Spirit less mighty in power than they have always been.
But love is the nature of God and love is the greatest thing to have and express.

 

[Brian2]

However, there were only ten disciples in the upper room when Jesus appeared there. And there is no verse saying that Thomas later received the Holy spirit from Jesus….

In fact, even those disciples who were in the upper room WENT BACK TO THEIR DAY JOBS after Jesus left them… so what purpose did ‘receiving the Holy Spirit’ serve at that event? Does that not sound like a spurious verse to you?

Why then did Jesus tell the disciples (latterly, Apostles) to wait in Jerusalem until they received the Spirit of God which was a GIFT FROM THE FATHER. God had promised this from an earlier time. Jesus only DELIVERED it just as a post person delivers a gift from a distant Father to a Son - a gift from the Father which he promised the Son?

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, ethe doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

It appears that Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit and sent them out to be witnesses of the resurrected Jesus and to pass on the faith and the forgiveness of sin that went along with it.
Jesus also had received the Holy Spirit at the start of His ministry.
The Pentecost anointing with the Holy Spirit was a special anointing for that occasion and to fulfil the Joel prophecy. (or at least part of it)

 

[blü 2]

Yes true, and it is a Y-Chromosome that God would have produced somehow since the Bible tells us that God prepared a body for Jesus. However the Bible also tells us that God is spirit and that means that God is not flesh and blood and bone, so the God is not the biological source of the Y-Chromosome except in terms of God having created it, as opposed to having biologically produced it.

If God is omnipotent then God can be as material or as immaterial as pleases [him]. Doesn't God appear in material form in the Tanakh?

The name "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil" does not tell us that.

Of course it tells us that. The whole story tells us that. Genesis 3:22-23 tells us that. There is no reason to doubt, except for the unsupportable nonsense about 'original sin' and a 'Fall', regardless of what Paul said. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall ANY of the four gospels talking of 'the Fall of man'. It's just an idea that Paul personally liked, and as I said, it may be of Alexandrian background late in the 2nd century BCE.

I seems built into the story that they did not know much about good and evil if anything, but as I said they knew they should not be eating the fruit.

Not in any sense that would make it possible for them to sin. When they ate the fruit they had no knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Plain as day in the story

I know why their access to the tree of life was cut off, so that they would not live forever.
This not living forever is of course given as the consequences of eating the fruit even from the start, when God told them not to eat it.

No, the story nowhere says that.

Gen 3:22-23 is no more than God making sure this consequence was carried out.

God is about preventing them from becoming [his] rivals. God brings the same attitude to the Tower of Babel ─ [he] kicks the tower down to maintain [his] own superiority in power. [He] says so.

It seems silly to suggest that God was scared of them taking over His position or anything,

It seems silly that the ugly sisters would cut off their toes so the glass slipper would fit. You can do anything in a story.

You seem to think that God had no intention of bringing A@E to maturity as humans, and had no intention of teaching them about good and evil at the appropriate times.

It's impossible to tell what God was planning for the future. In the early stories [his] planning powers are very small and [his] foresight is woeful ─ [his] entire project is a failure and [he] has to wipe it out with a Flood.

Learning on the job, you could say.

 

[amazing grace]

I pointed out that it is by your logic and not any scripture that we could say we came from heaven and shared glory with God before the earth was made.

We did not preexist because we were in God's foreknowledge. Jesus did not preexist because he was in God's foreknowledge.

How was Jesus really from heaven and really sent by God if He did not really exist in heaven or in God except as an idea in the mind of God?

When God was ready to accomplish his plan for the salvation of humanity - "When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" . . . . God chose a maiden, a virgin and sent His angel to tell her what was to happen. "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." Mary didn't understand: "How will this be since I am a virgin?" "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God." That is how Jesus really was from heaven, aka from God, aka sent by God - by God's creative power and in God's timing.

Yes that is the problem when you want Jesus to have been sent by God and when you want Jesus to have had glory with God before the earth existed (John 17:5) and when you say that Jesus did not take the form of a servant and become man. (Phil 2)

Jesus was sent by God. Jesus was promised glory before the world existed in that it was God's plan to glorify him with His glory and the hour had come for Jesus to be glorified (his death was approaching) and we see that Jesus is the radiance of His glory. . . . we are also promised the same glory that God gave to Jesus to be given to us. (John 17:22)
What I deny is that he was God and that he BECAME a man. Jesus's life was a life of a servant - a life in service to others - always denying his will to the will of God his Father to the point of death.

"Image of the invisible God" shows that what is being spoken of is not the external appearance. But it means the same as "image of God" because God has always been invisible.

He was the "image of the invisible God" in the way he lived - in the way he lived he made known God his Father.
Is "in the image of God" the same as "the image of the invisible God"? I think so because God has always been invisible and all mankind was made in "the image of God".

Sort of but He remained who He was. He was the Son of God and remained the Son of God, equal in nature with His Father.
But in Phil 2, "emptied Himself" is supposed to be to do with being humble.

The thing is I quoted your words!!! "put his Divine attributes aside so that he could be and live on earth as a man and not God on earth" and I asked you "Isn't that the same as "emptied himself of being God, of his deity"? And that is what most Trinitarians believe.
Yes, Phil. 2 is about humility.

Yes the Word from God comes from within God and shows what God is like and does the will of God who sends it. But the thing is that you have taken definitions of the Logos and not considered the context of John 1:1, where it says that the Word was God.
So this dry academic definition you have is shown to not be a thing but to be qualitatively like God, having the qualities of God, and to do that, to have those qualities, the Logos has to be alive. Not only is this life a quality of God, but the Logos cannot express other qualities if not alive.

When people hear you speak do they get a since of the type of person you are? Do your words reflect your characteristics and qualities? Do your words begin as thoughts in your mind? So, in the same manner I could, for example, express what you say as: the word was with Brian2 and the word was Brian 2. (NOTE: this is just meant as an example)
If we don't understand the meaning of words used in the Bible and how they were understood in the time and culture of the Bible - our understanding can be skewed. The word became flesh, living and expressed in the human, Jesus Christ, totally making known God his Father.

I can go along with that, but that means that this spirit is not just a generic life force, it must carry the essence of the person. The soul is the totality of the person and when the body of that person is alive the body and spirit are the totality of the person. When the body dies the spirit (which is life after all) is not dead and so this life and the essence of the person in this life is the totality of the dead person. This is the soul of a dead person and whether it is asleep or dormant is not so important I suppose, but it exists. If it does not exist then God has to create a copy of the person at the resurrection instead of bringing the person back to life in another body.
So maybe we are closer to agreement than we think. Unless of course you keep saying that the person goes out of existence at the death of the body.

I consider the soul breath life and the spirit of man is from where our thoughts, emotions, what animates us, our characteristics, makes us who we are as individuals. (These words soul/spirit are used interchangeably or synonymously in scripture and distinguished by context)
The body, soul and spirit is what we are comprised of and are the totality of the person.
"the dust returns to the earth as it was and the spirit returns to God who gave it." - The body returns to the earth and the "soul/spirit" - what gives the body life goes back to God who gave it and then God will reanimate our bodies with our soul/spirit in the resurrection. But that does not negate the scriptures that say "the dead know nothing", "for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the place of the dead, the grave) to where you are going." So yes, we are dead, we are asleep in dormancy, so for period of time we do not exist physically or mentally until God reanimates us in our new spiritual bodies.

Sounds right.

 

[blü 2]

The first ‘wrong’ was in Adam eating the forbidden fruit AGAINST the COMMAND of God.

It was not a sin, because without intention to do wrong there can be no sin.

Your idea would apply to Eve, to whom the command WAS NOT GIVEN.

It applies to Eve. She discusses the command not to eat it with the serpent ─ who unlike God with [his] 'in the day that you eat of it you shall die' tells a lie, or certainly misspeaks, whereas the serpent speaks only the truth.

Adam was meant to keep the commandment and reach it to all his offspring after him.

Adam was incapable of sin until AFTER he'd eaten the fruit; and if anyone was to blame for Adam's ignorance, it was expressly God.

Defiance against righteousness is sinful in any language and to any people whether there is a given law or not!

No question of righteousness or unrighteousness can arise with folk who don't have any knowledge of good and evil ─ and that goes double here since in the story God deliberately puts them in that state.

As I keep pointing out to you.

And I also keep pointing out to you that nowhere in the story is the word "sin" found. Or "Fall". Or "death entering the world". Or 'spiritual death". They simply aren't there, aren't elements of the story. It's a later add-on.


To underline the point, consider ─

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

Sin is NOT heritable. Out loud and clear,

 

[Soapy]

That is on His own merits. He had and has the same nature as God His Father.
That is something that you also should believe if you believe Heb 1:3.
So Jesus being exactly like His Father enabled Him to not sin.
No need for and theory that Jesus did not having something you call a "sin nature" because His Father was God.



That is a bit confusing for me. Are you saying that Jesus was not Lord and Christ at His birth but was made Lord and Christ at His resurrection?
How about at His Baptism, I thought you believed that is when He became Christ.
Jesus is certainly called the Christ, the Son of God by Peter and even by Himself.

Malachi 3:1 tells us that Jesus is the Lord who will come to His temple.
If that means the Temple in Jerusalem then Jesus is God if it is His Temple.
If that means the He will come to His body (as in John 2:19-22) that would mean that He pre existed and then came to His body.
So anyway it means that He was Lord before and at His birth, and of course He was Lord after His resurrection also when He was told to sit at the right hand of God (Psalm 110--The LORD said to my Lord). He is even the Lord of David even when David is His Father.

It is important imo to preserve the integrity of all the scriptures if possible and to let our theology show that integrity and to not deny some scriptures because of out beliefs.
So anyway we know that Jesus was Christ and Lord before the resurrection and so what Acts 2:36 means in the context of the resurrection is that by the resurrection Jesus was shown to be both Lord and Christ, the things that He had claimed in life when He said He was the Christ, the Son of God. (The Son of God of course being the Lord from heaven and not just a human creation by God)
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ in the sight of everyone despite their beliefs about Jesus. Peter was declaring the truth of what He saw, the risen Christ, and what He knew that meant.

Yes, it is important to preserve the integrity of all the scriptures to our best ability and not read our theology INTO the scripture.

 

[Soapy]

Great isn't it. God paid the price we could not pay, in order to redeem us and give us what we did not deserve.



God loves the world and sent His Son so that we might have eternal life.
I don't think that makes the Father of Son or Holy Spirit less mighty in power than they have always been.
But love is the nature of God and love is the greatest thing to have and express.

Yes, Brian2, GOD sent his begotten son, a man: (‘You are my Son, this day I have begotten you’) to pay the penalty for all mankind:

• One righteous Man paying the price of sin created by One unrighteous Man

This is not ‘God paying the price for the sin of man’!

 

[Brian2]

Yes, Brian2, GOD sent his begotten son, a man: (‘You are my Son, this day I have begotten you’) to pay the penalty for all mankind:

• One righteous Man paying the price of sin created by One unrighteous Man

This is not ‘God paying the price for the sin of man’!

How do you see it then?

 

[Brian2]

We did not preexist because we were in God's foreknowledge. Jesus did not preexist because he was in God's foreknowledge.

The scriptures don't say that Jesus was in God's foreknowledge only. It might say that the work of the Messiah was in God's foreknowledge however.
BUT if I was in the foreknowledge of God just as Jesus was, then I could say to God that I want to come back to Him and have the glory that I had with Him before the world began. But I don't and can't really because it would be a stupid thing to say for me and for Jesus to say also. It would mean nothing, and in fact be a lie and be nothing but confusing for anyone who read it. It's a scripture that is plain, but you twist.

When God was ready to accomplish his plan for the salvation of humanity - "When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" . . . . God chose a maiden, a virgin and sent His angel to tell her what was to happen. "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." Mary didn't understand: "How will this be since I am a virgin?" "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God." That is how Jesus really was from heaven, aka from God, aka sent by God - by God's creative power and in God's timing.

That does not tell us that God created Jesus. That is in your imagination.

Jesus was sent by God. Jesus was promised glory before the world existed in that it was God's plan to glorify him with His glory and the hour had come for Jesus to be glorified (his death was approaching) and we see that Jesus is the radiance of His glory. . . . we are also promised the same glory that God gave to Jesus to be given to us. (John 17:22)

Why twist all these statements of what actually happened in the past, into promises of what will happen.

What I deny is that he was God and that he BECAME a man. Jesus's life was a life of a servant - a life in service to others - always denying his will to the will of God his Father to the point of death.

Well yes, Jesus, when He was not a servant, took the form of a servant and became a man. He was still the divine son of God all the way through but lived just as a man, the servant of God.

The thing is I quoted your words!!! "put his Divine attributes aside so that he could be and live on earth as a man and not God on earth" and I asked you "Isn't that the same as "emptied himself of being God, of his deity"? And that is what most Trinitarians believe.
Yes, Phil. 2 is about humility.

Emptying Himself does not mean that He was not the same person. He was but did not strut around claiming who He was and that all should bow to Him and obey Him.

When people hear you speak do they get a since of the type of person you are? Do your words reflect your characteristics and qualities? Do your words begin as thoughts in your mind? So, in the same manner I could, for example, express what you say as: the word was with Brian2 and the word was Brian 2. (NOTE: this is just meant as an example)
If we don't understand the meaning of words used in the Bible and how they were understood in the time and culture of the Bible - our understanding can be skewed. The word became flesh, living and expressed in the human, Jesus Christ, totally making known God his Father.

BUT as I said, this Word was qualitatively like God. (that is what it says imo when John 1:1 says "and the Word was God".)
So the Word had to have been alive to be qualitatively like Jesus.
My words show what I am like.
The Word was alive and exactly like God.

I consider the soul breath life and the spirit of man is from where our thoughts, emotions, what animates us, our characteristics, makes us who we are as individuals. (These words soul/spirit are used interchangeably or synonymously in scripture and distinguished by context)
The body, soul and spirit is what we are comprised of and are the totality of the person.
"the dust returns to the earth as it was and the spirit returns to God who gave it." - The body returns to the earth and the "soul/spirit" - what gives the body life goes back to God who gave it and then God will reanimate our bodies with our soul/spirit in the resurrection. But that does not negate the scriptures that say "the dead know nothing", "for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the place of the dead, the grave) to where you are going." So yes, we are dead, we are asleep in dormancy, so for period of time we do not exist physically or mentally until God reanimates us in our new spiritual bodies.

It is not "do not exist". Sleep does not mean we do not exist, and Jesus statement that the death of the body is not the death of the soul means that the soul not only continues to exist but continues to live,,,,,,,,,,,,, whether unconscious or not is beside the point.
It is again the plain scriptures that you want to change for the sake of scriptures that are not so plain.

 

[amazing grace]

The scriptures don't say that Jesus was in God's foreknowledge only. It might say that the work of the Messiah was in God's foreknowledge however.
BUT if I was in the foreknowledge of God just as Jesus was, then I could say to God that I want to come back to Him and have the glory that I had with Him before the world began. But I don't and can't really because it would be a stupid thing to say for me and for Jesus to say also. It would mean nothing, and in fact be a lie and be nothing but confusing for anyone who read it. It's a scripture that is plain, but you twist.

Every scripture concerning the coming Messiah was in God's foreknowledge; and therefore was foreknown by God. God knew beforehand the glory to be given to His Messiah and "the hour had come" for Jesus to receive that glory - his approaching death and resurrection.
Yes, the scripture is very plain.

That does not tell us that God created Jesus. That is in your imagination.

In your opinion what do those verses say? How was Jesus conceived?

Why twist all these statements of what actually happened in the past, into promises of what will happen.

I'm not twisting the statements. Sometimes in scripture things are stated as happening in the past because of the certainty they will happen. (The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened.) You only read them the way you do because of your belief that Jesus preexisted.

Well yes, Jesus, when He was not a servant, took the form of a servant and became a man. He was still the divine son of God all the way through but lived just as a man, the servant of God.

When was Jesus NOT a servant? Wasn't Jesus prophesied as God's servant, His chosen one? And was not Jesus prophesied to be a prophet like Moses from among Moses' brothers? Wasn't Moses a man? Yes, he was God's Son, God's human Son----like Moses, like Adam.

Emptying Himself does not mean that He was not the same person. He was but did not strut around claiming who He was and that all should bow to Him and obey Him.

Yes, humility.

BUT as I said, this Word was qualitatively like God. (that is what it says imo when John 1:1 says "and the Word was God".)
So the Word had to have been alive to be qualitatively like Jesus.
My words show what I am like.
The Word was alive and exactly like God.

The word became flesh, living and expressed in the human, Jesus Christ, totally making known God his Father.

It is not "do not exist". Sleep does not mean we do not exist, and Jesus statement that the death of the body is not the death of the soul means that the soul not only continues to exist but continues to live,,,,,,,,,,,,, whether unconscious or not is beside the point.
It is again the plain scriptures that you want to change for the sake of scriptures that are not so plain.

"the dead know nothing", "for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the place of the dead, the grave) to where you are going." So yes, we are dead, we are asleep in dormancy, so for period of time we do not exist physically or mentally until God reanimates us in our new spiritual bodies.If

 

[Brian2]

Every scripture concerning the coming Messiah was in God's foreknowledge; and therefore was foreknown by God. God knew beforehand the glory to be given to His Messiah and "the hour had come" for Jesus to receive that glory - his approaching death and resurrection.
Yes, the scripture is very plain.

And Jesus knew that He had been with His Father and received glory before the world was created. That also is clear.

In your opinion what do those verses say? How was Jesus conceived?

"When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman"

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

"How will this be since I am a virgin?" "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God."

They say what they say but are not precise and don't give the whole story.
Jesus had to have used flesh from Mary so that He could be the Son of David.
God would have had to produce a Y-Chromosome so the Jesus could be a man.
The body of Jesus is something that God prepared for Him (see Hberews 10:5).
The spirit essence of the person that entered the body/flesh came from heaven as a person and not as a generic life force.
The physical body is the part of Jesus that was made and produced from God's created physical elements.

I'm not twisting the statements. Sometimes in scripture things are stated as happening in the past because of the certainty they will happen. (The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened.) You only read them the way you do because of your belief that Jesus preexisted.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
It even tells us when Jesus had glory with the Father. Before the world existed.
If it was the prophetic perfect tense it would not say that.
I believe Jesus pre existed because of statements like this.
You are the one who needs to deny the plain reading and deny that Jesus was there before the world was. It plainly tells us that Jesus was there before the world was, and that He had glory in His Father's presence and indicates that He would go back to His Father's presence (the place where He was--John 6:62) and receive that glory AGAIN.
I won't be gaslighted by Satan, as you have been, into thinking even for one second that it does not mean what it says.
The Prophetic Past tense might have the tense changed to the past to indicate certainty, but it does not have other details that are changed, as you do with John 17:5.

When was Jesus NOT a servant? Wasn't Jesus prophesied as God's servant, His chosen one? And was not Jesus prophesied to be a prophet like Moses from among Moses' brothers? Wasn't Moses a man? Yes, he was God's Son, God's human Son----like Moses, like Adam

Jesus took the form of a servant and became a man (Phil 2) So He was not a servant before He did that.
Jesus was the Son of God before being the Son of Man.
Jesus also now has all power and authority in heaven and on earth and the Father serves Him by putting all His enemies under His feet.
Jesus is the Son of God over the house of God and we are the house of God, His Temple.
Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, 2 who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house. 3 For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) 5 Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, 6 but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.

Yes, humility.

Humility first before the one He was equal in nature with first, His Father, then humility before other humans with whom He also had the same nature, human nature.

The word became flesh, living and expressed in the human, Jesus Christ, totally making known God his Father.

OK, but John 1:1 is speaking about the Word in the beginning, at the creation of all things, including time, in eternity,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and it is telling us that the Word who was with God was also, among other things, alive like God was.
If the Word knew the Father then He could make His Father known to others.

"the dead know nothing", "for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the place of the dead, the grave) to where you are going." So yes, we are dead, we are asleep in dormancy, so for period of time we do not exist physically or mentally until God reanimates us in our new spiritual bodies.If

Sleeping people are not totally unconscious. They stir sometimes and react to things as the scriptures tell us the dead also do. Isa 14:9-11, 1Sam 28:3-35.
And we can even see in these passages that the spirits can be conscious in sheol.
The dead know nothing about what is happening on the earth.
They just hang around and forget everything. Their plans (not thoughts) cease and they don't work or need wisdom or knowledge about anything there.
The passages in Eccles that you quote are considering the difference between being alive on the earth and dead in sheol and do not say that you go out of existence. It is just a comparison and shows the state of the dead.

 

[amazing grace]

And Jesus knew that He had been with His Father and received glory before the world was created. That also is clear.

I have explained what I believe the verse to be saying with the understanding that Jesus did not preexist before he existed at his birth.

"When the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman"

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

"How will this be since I am a virgin?" "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God."

They say what they say but are not precise and don't give the whole story.
Jesus had to have used flesh from Mary so that He could be the Son of David.
God would have had to produce a Y-Chromosome so the Jesus could be a man.
The body of Jesus is something that God prepared for Him (see Hberews 10:5).
The spirit essence of the person that entered the body/flesh came from heaven as a person and not as a generic life force.
The physical body is the part of Jesus that was made and produced from God's created physical elements.

They are precise in what they say - they are words given by inspiration of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh - the first birth. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - the new birth, i.e. being born again.
How would God produce a Y-chromosome?
Hebrews 10:5 is in the context of preparing a sacrifice.
Man is comprised of a body, soul, and spirit. When a human being is born, they are a body, soul, and spirit. When they are born again; they receive the Holy Spirit, aka the spirit of God and Christ.
The whole of Jesus, body, soul, and spirit - was created by God within the womb of Mary.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
It even tells us when Jesus had glory with the Father. Before the world existed.
If it was the prophetic perfect tense it would not say that.
I believe Jesus pre existed because of statements like this.
You are the one who needs to deny the plain reading and deny that Jesus was there before the world was. It plainly tells us that Jesus was there before the world was, and that He had glory in His Father's presence and indicates that He would go back to His Father's presence (the place where He was--John 6:62) and receive that glory AGAIN.
I won't be gaslighted by Satan, as you have been, into thinking even for one second that it does not mean what it says.
The Prophetic Past tense might have the tense changed to the past to indicate certainty, but it does not have other details that are changed, as you do with John 17:5.

I haven't changed anything - It was predestined, i.e. foreknown by God that Jesus would receive glory before the world existed. And Jesus prayed "When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come . . . . I have accomplished the work finished the work that you gave me to do" . . .

Jesus took the form of a servant and became a man (Phil 2) So He was not a servant before He did that.
Jesus was the Son of God before being the Son of Man.
Jesus also now has all power and authority in heaven and on earth and the Father serves Him by putting all His enemies under His feet.
Jesus is the Son of God over the house of God and we are the house of God, His Temple.
Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, 2 who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house. 3 For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) 5 Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, 6 but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.

This is what God told Isaiah and Isaiah prophesied concerning God's Son, Jesus Christ:
Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. Isa. 42:1
Behold my servant shall act wisely, he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. Isa. 52:13
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied, by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities . . . because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; . . Isa. 52:11,12
ALL came to pass! Jesus accomplished the work God gave him to do and God gave him the glory promised him from before the world.

Humility first before the one He was equal in nature with first, His Father, then humility before other humans with whom He also had the same nature, human nature.
OK, but John 1:1 is speaking about the Word in the beginning, at the creation of all things, including time, in eternity,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and it is telling us that the Word who was with God was also, among other things, alive like God was.
If the Word knew the Father then He could make His Father known to others.

I understand what you are saying - I just disagree with your understanding as you disagree with mine.

Sleeping people are not totally unconscious. They stir sometimes and react to things as the scriptures tell us the dead also do. Isa 14:9-11, 1Sam 28:3-35.
And we can even see in these passages that the spirits can be conscious in sheol.
The dead know nothing about what is happening on the earth.
They just hang around and forget everything. Their plans (not thoughts) cease and they don't work or need wisdom or knowledge about anything there.
The passages in Eccles that you quote are considering the difference between being alive on the earth and dead in sheol and do not say that you go out of existence. It is just a comparison and shows the state of the dead.

Isaiah 14:9-11 is the fall of Satan.
1 Samuel 28:3-35 Saul disguised himself (knowing that he himself had cut off the mediums and necromancers from the land) calling on a woman who is a medium and asked her to "divine a spirit" - "Whom shall I bring up for you?" What did she claim to "see" - a god coming out of the earth whose appearance is that of an old man, i.e. Samuel. What was the first lie? "You shall not surely die." And as we can see that lie is still perpetrated by Satan now!!!
. . ." anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromance or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh." (Deut. 18:10b,12)

Now are really going to try to use this as evidence that people are alive in the grave?

 

[Brian2]

Isaiah 14:9-11 is the fall of Satan.
1 Samuel 28:3-35 Saul disguised himself (knowing that he himself had cut off the mediums and necromancers from the land) calling on a woman who is a medium and asked her to "divine a spirit" - "Whom shall I bring up for you?" What did she claim to "see" - a god coming out of the earth whose appearance is that of an old man, i.e. Samuel. What was the first lie? "You shall not surely die." And as we can see that lie is still perpetrated by Satan now!!!
. . ." anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromance or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh." (Deut. 18:10b,12)

Now are really going to try to use this as evidence that people are alive in the grave?

Isa 14:9-11 is initially about the King of Babylon and extrapolated to also mean Satan.
1Sam 28:3-35 calls the one who came up to speak to Saul, "Samuel". So the one who came to speak to Saul was Samuel, and he gave a true prophecy about Saul and his sons dying the next day.
And yes of course divination was against the Law but that does not mean that God would not use the witch for His purposes, to speak to Saul.
God uses anyone He chooses, even His enemies, to accomplish His will.

 

[amazing grace]

Isa 14:9-11 is initially about the King of Babylon and extrapolated to also mean Satan.
1Sam 28:3-35 calls the one who came up to speak to Saul, "Samuel". So the one who came to speak to Saul was Samuel, and he gave a true prophecy about Saul and his sons dying the next day.
And yes of course divination was against the Law but that does not mean that God would not use the witch for His purposes, to speak to Saul.
God uses anyone He chooses, even His enemies, to accomplish His will.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn [O Lucifer, son of the morning [KJV] = shining one, morning star, Lucifer; of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)] . . . . The fall of Satan grasping at equality with God: "I will make myself like the Most High".

I don't know if divination was against the "Law" or if it was even included in the "Law" but God would not use something that he prohibits nor something that He considers an abomination meaning these things listed in Deut. 18:10b-12a are disgusting, and He relates them to wickedness and idolatry.
Earlier in 1 Samuel 15:10,11 Samuel told Saul "The word of Yahweh came to Samuel: I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." . . . Then verse 28 - "And Samuel said to him, 'Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. Then we get to 1 Samuel 28:5 "When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was greatly afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. And when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, nor by the prophets." So if God would not aanswer when Saul asked Him - why would God use what He considers disgusting and evil?
The devil and his demons know things and can and do deceive people. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [1 Cor. 15:26] Death is considered an enemy.

​

 

[Brian2]

Isaiah 14:12-14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn [O Lucifer, son of the morning [KJV] = shining one, morning star, Lucifer; of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)] . . . . The fall of Satan grasping at equality with God: "I will make myself like the Most High".

Satan is not laid in the ground with maggots around him. It is a passage that has 2 meanings if it has to do with Satan at all, and it speaks of spirits of the dead stirring themselves to meet the dead King of Babylon. Some people have interpreted the passage to be about Satan and hence the name "Lucifer" used in the KJV instead of "son of the morning".
I prefer Ezekiel 28: 11-19 as being more specifically about Satan, but even that is also first of all poetry about the King of Tyre.

I don't know if divination was against the "Law" or if it was even included in the "Law" but God would not use something that he prohibits nor something that He considers an abomination meaning these things listed in Deut. 18:10b-12a are disgusting, and He relates them to wickedness and idolatry.
Earlier in 1 Samuel 15:10,11 Samuel told Saul "The word of Yahweh came to Samuel: I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." . . . Then verse 28 - "And Samuel said to him, 'Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. Then we get to 1 Samuel 28:5 "When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was greatly afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. And when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, nor by the prophets." So if God would not aanswer when Saul asked Him - why would God use what He considers disgusting and evil?
The devil and his demons know things and can and do deceive people. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [1 Cor. 15:26] Death is considered an enemy.

The JWs use the same argument about the passage and when I point out that God does use evil people, even in the midst of their evil deeds, to accomplish His will, they do not listen.
Then when I point out that the witch was shocked when someone actually did come up, and realised then that this must be Saul,,,,,,,,,,, they do not listen.
Then when I point out that the spirit that comes up is consistently called "Samuel" and is not called a demon or anything,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, well then when I say that, they still do not listen, so why would you listen to that.
You interpret it through the lens of your beliefs and not through good exegesis imo and so it cannot mean what it actually says, that it was Samuel, and who cares that God uses evil people doing evil things to accomplish what He wants, and who cares that the witch was shocked when a spirit actually came up. The witch of course could not get spirit of the dead to come up to speak to anyone, that is why she was shocked when she saw spirits coming up.

 

[amazing grace]

Satan is not laid in the ground with maggots around him. It is a passage that has 2 meanings if it has to do with Satan at all, and it speaks of spirits of the dead stirring themselves to meet the dead King of Babylon. Some people have interpreted the passage to be about Satan and hence the name "Lucifer" used in the KJV instead of "son of the morning".
I prefer Ezekiel 28: 11-19 as being more specifically about Satan, but even that is also first of all poetry about the King of Tyre.

Both Isaiah 14 and Ezekial 28 give an explanation of the origin and fall of the Devil - Ezekial the origin and Isaiah the fall. God inserts the devil into a section of scripture that portrays the King of Babylon (Isaiah) and the King of Tyre (Ezekial) - both powerful and ungodly kings because the devil is the one behind the actions of ungodliness. Ezekial 28:17 says: "Your heart was proud" then Isaiah 14 shows us the pride of the devil in the "I" statements: "I will ascend to heaven above the stars of God. I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the earth, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High".
helel means shining one, morning star, Lucifer; and is in reference to the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

The JWs use the same argument about the passage and when I point out that God does use evil people, even in the midst of their evil deeds, to accomplish His will, they do not listen.

I'm not a JW.

Then when I point out that the witch was shocked when someone actually did come up, and realised then that this must be Saul,,,,,,,,,,, they do not listen.

Then when I point out that the spirit that comes up is consistently called "Samuel" and is not called a demon or anything,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, well then when I say that, they still do not listen, so why would you listen to that.

Yes, the spirit (demon) that comes up is consistently called Samuel but wouldn't Samuel have known why Saul called him up? It doesn't make much sense since God had turned away from Saul and answered him no more either by prophets or dreams that He would NOW use a DEAD prophet to answer Saul! The scripture doesn't have to call the spirit a demon if we understand that dead people are dead and that those "who practice divination or tell fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead are an abomination to God, disgusting.

You interpret it through the lens of your beliefs and not through good exegesis imo and so it cannot mean what it actually says, that it was Samuel, and who cares that God uses evil people doing evil things to accomplish what He wants, and who cares that the witch was shocked when a spirit actually came up. The witch of course could not get spirit of the dead to come up to speak to anyone, that is why she was shocked when she saw spirits coming up.

The witch knew "someone would come up" after all she asked Saul "Whom shall I bring up for you?" Part of her shock was when she discovered that it was Saul asking her when God had made this practice unlawful and punishable by death. (Lev. 20:27 A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.) which is why Saul assured her she would not be punished (again in full disobedience to God). The "familiar spirit" was familiar with Samuel - he impersonated Samuel - he spoke what Samuel had previously said to Saul. Not knowing how Satan and his demons work through these practices IMO is dangerous and is why these practices still exist because people are deceived into believing they can call up the dead.

Many scriptures portray that the dead are dead. Relying on a few spurious accounts to base your belief that the dead are not really dead, is IMO, poor exegesis and may be why people don't listen.