Proof of Pre-Existence

[Brian2]

Where does the scriptures say that Jesus had the nature of God?

What is ‘The nature of God’.

You can’t say, can you!!! You can only keep repeating the phrase as though doing so gives its definition.

Can you tell me what it is please?

And, by the way, ALL MANKIND is made in the IMAGE OF GOD!

What is ‘The Image of God’… You don’t know, do you???!

Can you tell me what it is please?

 

[amazing grace]

"pre-existence" in relation to Jesus, means His existence before He became a man.

Yes, I understand what pre-existence" means in relation to Jesus . . . what was he before he existed? What was he before he came to be? Was he God? Was he Yahweh?

That is a bit ambiguous as to the meaning of "where", however we are told that Jesus lived before becoming a man and also came from heaven.
It's very plain to anyone who has no preconceived idea that Jesus did not exist before becoming a man, and really the scriptures tell us these things so that we don't end up with the idea that Jesus did not come into existence when He was conceived in Mary.

I don't know if we are TOLD that Jesus lived before becoming a man - I do know that Jesus had an origin, his beginning, his genesis, which began with the long list of his genealogy - as with every other human being in history.
Yep, he did come from heaven - Where does God reside? in heaven . . . God sent him, God gave him, etc.
Only to someone with preconceived ideas of literal preexistence believe that Jesus existed before becoming a man.

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. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

In that whole section of scripture, Paul is teaching the believers at Philippi about Christ's humility and how we are to humble ourselves with the same attitude of humility that Jesus had.
We have discussed this countless times because this is one of THE GO TO VERSES of Trinitarians. This section is not speaking of us having the mind of God . . . NOT God being in the form of God; NOT about God grasping at equality with Himself; NOT about God emptying Himself of his attributes by taking on the form of a man, becoming human even to the point of death BECAUSE God is not a man . . . and GOD is immortal meaning he cannot die. It is about Jesus Christ - the Messiah, the King of the Jews humbling himself.

John 6: 62 Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?

Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven, i.e. sent from God just as manna came down from heaven, i.e. sent from God.
Whoever feeds on this bread, Jesus, the bread of life shall live forever . . . but the disciples couldn't grasp this saying because it reeked of cannibalism! Jesus said - You take offense at this? what if you were to see the Son of Man ascend (come up) to where he was before? The context is about Jesus being the bread from heaven and giving life via his resurrection. He had been speaking of the resurrection, and they were offended, so he asked them if they would be offended if they saw him resurrected. Christ was simply asking if they would be offended if they saw him “come up” out of the ground, i.e. be resurrected, and be where he was before, i.e. alive and on the earth.
[The word translated "ascend" is anabaino and simply means “to go up". It is used of “going up” to a higher elevation as in climbing a mountain (Matt. 5:1; 14:23, et al.), of Jesus “coming up” from under the water at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), of plants that “grow up” out of the ground (Matt. 13:7; Mark 4:7, 8 and 32), or of even just “going up,” i.e., “climbing,” a tree (Luke 19:4) . . . . biblicalunitarian.com]

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—

We are told, “God is light,” and that God’s light shown through Jesus Christ and made him “the light of the world.” Though God was in the world in many ways, including through His Son, the world did not recognize him. He came unto his own by sending his exact image, Jesus Christ, to them, but even then they did not receive God, in that they rejected His agent, his emissary. God made His plan and purpose; His logos, flesh and shined His light through Christ to reach the world—but they did not receive Him, even though He was offering them the “right to become children of God” (v. 12).

1Cor 15:46The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.…

The spiritual is not FIRST - there goes the concept of Jesus preexisting!!
Jesus was of the earth, a human being born of a woman conceived by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High hence the sayings - sent by God, came down from heaven, came from God, God gave his only begotten Son, etc.
As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, (the resurrected Christ) so also are those who are of heaven - Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (v49). . . For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (v21,22)

Yes the coming Messiah would be a man, lower than the angels, an Israelite, a Jew, a servant of God, a prophet like Moses who is authosed by God and speaks words from God.

Then why insist that the Messiah was/is God in the flesh - God incarnate - a God man?

 

[Soapy]

Can you tell me what it is please?

Brian2, you are the one making the claim without defining its meaning. You response shows you have no idea, which makes your argument worthless and baseless.

Can you tell me what it is please?

See my statement above!!

 

[Sargonski]

It makes sense that God is one substance or nature or essence.



The nature of Christ's divinity has always been that Jesus is God and heresies caused the Church to define that more concisely. Constantine did not decide anything. He was allowed to declare what the Church had decided in order to combat the then current heresy, which was the Jesus had been created but which is the easiest thing to show from the scriptures to be wrong. But that ease did not stop the heresy from being popular, just as it is today in some circles.



I imagine "persons" is used instead of "people" because "people" would probably have pointed to 3 humans. "Persons" seems to point to 3 consciousnesses in the same God.
Jesus of course, as a man, did not want to go through with the pain, but was perfectly willing to go through with the plan if that was the only way, because He submitted to the will of His Father. So He overcame His carnal nature, and that is why He was sent, because He, being exactly like His Father, would be able to do that.



You have it right when you say that Jesus is not the Father. Surely you don't think that Tritarians teach that Jesus is the Father,,,,,,,,,,, do you?



Having the apostolic Fathers calling Jesus "our God" just as Thomas did (John 20:28) And those apostolic Fathers presumably teaching what their apostle associates had taught, it is no problem to see that Jesus was Divine, in the sense of being "of God".
Hebrews 1 &2 show us that Jesus had not been an angel, but was the Son of God and had the glory of God and the nature of God and created all things.
These are scriptures that the early church used.

Good post .. we agree on many aspects of - for lack of a better term - the Godhead ... and terminology is key in this disgussion .. distinctions are subtle .. what "The Godhead" means to me .. may mean something completely different to you .. and yet again different to someone else.

apostolic fathers referring to Jesus as "God" .. was not referring to him as "The Father" . This is not about your perspective on God .. "the Godhead" .. but theirs.. so you have to try to undertand what they thought .. and you better be able to explain why .. these few cherry picked - out of context misinterpreted passages .. stand up against a Massive backdrop of Jesus claiming the contrary over the entire age range of the Synoptics .. and past into John .. a Gospel most certainly not written by the disciple.... with a completely different perspective of the nature of the divinity of Jesus .. but even in that gospel there are 100 examples of Jesus referring to the fAther as someone other than himself in clear defined terms .. no alternate interpretations that pass the giggle test.

So when we take a passage like "The father and I are one" which could mean any number of things .. one that he is one in purpose with the Father .. makes perfect sence in relation to John 1 .. Jesus is "The Logos" an intermediary between man and God .. in a religious context but also means "Word" .. and so Jesus is the symbolic representation of The Word .. his mission to speak Gods Word to the people.

So Jesus literally is "The Word of God" John 1 and God Was the Word.. The passage is not saying that Jesus is God when looked at from the perspective that the author of John was operating out of... . and so a big fail on the part of Trinitarians for pinning dogma - doctrine -salvation?! - on this pile of sand .. and again of crucial importance .. against a backdrop of solid tall mountains ..

in such case .. you select from the possible options of interpretation .. the side on which there is a foundation of solid rock ..and now go read the most famous sermon of Jesus ..preached from the Mount .. and make that the rock on which thy foundation is based.. and thus ends the sermon .. sans repeating once more "The Word" is God .. u understand ? so while Jesus is "The Word" .. Jesus is not the Father himself .. an emination from the Godhead .. perhaps some spark from the Godhead thus having divine nature .. like the angels or even better the Sons of the Gods .. who came down and took human wives way back in the day.

"Trinitarians don't teach that Jesus is God" ---- glad you brought this up -- but "Ouch" at the same time. What the Trinity doctrine says .. and what Trinitarians teach .. are two separate things. The fact of the matter is that you have hit the nail square on the head -- pointing out the big contradiction in the doctrine .. because Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is God and that Jesus is not God

so you are correct that Trinitarians do not always teach that Jesus is God -- committing the sin of omission in the process and further .. a large number of Trinitarians teach that Jesus is God ?! so this was messed up front back to center. Trinity doctrine teaches both ..

"The nature of Christ's divinity has always been that Jesus is God and heresies caused the Church to define that more concisely. Constantine did not decide anything. He was allowed to declare what the Church had decided in order to combat the then current heresy,"

Here you contradict yourself .. defacto claiming "Jesus is God" - something many other Trinitarians teach .. if not all - then go on to misrepresent Constantine and the beliefs of the Christian church at the time..

The church was highly divided over the nature of Christs divinity --- those who attended not representative of the entire Church .. by any stretch of your imaginary declaration that "The Church had Decided in order to combat heresy" .. certainly the Church had not decided .. and was still highly divided .. which was the reason Constantine convened the council .. his purpose to unite the Cjhurch to unify the empire .. being the shrewd Emperor he was.

but regardless ... it doesn't matter .. prior to this time .. for two centuries after the death of Jesus .. "The Church" did not believe that Jesus was God - The Father. Most believed that Jesus was divine in one of a number of various beliefs .. some claiming he was not divine .. but those who believed he was divine did not believe that divinity was on part with God - The Father. . ALL of the church fathers prior to turtullian believed Jesus was subordinate to the father .. and in fact there are remnents of this in the Trinity Creeds .. "Who Proceeds from the Father" and so forth.

Summary -- Jesus did not believe he was his Father .. did not believe he was the Most High God ... and certainly the author of the original story did not believe this .. in any way shape or form do we find this in Mark .. not even hinted at .. but contradicted all over the map.

 

[Soapy]

Good post .. we agree on many aspects of - for lack of a better term - the Godhead ... and terminology is key in this disgussion .. distinctions are subtle .. what "The Godhead" means to me .. may mean something completely different to you .. and yet again different to someone else.

apostolic fathers referring to Jesus as "God" .. was not referring to him as "The Father" . This is not about your perspective on God .. "the Godhead" .. but theirs.. so you have to try to undertand what they thought .. and you better be able to explain why .. these few cherry picked - out of context misinterpreted passages .. stand up against a Massive backdrop of Jesus claiming the contrary over the entire age range of the Synoptics .. and past into John .. a Gospel most certainly not written by the disciple.... with a completely different perspective of the nature of the divinity of Jesus .. but even in that gospel there are 100 examples of Jesus referring to the fAther as someone other than himself in clear defined terms .. no alternate interpretations that pass the giggle test.

So when we take a passage like "The father and I are one" which could mean any number of things .. one that he is one in purpose with the Father .. makes perfect sence in relation to John 1 .. Jesus is "The Logos" an intermediary between man and God .. in a religious context but also means "Word" .. and so Jesus is the symbolic representation of The Word .. his mission to speak Gods Word to the people.

So Jesus literally is "The Word of God" John 1 and God Was the Word.. The passage is not saying that Jesus is God when looked at from the perspective that the author of John was operating out of... . and so a big fail on the part of Trinitarians for pinning dogma - doctrine -salvation?! - on this pile of sand .. and again of crucial importance .. against a backdrop of solid tall mountains ..

in such case .. you select from the possible options of interpretation .. the side on which there is a foundation of solid rock ..and now go read the most famous sermon of Jesus ..preached from the Mount .. and make that the rock on which thy foundation is based.. and thus ends the sermon .. sans repeating once more "The Word" is God .. u understand ? so while Jesus is "The Word" .. Jesus is not the Father himself .. an emination from the Godhead .. perhaps some spark from the Godhead thus having divine nature .. like the angels or even better the Sons of the Gods .. who came down and took human wives way back in the day.

"Trinitarians don't teach that Jesus is God" ---- glad you brought this up -- but "Ouch" at the same time. What the Trinity doctrine says .. and what Trinitarians teach .. are two separate things. The fact of the matter is that you have hit the nail square on the head -- pointing out the big contradiction in the doctrine .. because Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is God and that Jesus is not God

so you are correct that Trinitarians do not always teach that Jesus is God -- committing the sin of omission in the process and further .. a large number of Trinitarians teach that Jesus is God ?! so this was messed up front back to center. Trinity doctrine teaches both ..



Here you contradict yourself .. defacto claiming "Jesus is God" - something many other Trinitarians teach .. if not all - then go on to misrepresent Constantine and the beliefs of the Christian church at the time..

The church was highly divided over the nature of Christs divinity --- those who attended not representative of the entire Church .. by any stretch of your imaginary declaration that "The Church had Decided in order to combat heresy" .. certainly the Church had not decided .. and was still highly divided .. which was the reason Constantine convened the council .. his purpose to unite the Cjhurch to unify the empire .. being the shrewd Emperor he was.

but regardless ... it doesn't matter .. prior to this time .. for two centuries after the death of Jesus .. "The Church" did not believe that Jesus was God - The Father. Most believed that Jesus was divine in one of a number of various beliefs .. some claiming he was not divine .. but those who believed he was divine did not believe that divinity was on part with God - The Father. . ALL of the church fathers prior to turtullian believed Jesus was subordinate to the father .. and in fact there are remnents of this in the Trinity Creeds .. "Who Proceeds from the Father" and so forth.

Summary -- Jesus did not believe he was his Father .. did not believe he was the Most High God ... and certainly the author of the original story did not believe this .. in any way shape or form do we find this in Mark .. not even hinted at .. but contradicted all over the map.

Brian2 thinks he’s clever by saying that Jesus is not his Father - WHOEVER said he was??? He’s creating a topic and then denying it as though you said it and therefore was wrong… a really terrible double twist!!!

And wasn’t it Brian2 who not so long ago was saying that Jesus is YHWH… But we know that YHWH is the Father, ALONE. Soooo….
YHWH is ONE NAME.. the name of one GOD: The Father so…. Brian2 IS saying that Jesus is ‘The Father’ even though, and as much as, he denies it in the cold light of the truth of his own words (which are therefore false words).

He’s got himself so tangled up he can’t see his way out of his dilemma. And there is only one way out: Admit he is wrong and embrace the truth: Jesus is not God; Jesus is the HUMAN Son whom God will place on the throne of his HUMAN ancestor, King David:: A HUMAN RULER OVER A HUMAN KINGDOM just as GOD, the Father is SPIRIT RULER over a SPIRIT KINGDOM (As the Father, so is the Son; each ruler by context of their own kingdom)

 

[Sargonski]

Brian2 thinks he’s clever by saying that Jesus is not his Father - WHOEVER said he was??? He’s creating a topic and then denying it as though you said it and therefore was wrong… a really terrible double twist!!!

And wasn’t it Brian2 who not so long ago was saying that Jesus is YHWH… But we know that YHWH is the Father, ALONE. Soooo….
YHWH is ONE NAME.. the name of one GOD: The Father so…. Brian2 IS saying that Jesus is ‘The Father’ even though, and as much as, he denies it in the cold light of the truth of his own words (which are therefore false words).

He’s got himself so tangled up he can’t see his way out of his dilemma. And there is only one way out: Admit he is wrong and embrace the truth: Jesus is not God; Jesus is the HUMAN Son whom God will place on the throne of his HUMAN ancestor, King David:: A HUMAN RULER OVER A HUMAN KINGDOM just as GOD, the Father is SPIRIT RULER over a SPIRIT KINGDOM (As the Father, so is the Son; each ruler by context of their own kingdom)

Here is the difficulty - every Bible Reference book - Bible Commentary .. will say straight out that nowhere in the NT is the Trinity referenced directly. It is simply not there. This will be followed by a page long apology stating that many feel there are indirect suggestions of a trinity of sorts .....and it gets more humorous as you go further.

K .. so that is the starting block .. the Trinitarian having the heavy burden because their one cherry picked out of context passage that has numerous possible interpretations .. has already been deemed to not be a direct reference to the modern Trinity Doctrine .. so the poster has to show undertanding of this .. and explain why we should take this interpretation seriously . and more importantly why the other interpretation favored by the overwhelming majority should be discarded.

and that is no easy hurdle - In addition .. on top of that hurdle are some spikes .. and that is the hundreds of clear, non ambiguous direct refutation and contradiction of that desperate interpretation .. over the other more sensible interpretation that is in line with what Jesus said .. over and over and over .. which is that "The Father" thou art in heaven --- >>>> H E A V E N <<<<< meaning NOT - on E A R T H
is someone other than him .. his God .. his Father .. the one who has sent him .. the one who gives him authority ... the one who knows things he does not .. the one who's Will is both different and more important than the Will of Jesus... and so on

KK -- now how many even make it to the spikes ? None .. mind can not compute .. like in old Star Trek series .. when Spock .. using his logic .. made the computer explode "does not compute .. does not compute" .. and they just fall off the hurdle at that point . often putting the messenger on ignore .. or just running from the playground .

 

[Brian2]

Yes, I understand what pre-existence" means in relation to Jesus . . . what was he before he existed? What was he before he came to be? Was he God? Was he Yahweh?

He was the Logos (John 1) but you are wrong when you say "before he came to be" because John 1:3 tells us that the Logos has always been and Heb 1:2 tells us that the Logos was the Son of God.
We are told that the Logos was what God was (John 1:1,2) and so the Logos was alive. He was the living Word of God then and still is that.

I don't know if we are TOLD that Jesus lived before becoming a man - I do know that Jesus had an origin, his beginning, his genesis, which began with the long list of his genealogy - as with every other human being in history.
Yep, he did come from heaven - Where does God reside? in heaven . . . God sent him, God gave him, etc.
Only to someone with preconceived ideas of literal preexistence believe that Jesus existed before becoming a man.

Everybody was in the mind of God before they existed but only Jesus is said to have come from heaven, and that heaven is where He was before He came to earth.
Phil 2 tells us that the prehuman Jesus chose to humble Himself and take on the form of a servant and become a man. (so He was alive then)
John 1:1,2 tells us that the Logos was all that God was, so He was alive.

In that whole section of scripture, Paul is teaching the believers at Philippi about Christ's humility and how we are to humble ourselves with the same attitude of humility that Jesus had.
We have discussed this countless times because this is one of THE GO TO VERSES of Trinitarians. This section is not speaking of us having the mind of God . . . NOT God being in the form of God; NOT about God grasping at equality with Himself; NOT about God emptying Himself of his attributes by taking on the form of a man, becoming human even to the point of death BECAUSE God is not a man . . . and GOD is immortal meaning he cannot die. It is about Jesus Christ - the Messiah, the King of the Jews humbling himself.

Yes Phil 2 is not speaking about God doing those things it is speaking about Jesus who was in the form of God and not grasping at equality with God, but of Jesus emptying Himself and becoming a servant, a man.
Those against the Trinity keep saying, no matter how many times they are told otherwise, that the Son is not the Father.
The Father is the only true God and His Son, who has always existed with His Father, is His Son and is and always has been in His Father.
The Father, the only true God, has always had His Son in Him. (and they also have always shared the same Spirit).
None of them has at any point in time, come into existence. They have always been together. The only true God, the Father, is a being in whom is His Spirit and His Son.
It is as Jesus said, "The Father and I are one", and even if anti trinitarians don't like the idea, that means that they are one thing. The Son is Divine, of God.

Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven, i.e. sent from God just as manna came down from heaven, i.e. sent from God.
Whoever feeds on this bread, Jesus, the bread of life shall live forever . . . but the disciples couldn't grasp this saying because it reeked of cannibalism! Jesus said - You take offense at this? what if you were to see the Son of Man ascend (come up) to where he was before? The context is about Jesus being the bread from heaven and giving life via his resurrection. He had been speaking of the resurrection, and they were offended, so he asked them if they would be offended if they saw him resurrected. Christ was simply asking if they would be offended if they saw him “come up” out of the ground, i.e. be resurrected, and be where he was before, i.e. alive and on the earth.
[The word translated "ascend" is anabaino and simply means “to go up". It is used of “going up” to a higher elevation as in climbing a mountain (Matt. 5:1; 14:23, et al.), of Jesus “coming up” from under the water at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), of plants that “grow up” out of the ground (Matt. 13:7; Mark 4:7, 8 and 32), or of even just “going up,” i.e., “climbing,” a tree (Luke 19:4) . . . . biblicalunitarian.com]

John 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

I don't remember the resurrection ever being described as "going up", that is something describing the ascension, which the disciples did actually see and it was actually going up to a higher place when He did ascend.
The passage is plainly about Jesus having come down from heaven and going back up to heaven.

We are told, “God is light,” and that God’s light shown through Jesus Christ and made him “the light of the world.” Though God was in the world in many ways, including through His Son, the world did not recognize him. He came unto his own by sending his exact image, Jesus Christ, to them, but even then they did not receive God, in that they rejected His agent, his emissary. God made His plan and purpose; His logos, flesh and shined His light through Christ to reach the world—but they did not receive Him, even though He was offering them the “right to become children of God” (v. 12).

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—

The world was made through Jesus, through Him who was in the world as a man............. through the Son according to Heb 1:2.

The spiritual is not FIRST - there goes the concept of Jesus preexisting!!
Jesus was of the earth, a human being born of a woman conceived by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High hence the sayings - sent by God, came down from heaven, came from God, God gave his only begotten Son, etc.
As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, (the resurrected Christ) so also are those who are of heaven - Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (v49). . . For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (v21,22)

The spiritual MAN was not first. The first MAN was Adam, of the earth.
The second man, the Christ, is from heaven.
As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, (the man from heaven, Christ) so also are those who are of heaven - Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (v49). . . For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (v21,22)

Then why insist that the Messiah was/is God in the flesh - God incarnate - a God man?

Why insist on the plain meaning of the scriptures? Hmmm
It's not I who gave the scriptures to humans.
God sent His Son, who is of God, to become a human, to be of God and of humanity also, to be the mediator of the New Covenant, the everlasting Covenant in His blood.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, you are the one making the claim without defining its meaning. You response shows you have no idea, which makes your argument worthless and baseless.

See my statement above!!

Oh, OK.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2 thinks he’s clever by saying that Jesus is not his Father - WHOEVER said he was??? He’s creating a topic and then denying it as though you said it and therefore was wrong… a really terrible double twist!!!

And wasn’t it Brian2 who not so long ago was saying that Jesus is YHWH… But we know that YHWH is the Father, ALONE. Soooo….
YHWH is ONE NAME.. the name of one GOD: The Father so…. Brian2 IS saying that Jesus is ‘The Father’ even though, and as much as, he denies it in the cold light of the truth of his own words (which are therefore false words).

He’s got himself so tangled up he can’t see his way out of his dilemma. And there is only one way out: Admit he is wrong and embrace the truth: Jesus is not God;

Are you attacking the messenger again.

Jesus is the HUMAN Son whom God will place on the throne of his HUMAN ancestor, King David:: A HUMAN RULER OVER A HUMAN KINGDOM just as GOD, the Father is SPIRIT RULER over a SPIRIT KINGDOM (As the Father, so is the Son; each ruler by context of their own kingdom)

Heresies are many and varied. The Baha'is want Jesus to be the ruler of a Kingdom that is not of this world and you want Jesus to be the ruler of a Kingdom that is of this world. Is it any wonder that people attack the plain truth of the Bible as if it can mean anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

The spiritual MAN was not first. The first MAN was Adam, of the earth.
The second man, the Christ, is from heaven.
As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, (the man from heaven, Christ) so also are those who are of heaven - Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (v49). . . For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (v21,22)



Why insist on the plain meaning of the scriptures? Hmmm
It's not I who gave the scriptures to humans.
God sent His Son, who is of God, to become a human, to be of God and of humanity also, to be the mediator of the New Covenant, the everlasting Covenant in His blood.

I surely can't say I understand everything, but when Jesus was born he had to be fed by his mother. And he had to be taught to speak and read. His He also learned from the Father, who provided a good home for him with loving parents. Jesus himself said he was taught by his heavenly Father.
"Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28) Jesus always did what was faithful to his Father in heaven.

 

[Brian2]

I surely can't say I understand everything, but when Jesus was born he had to be fed by his mother. And he had to be taught to speak and read. His He also learned from the Father, who provided a good home for him with loving parents. Jesus himself said he was taught by his heavenly Father.
"Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28) Jesus always did what was faithful to his Father in heaven.

That sounds right. What is your point?

 

[YoursTrue]

That sounds right. What is your point?

When Jesus was on the earth as a man, the devil asked him to do one act of worship and he would give him all the kingdoms of the world. Remember that? Jesus refused and said it is God only that one must worship. Matthew chapter 4:

"And the tempter approached him and told him “If you are Son of God, say the word for these stones to become bread.” 4 But he answered “It is written ‘Not upon bread alone shall man live, but upon every word that comes out of God’s mouth.’” 5 Then the Devil took him to the sacred city and set him on the wing of the temple-precinct, 6 and said to him “If you are Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written ‘He will give his angels commands about you, and they will lift you on their hands, for fear you should strike your foot against a stone.’” 7 Said Jesus to him “It is written again ‘You shall not put the Lord your God on trial.’” 8 Again the Devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and told him “All this I will give you if you will drop down and do me reverence.” 10 Then Jesus said to him “Go, Satan: for it is written ‘You shall do reverence to the Lord your God, and worship him alone.’” 11 Then the Devil left him: and lo, angels came to him and waited on his needs."

 

[Brian2]

When Jesus was on the earth as a man, the devil asked him to do one act of worship and he would give him all the kingdoms of the world. Remember that? Jesus refused and said it is God only that one must worship. Matthew chapter 4:

"And the tempter approached him and told him “If you are Son of God, say the word for these stones to become bread.” 4 But he answered “It is written ‘Not upon bread alone shall man live, but upon every word that comes out of God’s mouth.’” 5 Then the Devil took him to the sacred city and set him on the wing of the temple-precinct, 6 and said to him “If you are Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written ‘He will give his angels commands about you, and they will lift you on their hands, for fear you should strike your foot against a stone.’” 7 Said Jesus to him “It is written again ‘You shall not put the Lord your God on trial.’” 8 Again the Devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and told him “All this I will give you if you will drop down and do me reverence.” 10 Then Jesus said to him “Go, Satan: for it is written ‘You shall do reverence to the Lord your God, and worship him alone.’” 11 Then the Devil left him: and lo, angels came to him and waited on his needs."

OK but I still don't see what point you are making.
I do see that Jesus pointed to God, His Father and not to Himself and that the OT points to God alone to be obeyed and worshipped, does that have something to do with what you are getting at?

 

[Soapy]

Are you attacking the messenger again.



Heresies are many and varied. The Baha'is want Jesus to be the ruler of a Kingdom that is not of this world and you want Jesus to be the ruler of a Kingdom that is of this world. Is it any wonder that people attack the plain truth of the Bible as if it can mean anything.

No Brian2, you are wrong again… wrong as usual because I did not say that Jesus was going to be a ruler of THIS KINGDOM…

Scriptures says that there WILL BE A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH…. Brian2, THAT is the kingdom that Jesus becomes ruler over…

I know nothing about Baha’i so I can’t say what THEY SAY. Linking what I’m saying to what Baha’i say is despicable since you are comparing apples with pears and then claiming that both are not fruit.

So, Brian2, where do your fallacies go now?