I'm confused? No, I'm just going on what scripture says as Hebrews 1:2 is not the only verse that refers to this, verses 10-12 in the same chapter of the same book has God affirming that his son laid the foundations of the Earth in the Beginning, which is also what John 1:3 says, and Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14. Need I go on. Your theology is unscriptural, as is you authority.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Did the Son ask somebody to sit on his right hand in verse 13? If not, then the Son was not the one who laid the foundations of the earth. The Lord in verse 10, the 'he' in verse 13, is Yahweh, not Jesus. Yahweh asked Jesus to sit on his right hand. Yahweh laid the foundations of the earth, not Jesus.
It is a mistake to assume the conversation with the Son is continued in verse 10.
What are you talking about? Hebrews 1:10-12 is also speaking to the Son:
And "You lord laid the foundations..."
The entirety of Hebrews 1:5-13 is things that God has said.
And why is it a mistake to assume the conversation with the Son is continued in verse 10? If not God speaking to the Son, who then is speaking or being spoken to?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Do you believe in two Creators? We both can believe the Father is the Creator, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6. In Hebrews 1:10, there is only one Creator, 'thou', singular, being mentioned.
Did one of these two Creators become a man?
Why is one Creator the God of the other Creator?
What do you take it to mean in verse 12 ...thou art the same... if God became human?
The Bible teaches God sent his Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus was created, made of a woman.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed John 8:42 - Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Jesus says the Father is God -> God defined by Jesus as Father, not a Trinity
Jesus proceedeth forth came from God -> Jesus has an origin, not eternal
Jesus is not come of himself -> It was not his choice to be sent
Again, you misunderstand to doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is the very of God, however he is not the Father. This is the difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness.
Grammatically Hebrews 1:10 is God speaking to his son and you have yet to prove otherwise. Contextually, even though the last part of Hebrews 2:7 is a textually variant, it can be said of both the Father and the Son that creation is the work of their hands because God created through the Son. A carpenter can carve a chair by hand, yet this is achieve through to use of tools.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You have a problem though. Thou is singular. Creation is only attributed in scripture to one being, God.
In verse 10, the word 'And' breaks the conversation to the Son. After the word 'And' starts another thought. You really should read Hebrews 1 as a whole. Look at how 'And' starts a new thought....
This is not a problem, as it is God (the Father) is being spoken to in Hebrews 2:7 and it is the Son in Hebrews 1:10 it would be a strange if they were spoken to in the plural.
The tool and carpenter were an analogy not a literal comparison.
The word "and" is a conjunction between two statements, it is not used to start something completely new.
What you're saying is nothing more that what you wish, there is nothing scriptural in what you say, in fact it goes totally again what scripture says. Hebrews 1:10 is God, the Father, talking to his son.
Jesus is the Son from the inception of being made in the womb of Mary. However, Jesus is the Word from eternity (Micah 5:2. John 8:58).
The reason Jesus has a God is because he is not only the Son of God, but also the Son of Man. This question addressed by the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, a doctrine that many like to ignore when arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thank you for the comment. Actually, Trinitarians ignore the doctrine of God Manifestation. 1Tim 3:16 states that 'God was manifest in the flesh'. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the 'image of the invisible God', and 'no man hath seen God at any time' (which by the way is in the context of John 1, see verse 18). Search Wikipedia and you will notice that the doctrine of the hypostatic union has evolved over time. The false churches could not make up their mind on it.
Trinitarians ignore no such thing. They recognize that Jesus is the imprint of God's person, being the word of God, but this is only one part of how Jesus is described, he is also attributed, outside of his humanity, as the very nature God (John 1:1, Philippians 2:6). Again you are ignoring the Hypostatic Union of Christ. Jesus is the Son of God, not just some glorified creation.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. If Jesus is by very nature God, then it is impossible to say he was made exactly like his brethren (Hebrews 2:17), who are made of sinful flesh, and who are by nature not God. The Greek 'morphe' translated 'form' cannot refer to 'nature'. In Mark 16:12, speaking of Jesus, 'After that he appeared in another form unto two of them.' Between vv 9 and 12, his nature did not change. It must talking about outward appearance, not nature.
Again you are ignoring the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Philippians 2:6-7 states, "...though he was in the nature of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself no effect, taking the nature of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. Consider that Jesus said: 'And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.' (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). This is a primary example of Jesus not grasping at equality with God. Jesus denied being good. Only God is good. Jesus had one nature, which was human nature. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), where nothing good dwells, in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7).
I'm sorry, I'm not following your line of reasoning with Mark 10:18. How is Jesus denying being good? Jesus is merely asking the rich young ruler WHY he has called him good. Jesus is challenging the man's world view of what it means to be good. It is evident by what the man continues on to say that he considered himself to be a "good" person also. If Jesus is/was not the righteousness of God then my friend he could not be the spotless lamb. In him there is no sin.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed In Mark 10:20 Jesus is no longer referred to as 'Good Master' as in vv 17, but 'Master', because Jesus corrected him. The context is clear that Jesus did not want to be called 'good'. The reason is simple. Paul teaches that 'in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelling no good thing' (Romans 7:18). The same is true of Jesus, a man, a human, who was made in the likeness (sameness) of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). Jesus obeyed Yahweh, and overcame the sinful flesh.
The absence of "good" following this doesn't prove anything. The man was just challenged for using the term, he did what many would do, refrain from using it. Jesus asked the question "Why do you call me good?" he didn't tell the man "don't call me good". Jesus calls himself good, John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd".
But let's say you were correct in the underlying meaning behind Jesus' question @ Mark 10:18. How does this in any way negate Jesus from being God? If this is with respect to pure nature, then no Jesus is not good as he is also man (Philippians 2:7). And again you ignore the hypostatic Union.
So... what you're saying is that Jesus being man did have that nature of a servant/slave, but instead just had the appearance of one?? Maybe you should clarify...
The Greek word morphē has more that one definition, although when used literally it refers to the external shape, figuratively it refers to the nature. This is very evident with it's use in Philippians 2:7.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. Understand the Biblical context. Jesus was the complete manifestation of the one true God, who is the Father. He did the works of the Father, he spoke the words of the Father, and he was obedient to the Father. Jesus made himself of no reputation at his first coming, in fulfillment of the scriptures (Isaiah 53, esp vv 2). In this dispensation, we are to be servants. When Jesus returns, we will be kings. The humble will be exalted.
You are still ignoring the Hypostatic Union. Jesus, though he was in the form of God, made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant.
The prophets did the works of the Father and spoke his words. Does this make them manifestations of God? No. Jesus is the word of God, through whom God created everything.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Philippians 2:6 fails to demonstrate the hypostatic union. You have to either affirm that Jesus has two natures simultaneously fused into one being, or you have to affirm that Jesus surrendered one nature to get another nature. The premise is dead on arrival. Morphe is not referring to nature. Jesus possessed the mental and moral characteristics of God in his mind, which can be said to be God's 'form', or resemblance of character. Jesus' nature was human.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The doctrine of the hypostatic union is exposed once you consider that the man Jesus died. Where did the Jesus with God nature go? Did the God nature die as well? This is not possible since God cannot die. Jesus, a man, with a God nature would have been an impossibility. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inherited immortality, and was partaker of the divine nature, but this does not make him Yahweh. The saints will also possess divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
How is it exposed? I'm sorry but the once you are exposing is your lake of knowledge and understanding of Trinitarian doctrine, and the Bible for that matter. Christ was put to death in the flesh (1 Peter 3:18), in the 'time' in-between his death and resurrection Jesus suffered the pangs of death in Hades (Act 2:24, 27).
@iamTOTALLYredeemed How can Jesus' death state be any different from Lazarus in John 11? Jesus affirmed Lazarus was asleep (John 11:11), and clarified that Lazarus was dead (John 11:14). Jesus was 'asleep' in Hades for 3 days and 3 nights. Jesus was unconscious, knowing nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 146:4). This cannot possibly be said of God, who is immortal and cannot die. The hypostatic union fuses two natures, one mortal, one immortal, into Jesus. It's impossible.
You're correct when you compare Jesus' state of death with Lazarus. However, Lazarus was asleep with reference to his soul, but dead with reference to his body.
Psalm 146:4 is a comparison between the temporary plans of men and the eternal plans of Yahweh.
As for the book Ecclesiastes up until the final chapter, chapter 12, the entire book is focused of the perspective of a man who only focuses on the things of this world.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The soul, Hebrew 'nephesh', has reference to the person. The first Biblical reference in relation to man is in Genesis 2:7, when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Without the breath of life a soul cannot exist. Souls are mortal (Ezekiel 18:4). When a person dies, the spirit, or breath of life, returns to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7) and they perish, or return to dust. See Job 34:14-15. Nothing lives on after death.
Ezekiel 18:4 is not speaking of physical death, but the second death (Rev 20:14).
"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:21)
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So the second death is not physical? The reason it is called a 'second death' is because those people are physically raised back to life, judged unworthy of eternal life, and sentenced to die another physical death, a mortal process like their first death, but this time without hope of life.
I am being consistent with what the Bible says.
Believers who keep the commandments of Christ are promised they will live, but most will die before his second advent.
I did not say that the second death was not physical. Don't start trying to twist my words like you do to God's. The second death is both physical and spiritual, whereas the nature death that comes to both the righteous and unrighteous is only physical (Matt 10:28).
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God is the only being to have eternally possessed divine nature. Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, therefore they say Jesus eternally possessed divine nature. The truth is Jesus only partook of the divine nature after his resurrection. Immortality is a characteristic of divine nature. Jesus was immortal only after his resurrection. Saints will be made immortal after their resurrection. To say Jesus had two natures in effect denies Jesus came in the flesh.
You really do make some bizarre assertions that quite honestly make absolutely zero sense. Do you believe if you saying something then it is automatically true?
"To say Jesus had two natures in effect denies Jesus came in the flesh"? What?? Even though the Jesus, the Son of God, entered flesh and walked among us... but to say this denies that he came in the flesh?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed There is a reason for Matthew 1:1. 'The book of the 'genesis' of Jesus Christ...' and Luke 1:35 '...that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'. They teach that Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a Son once he was born, not before. This is to be understood first before you can understand John 1. The Logos is an expression of thought, or plan of God. God's plan was to send his Son. Once Jesus was born, the Logos was made flesh.
Then you're saying that Jesus was laying to the Jews about existing ever present before Abraham came into existence?
Just out of curiosity, at what point was everything created through Jesus? In the worm of Mary? As a man walking the Earth? Maybe it was whilst he was dead in a state of unconsciousness? After his resurrection? Or was before he entered into the existence of flesh... when he was the eternal word of God, before he was both God and man.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The current creation was created by Yahweh. The new creation is also created by Yahweh through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. An eternal creation is predicated upon the creation being able to exist for eternity, hence, the promise of eternal life. This life is through Jesus Christ to true believers. God creates human beings to live forever only through Jesus Christ.
Yet, every time the Bible speaking of God creating everything through Jesus, it refers to a past event.
And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (Hebrews 1:10-12)
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Ah, look at verse 13! But to which of the angels said HE at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?'
Yahweh is the subject of verses 10-12, not Jesus! Yahweh is the 'he' in verse 13. Yahweh created the heavens and the earth, not Jesus. Yahweh spoke everything into existence through his Logos, true, but it is a mistake to say the Logos is a person. Only when Jesus was born could it be said that the Logos was made flesh.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Hey, you are aware of the equally valid translation 'God is your throne'.
One point in my video is precisely this: 'Elohim' is a title that can refer to humans and angels, as well as God Almighty. It is not exclusive of Yahweh. Because of this, it is not a solid argument to argue the Trinity, Jesus is Yahweh, or Jesus having a God nature.
Yeah. I agree with the translation 'God is your throne', but the point is this is God speaking to his son, and Hebrews 1:10-12 is a continuation.
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
For by him all things were created (past tense), in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created (past tense) through him and for him.
As does Hebrews 1:2:
...through whom [the Son] also he [the Father] created the world.
Jesus is also called "the beginning of God's creation" in Revelation 3:14.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Colossians 1:15 also refers to Jesus. He is the 'firstborn of every creature'. Firstborns are not eternal. It agrees with Revelation 3:14
In Hebrews 1:2 - 'worlds' is also translated 'ages' in other versions. These ages are only possible through Jesus Christ, who made them possible through his resurrection. These ages are in our future. It does not mean Jesus Christ existed with God in eternity past as a Trinity and helped him create the physical universe.
Colossians 1:15 is in the context of want is said in verse 18:
"...so that in everything he might be pre-eminent."
The use of the term 'firstborn' being used in a way that refers pre-eminence rather than first in a sequence is totally in line with how it is often used throughout the Old Testament (Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9).
Not only contextually, but also grammatically Colossians 1:15 can only refer to pre-eminence as it is directly linked to "Image of the invisible God"
Revelation 3:14 uses the Greek word archē which John never uses to refer to the fist in a sequence, but rather uses it with reference to the initiation of something. He uses prōtos to refer to first in sequence, and he contrasts the use of archē and prōtos in Rev 22:13 "...the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Whether Hebrews 1:2 is translated 'age' or 'world', the same still stands. It (singular) was created (past tense) through the Son.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Many things are said to occur in past tense, but in fact have not happened yet. The concept comes from Romans 4:17 - '(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.'
God spoke in past tense, I have made thee... when God in fact had not actually done it yet.
Jesus has been made already father of many nations. He is a life-giving spirit.
Your assertion that the creation of the age in Hebrews 1:2 refers to a future event is completely unsupported. This is simply you attempting to make the Bible fit your unbiblical theology. Scripture should be your authority, not your theology.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Hebrews 2:8 - 'Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.'
Notice the first sentence is in past tense. It looks like a completed action, but the last sentence clearly says NOT YET.
God calleth those things which be not as though they were. - Romans 4:17.
Again, another good point. However, scripture is clearly not your authority, because you are yet the support anything you are asserting from scripture. You simply take scripture and "interpret" it however you like.
Hebrews 1:2 is very clearly speaking of the creation of this present age, because then in verse 3 it goes onto say "and he upholds (present tense) the universe by the word of his power."
@ezekieltemplemount There is no problem at all with the past tense of Hebrews 1:2. You need to understand that at the time the author wrote Hebrews, Christ already died, and made eternal life possible. As a result, the 'age of the ages' was created (past tense). The reason these ages are in our future is because the kingdom of God has not yet come into existence on earth. Those who will be heirs of eternal life will inherit this kingdom on earth for the 'age of the ages.'
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Has the God of Jesus (Ephesians 1:17) already raised up the saints together to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6)? If so, then why are you not there?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So, as Paul was writing Ephesians, he was already with Jesus, seated with God? The letter in Ephesians 1:1 clearly says the saints Paul was writing to were at Ephesus, not with God!
You are blind to the concept that God speaks of things as accomplished fact because the future reality of events yet to take place is certain.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed No, no. There is a difference between being 'in Christ and being 'with' Christ. We both believe Paul was 'in' Christ as all true believers are 'in' Christ. You are dodging the force of my words. Paul was not already 'with' Christ. This was his hope in the future.
The point of Ephesians 2:6 is that it describes a reality as already past. You always take it to mean it actually took place, when there are scriptural exceptions (Romans 4:17) you want to ignore.
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." - John 4:22-24
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus is God, yet he surrendered his attributes? I'll give you another chance to answer. Did Jesus remember creating Adam, in any sense?
Oh well thank you very much, that's very kind of you.
Jesus is the word of God; the very nature of God. Yet he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped and made himself no effect, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men.
From the time Jesus was born of Mary until he was crucified on the cross Jesus lived totally as a man under the law. So no, Jesus would not have remembered creating Adam.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So, Jesus knew he was God before he became a man? Yet, as a man, he forgot he was God? After his resurrection, did he 'remember' he was God? Does he know he is God today? How?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Yet John writes three verses after John 20:28 these were written that we may believe what? Jesus is God? No.
John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
We are to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Thomas is referencing Jesus as My Lord and the Father as My God.
Thomas, a Jew, believed in the God of Jesus in verse 17.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed 'Why does God still need to reveal things to Jesus? These things were more than likely revealed to Christ at his glorification.'
You miss the point. If Jesus has the same NATURE as the Father, this process of revelation should be unnecessary. Jesus should be able to read God's mind, among other things. Jesus should know everything God knows in an Omnipotent instant. Yet, the Bible teaches us that God revealed to Christ (Rev 1:1)
@iamTOTALLYredeemed He lives by the power of God, but that does not make him God. His power is derived from God. All power is given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). Jesus was not already all-powerful God by nature, God empowered him. The truth is everything Jesus knows is because God reveals it to him. Jesus' knowledge is derived from God.
I did not cite 2 Corinthians 13:4 as proof that Jesus is God, I cited the verse as proof that Jesus is still the son of man, hence he still needs God to reveal things to him (Revelation 1:1).
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus was in the Father in the same way he prayed the saints would be one in both Father and Son (John 17:21).
Are saints in the Godhead? -> No. Therefore, it is wrong to assume when it says Jesus is in the Father it means Jesus is in the Godhead.
1 Timothy 3:16 - What is the problem? Who was manifest in Jesus? God. God was in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). The six things mentioned in verse 16 constitute the Biblical 'mystery of godliness', not a Trinity.
Believers are a new creation in Christ. John 17:21 tells us how believers are in the Father, because they are in Christ who is in the Father. How is Jesus in the Father?
1 Timothy 3:16 does say "God was manifest in Jesus", says God was manifest in the flesh. Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2). Nowhere is Jesus said to be the flesh itself. Jesus took upon himself a servant's form, becoming in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7)
However, Jesus did know that he had shared the Father's glory before the world existed (John 17:5). Was this a memory, probably not. This something that the Father had revealed to him.
Being chosen in the past and sharing ones glory in the past are two completely different things. One is not required to exist to be chosen, yet one is required to exist to have something. It's clear that God had a plan, and I am not denying this fact. But you are making one unscriptural assertion after another.
Again, it is very evident that you do not care for being true to scripture, but you would rather read your theology into scripture than read it out of scripture.
Paul is very clear that he is very clear that believers are with Christ.
Even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ. - Ephesians 2:5
Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:2,3
@iamTOTALLYredeemed In Philippians 3:21, Jesus shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Our nature will be the same as Jesus in the resurrection. Jesus' body was glorified. Instead of flesh and blood, which is the nature of sinful flesh, in his resurrection he had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Jesus was made a quickening spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). He became immortal in his resurrection. Saints will also become immortal if faithful.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Understand that it was Jesus' choice to be a servant. Jesus 'took upon him the form of a servant' (vv 7). If it was by very nature, then he would not have a choice. He was tested by God, and was obedient unto death (vv 8). The point of Philippians 2 is for us to have the mind of Christ (vv 5). It is our duty to conform ourselves to be like-minded with Christ, and take upon ourselves the form of a servant. This is not our nature, it is our calling.
I'm not following, how would Jesus taking the *nature* of a servant upon himself negate this as a choice? Can the Son of God not choice to become man? If you know anything about Greek grammar, you would know that the clauses 'made himself nothing', 'taking the form of a servant', and 'being born in the likeness of men' are all synonymous with one another.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The 'essential nature' of a servant is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a servant as the distinguishing characteristic. Christ was in the form of God because he had the semblance and demeanour of the Father both mentally and morally. Jesus chose to do Yahweh's will. Jesus did not choose to become a man. Jesus himself says he came not of his own, but the Father sent him (John 8:42).
"Jesus did not choose to become a man"? Well that goes completely against what is said in Philippians 2:7.
'...who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.'
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus is a man. The passage affirms that Jesus chose to live as a servant. This has nothing to do with Jesus choosing a human nature. Again, 'form of God' means Jesus displayed the characteristics of God through Jesus' thoughts, words, and deeds. These thoughts, words, and deeds were done in humility, in the 'form of a servant'. Jesus was the King of the Jews, but did not exercise this authority. Not yet. He will at his second coming, perhaps this decade.
If Philippians 2:7-8 has nothing to do with Jesus choosing a human nature, I guess then we should just take a marker pen and blot out "being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form". Because according to what you're saying it obviously doesn't belong there.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Keep reading. Verse 9: 'Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:' Who exalted Jesus? God. If Jesus is God, why does he need exalting? Remember, he humbled himself in verses 7 and 8. It was God's responsibility to exalt Jesus. Keep reading through verse 11. Who gets the glory? The Father. In all things, God is glorified. It pleases God to exalt Jesus. Even so, Jesus is still subject to God (1 Corinthians 15:28).
If you are seriously a seeker of truth, I'm astonished if alarm bells are not now going off in your head. What you are doing is no different to any other heretic, who wilfully twists the word of God to their own demise. Next you'll be trying to tell me that Jesus is not eternal, even though this is his exact claim in John 8:58.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed John 8:58 - 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'
Just curious, why did Jesus not finish the sentence if he meant to say 'Before Abraham was, I am the Eternal God'?
In God's plan of creation, the seed promised to Eve in Genesis 3:15 was Jesus Christ, not Abraham, though born after. All of God's promises will be fulfilled through Jesus. The Bible teaches Jesus is pre-eminent (Colossians 1:18), not pre-existent.
How does pre-eminence negate Jesus' pre-existence?
Jesus is not the eternal God, the eternal God is the Father. Jesus is the eternal word of God; very God from very God. How ever Jesus meant to say what he said in John 8:58, referring to himself in the present state 2000 years in the past.
Again you should read the context of what is being said here, the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You see, there are other Trinitarians out there who will disagree with you and say he is claiming to be the Eternal God in John 8:58. You should study Exodus 3:14. Some Bibles have footnotes that say 'I AM' should be in the future 'I WILL BE'. To say Jesus is quoting this as 'I AM' and invoking the divine name is not proper exegesis. Besides, the context of John 8 clearly shows Jesus is not God. See verses 40,41,42,47,54, that show God is a separate being.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Have you considered the context of Jesus claiming Abraham could 'see his day'? How was this possible? Is Abraham God? This is rhetorical, of course, but it illustrates the absurdity of the Jews' question. The Jews twisted Jesus' statement, and asked Jesus if he saw Abraham.
The context of John 8 has nothing to do with proving that Jesus is by nature God. Your interpretation cannot fit. To say he 'be' 2000 years in the past, you need a verb 'was', not 'am'.
You're obviously not understanding what I am showing you, with reference to John 8:58. The fact the the verb used is in the present tense and not the past or imperfect tense is exactly my point. Jesus refers to himself as timeless; eternal, something only God can do. John 8:58 proves the eternal nature of Jesus.
When did Abraham see Jesus' day? Genesis 18 is a possibility. This is something Justin Martyr wrote about in the 2nd century.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Are you saying the three men were each a member of the Trinity? Justin Martyr is your authority on that, not the Bible. Genesis 18 is an Old Testament example of 'God Manifestation', which, as I said earlier, is something Trinitarians ignore. Angels look like men (Hebrews 13:2). Jacob wrestled with a man (Genesis 32:24) but Hosea said it was an angel (Hosea 12:4). These men most likely were angels of God, but collectively called Yahweh (Genesis 18:1,13,17)
@ezekieltemplemount Abraham saw Jesus' day because he righteously declared in faith 'God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering' (Genesis 22:8). He only saw Jesus' day through the eye of faith (Hebrews 11:13,17). Abraham believed in God's promise of sending his own Son and God's promise of the eternal inheritance of Israel (Genesis 13:14-15).
How is this seeing Christ's day? You need to be aware in the Jews reaction, "You are not yet fifty years old, and YOU have seen Abraham?" If you are correct in what you're saying then why didn't Jesus just correct their misunderstanding? Instead he deceives and provokes them?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The Jews misunderstood Jesus. You misunderstand Jesus. Jesus could not have existed at the time of Abraham. The Chronicles were written sometime after the history of the Jewish kings, several centuries later. There was a prophecy:
1 Chronicles 17:13 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took [it] from [him] that was before thee:
Yet what is said in 1 Chronicles 17:13 is something that is said directly to the Son (Hebrews 1:5). How can God say it to him if he didn't yet exist. This refers to the incarnation (Luke 1:35). This in no way disproves the pre-existence of Jesus, in fact it just establishes the fact more.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Re-read the whole verse. It does not say Yahweh is speaking to the Son in verse 5. 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time....'
The point of verse 5 is God did not 'beget' any of the angels as a Son.
This makes Jesus, God's 'only' begotten, that much more special.
God prophesied 1000 years before the Son came into existence that the Son would exist.
Good point. But Chronicles 17:13 refers to Luke 1:35. Until this point Jesus is not referred to as the son, but the word. Yet he is characterized exactly the same existing in eternity (Micah 5:2, John 8:58, 1 John 1:2).
Jesus is descended for David only according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). The who that was made manifest (1 Peter 1:20) is the Christ the spotless lamb (1 Peter 1:19), the God-man (John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8).
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The God-man is unscriptural. John 1:14 does not say 'And God was made flesh'. This is an error. The Logos was with (the, Greek article) God, and god (no Greek article) was the Logos. James Moffatt translates it as 'the Logos was divine'. The Logos is not a 'person'. The first 8 English translations of John 1 use the article 'it', not 'he', to describe Logos.
Only after the Logos was made flesh could the Logos be identified with Jesus, not before.
The term 'God-man' maybe unscriptural, however, the concept behind the term is very scriptural. No, you're correct, John 1:14 doesn't say that God was made flesh, but John 1:1 says that the Word that was made flesh was God.
The "it" argument really is not a very good one.
1) In Philippians 2:6 we have Jesus, before he was made in the likeness of men, humbly considering things. Only a person can humbly consider something
2) Jesus as a child is referred to as an "it" Matt 2:13
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Philippians 2:5-7 does not teach God became a man, nor a man who is also God. Consider the context of Philippians. Towards the end of the letter Paul says:
Philippians 4:19 - But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:20 - Now unto God and our Father [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
When we interpret Philippians 2:5-7 we need to understand in context that Paul has a God who is the Father.
Wow. Not only do you ignore the Hypostatic Union when you form arguments "against" the Trinity, you also completely misrepresent it. Of course the Father is God, his is the only true God. Jesus is his word (John 1:14), who is very God by nature (John 1:1).
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Does this Word have the same identity as Jesus? Would Jesus, Omniscient God the Son, remember creating Adam 4000 years prior as the Word?
Jesus sacrificed his attributes as God, when he was made to be the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). Jesus lived as a human in every way, but without sin.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Sacrificed his attributes? I'll try again. Would Jesus, Omniscient God the Son, remember creating Adam 4000 years prior as the Word?
Again, did Jesus have anything to do with creating Adam?
If Jesus is eternal, he should have remembered, right?
Yeah, but Jesus isn't the Father. It's very common for people to misunderstand the statement Jesus is God, as being Jesus is the Father, but this is not being said. What is being said is Jesus is the very nature of the Father.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed If Jesus is the very nature of the Father, Jesus, by definition, must be omniscient, since he is 'Very God', right? Yet, you are now going to deny this in saying Jesus 'forgot'? How convenient.
You're doing the usual mistake of ignoring the Hypostatic Union. Jesus after the incarnation was not omniscient, because he made himself no effect. It's not convenience, it's consistency.
Again, you twist my words, going way beyond anything I have said. No Justin Martyr is not my authority, hence why I said Genesis 18 is only a possibility.
It is one of the three men that goes by the name Yahweh (Gen 18:22), only two angels arrived in Sodom (Gen 19:1).
Passages like Genesis 32:24-30 is just more proof of what I am talking about, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jacob wrestled a man, and yet he saw God face to face. This man was an angel who had the appearance of a man. God was in the angel. The angel manifested God. Jacob can survive if he sees a manifestation of God, but Jacob would die if he saw God himself.
In John 1:14, we beheld Jesus' glory, which is God's glory. The fullness of God dwells in Jesus. God dwells in a human being. God was manifest in a human being. This does not make the human God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen HIS glory, glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature...
Again, your interpolation of Genesis 32:24-30 is unsupported by the bible. You are trying to read your theology into the Bible, rather that take your theology from the it.
You have Philippians 2:6-7 all wrong if you think that this is an exact example of what we should do. Philippians 2:6-8 is an example of the humility of Jesus, the greatest example that we should always be mindful of. Philippians 2:6-8 however is not for us, because we are already men.
I'm confused? No, I'm just going on what scripture says as Hebrews 1:2 is not the only verse that refers to this, verses 10-12 in the same chapter of the same book has God affirming that his son laid the foundations of the Earth in the Beginning, which is also what John 1:3 says, and Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14. Need I go on. Your theology is unscriptural, as is you authority.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Did the Son ask somebody to sit on his right hand in verse 13? If not, then the Son was not the one who laid the foundations of the earth. The Lord in verse 10, the 'he' in verse 13, is Yahweh, not Jesus. Yahweh asked Jesus to sit on his right hand. Yahweh laid the foundations of the earth, not Jesus.
It is a mistake to assume the conversation with the Son is continued in verse 10.
God speaks to the Son in verses 8 and 9.
Only one, 'thou', not 2, created.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
What are you talking about? Hebrews 1:10-12 is also speaking to the Son:
And "You lord laid the foundations..."
The entirety of Hebrews 1:5-13 is things that God has said.
And why is it a mistake to assume the conversation with the Son is continued in verse 10? If not God speaking to the Son, who then is speaking or being spoken to?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Do you believe in two Creators? We both can believe the Father is the Creator, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6. In Hebrews 1:10, there is only one Creator, 'thou', singular, being mentioned.
Did one of these two Creators become a man?
Why is one Creator the God of the other Creator?
What do you take it to mean in verse 12 ...thou art the same... if God became human?
The Bible teaches God sent his Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus was created, made of a woman.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
God sent his son from where?
Jesus is made of woman only according to the flesh (Romans 1:3).
No, there is one God and one creator, Jesus is the very word of God through whom God created all things (John 1:3).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed John 8:42 - Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Jesus says the Father is God -> God defined by Jesus as Father, not a Trinity
Jesus proceedeth forth came from God -> Jesus has an origin, not eternal
Jesus is not come of himself -> It was not his choice to be sent
Jesus is sent -> Subject to God
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Again, you misunderstand to doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is the very of God, however he is not the Father. This is the difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness.
So you admit that Jesus has come from God?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed
Hebrews 1:10 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are THE WORKS OF THINE HANDS:
Hebrews 2:7 - Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS:
-> 'Thou' = Yahweh. The context clearly rules out the Son as the 'Lord' in Hebrews 1:10.
Yahweh set Jesus over the works of Yahweh's hands.
My theology is scriptural.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Grammatically Hebrews 1:10 is God speaking to his son and you have yet to prove otherwise. Contextually, even though the last part of Hebrews 2:7 is a textually variant, it can be said of both the Father and the Son that creation is the work of their hands because God created through the Son. A carpenter can carve a chair by hand, yet this is achieve through to use of tools.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You have a problem though. Thou is singular. Creation is only attributed in scripture to one being, God.
In verse 10, the word 'And' breaks the conversation to the Son. After the word 'And' starts another thought. You really should read Hebrews 1 as a whole. Look at how 'And' starts a new thought....
Verse 6 - And again...
Verse 7 - And of the angels...
Verse 8 - But...
Verse 10 - And...
Verse 13 - But...
So, tools have the same nature as the carpenter?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
This is not a problem, as it is God (the Father) is being spoken to in Hebrews 2:7 and it is the Son in Hebrews 1:10 it would be a strange if they were spoken to in the plural.
The tool and carpenter were an analogy not a literal comparison.
The word "and" is a conjunction between two statements, it is not used to start something completely new.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed
Both references must reference the Father.
When did the Father-Son relationship begin?
The Chonicles, 1st and 2nd, occurred from 1000-500 BC.
1 Chronicles 17:13 - I WILL be his Father. He SHALL be my Son.
Therefore, to be consistent with the Bible, nobody can say Jesus was the 'Son' until he was actually born.
The Eternal Son is falsehood.
Jesus is obviously a 'Son' billions of years after the 'foundation of the earth' is laid.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
What you're saying is nothing more that what you wish, there is nothing scriptural in what you say, in fact it goes totally again what scripture says. Hebrews 1:10 is God, the Father, talking to his son.
Jesus is the Son from the inception of being made in the womb of Mary. However, Jesus is the Word from eternity (Micah 5:2. John 8:58).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
The reason Jesus has a God is because he is not only the Son of God, but also the Son of Man. This question addressed by the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, a doctrine that many like to ignore when arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thank you for the comment. Actually, Trinitarians ignore the doctrine of God Manifestation. 1Tim 3:16 states that 'God was manifest in the flesh'. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the 'image of the invisible God', and 'no man hath seen God at any time' (which by the way is in the context of John 1, see verse 18). Search Wikipedia and you will notice that the doctrine of the hypostatic union has evolved over time. The false churches could not make up their mind on it.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Trinitarians ignore no such thing. They recognize that Jesus is the imprint of God's person, being the word of God, but this is only one part of how Jesus is described, he is also attributed, outside of his humanity, as the very nature God (John 1:1, Philippians 2:6). Again you are ignoring the Hypostatic Union of Christ. Jesus is the Son of God, not just some glorified creation.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. If Jesus is by very nature God, then it is impossible to say he was made exactly like his brethren (Hebrews 2:17), who are made of sinful flesh, and who are by nature not God. The Greek 'morphe' translated 'form' cannot refer to 'nature'. In Mark 16:12, speaking of Jesus, 'After that he appeared in another form unto two of them.' Between vv 9 and 12, his nature did not change. It must talking about outward appearance, not nature.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Again you are ignoring the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Philippians 2:6-7 states, "...though he was in the nature of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself no effect, taking the nature of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. Consider that Jesus said: 'And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.' (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). This is a primary example of Jesus not grasping at equality with God. Jesus denied being good. Only God is good. Jesus had one nature, which was human nature. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), where nothing good dwells, in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7).
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
I'm sorry, I'm not following your line of reasoning with Mark 10:18. How is Jesus denying being good? Jesus is merely asking the rich young ruler WHY he has called him good. Jesus is challenging the man's world view of what it means to be good. It is evident by what the man continues on to say that he considered himself to be a "good" person also. If Jesus is/was not the righteousness of God then my friend he could not be the spotless lamb. In him there is no sin.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed In Mark 10:20 Jesus is no longer referred to as 'Good Master' as in vv 17, but 'Master', because Jesus corrected him. The context is clear that Jesus did not want to be called 'good'. The reason is simple. Paul teaches that 'in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelling no good thing' (Romans 7:18). The same is true of Jesus, a man, a human, who was made in the likeness (sameness) of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). Jesus obeyed Yahweh, and overcame the sinful flesh.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
The absence of "good" following this doesn't prove anything. The man was just challenged for using the term, he did what many would do, refrain from using it. Jesus asked the question "Why do you call me good?" he didn't tell the man "don't call me good". Jesus calls himself good, John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd".
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
But let's say you were correct in the underlying meaning behind Jesus' question @ Mark 10:18. How does this in any way negate Jesus from being God? If this is with respect to pure nature, then no Jesus is not good as he is also man (Philippians 2:7). And again you ignore the hypostatic Union.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
So... what you're saying is that Jesus being man did have that nature of a servant/slave, but instead just had the appearance of one?? Maybe you should clarify...
The Greek word morphē has more that one definition, although when used literally it refers to the external shape, figuratively it refers to the nature. This is very evident with it's use in Philippians 2:7.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Thanks for the comment. Understand the Biblical context. Jesus was the complete manifestation of the one true God, who is the Father. He did the works of the Father, he spoke the words of the Father, and he was obedient to the Father. Jesus made himself of no reputation at his first coming, in fulfillment of the scriptures (Isaiah 53, esp vv 2). In this dispensation, we are to be servants. When Jesus returns, we will be kings. The humble will be exalted.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You are still ignoring the Hypostatic Union. Jesus, though he was in the form of God, made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant.
The prophets did the works of the Father and spoke his words. Does this make them manifestations of God? No. Jesus is the word of God, through whom God created everything.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Philippians 2:6 fails to demonstrate the hypostatic union. You have to either affirm that Jesus has two natures simultaneously fused into one being, or you have to affirm that Jesus surrendered one nature to get another nature. The premise is dead on arrival. Morphe is not referring to nature. Jesus possessed the mental and moral characteristics of God in his mind, which can be said to be God's 'form', or resemblance of character. Jesus' nature was human.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How does Philippians 2:6-7 fail to demonstrate the Hypostatic Union?
Jesus exists (present tense) in God form, yet made himself no effect (as God) taking the form of a servant; becoming the likeness of men.
Jesus did not cease being god, but instead he suppressed his nature as God.
This is the Hypostatic Union.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The doctrine of the hypostatic union is exposed once you consider that the man Jesus died. Where did the Jesus with God nature go? Did the God nature die as well? This is not possible since God cannot die. Jesus, a man, with a God nature would have been an impossibility. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inherited immortality, and was partaker of the divine nature, but this does not make him Yahweh. The saints will also possess divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How is it exposed? I'm sorry but the once you are exposing is your lake of knowledge and understanding of Trinitarian doctrine, and the Bible for that matter. Christ was put to death in the flesh (1 Peter 3:18), in the 'time' in-between his death and resurrection Jesus suffered the pangs of death in Hades (Act 2:24, 27).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed How can Jesus' death state be any different from Lazarus in John 11? Jesus affirmed Lazarus was asleep (John 11:11), and clarified that Lazarus was dead (John 11:14). Jesus was 'asleep' in Hades for 3 days and 3 nights. Jesus was unconscious, knowing nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 146:4). This cannot possibly be said of God, who is immortal and cannot die. The hypostatic union fuses two natures, one mortal, one immortal, into Jesus. It's impossible.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You're correct when you compare Jesus' state of death with Lazarus. However, Lazarus was asleep with reference to his soul, but dead with reference to his body.
Psalm 146:4 is a comparison between the temporary plans of men and the eternal plans of Yahweh.
As for the book Ecclesiastes up until the final chapter, chapter 12, the entire book is focused of the perspective of a man who only focuses on the things of this world.
You should really try to read things in context.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The soul, Hebrew 'nephesh', has reference to the person. The first Biblical reference in relation to man is in Genesis 2:7, when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Without the breath of life a soul cannot exist. Souls are mortal (Ezekiel 18:4). When a person dies, the spirit, or breath of life, returns to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7) and they perish, or return to dust. See Job 34:14-15. Nothing lives on after death.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You are mixing apples and oranges.
Ezekiel 18:4 is not speaking of physical death, but the second death (Rev 20:14).
"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:21)
Job 34:14-15 is speaking about the flesh.
Again, you must read things in context. You really can make out the Bible says anything with the way you use scripture.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So the second death is not physical? The reason it is called a 'second death' is because those people are physically raised back to life, judged unworthy of eternal life, and sentenced to die another physical death, a mortal process like their first death, but this time without hope of life.
I am being consistent with what the Bible says.
Believers who keep the commandments of Christ are promised they will live, but most will die before his second advent.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
I did not say that the second death was not physical. Don't start trying to twist my words like you do to God's. The second death is both physical and spiritual, whereas the nature death that comes to both the righteous and unrighteous is only physical (Matt 10:28).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
The saints will share in the divine nature, not possess it. The divine nature belongs to God.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God is the only being to have eternally possessed divine nature. Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, therefore they say Jesus eternally possessed divine nature. The truth is Jesus only partook of the divine nature after his resurrection. Immortality is a characteristic of divine nature. Jesus was immortal only after his resurrection. Saints will be made immortal after their resurrection. To say Jesus had two natures in effect denies Jesus came in the flesh.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You really do make some bizarre assertions that quite honestly make absolutely zero sense. Do you believe if you saying something then it is automatically true?
"To say Jesus had two natures in effect denies Jesus came in the flesh"? What?? Even though the Jesus, the Son of God, entered flesh and walked among us... but to say this denies that he came in the flesh?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed There is a reason for Matthew 1:1. 'The book of the 'genesis' of Jesus Christ...' and Luke 1:35 '...that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'. They teach that Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a Son once he was born, not before. This is to be understood first before you can understand John 1. The Logos is an expression of thought, or plan of God. God's plan was to send his Son. Once Jesus was born, the Logos was made flesh.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.'
interestingly we are told exactly what this genealogy is according to in Romans 1:3:
...concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh...
So everything was made *through* a plan? You do not make things through plans, but in accordance with them. More textual changes required.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Then you're saying that Jesus was laying to the Jews about existing ever present before Abraham came into existence?
Just out of curiosity, at what point was everything created through Jesus? In the worm of Mary? As a man walking the Earth? Maybe it was whilst he was dead in a state of unconsciousness? After his resurrection? Or was before he entered into the existence of flesh... when he was the eternal word of God, before he was both God and man.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The current creation was created by Yahweh. The new creation is also created by Yahweh through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. An eternal creation is predicated upon the creation being able to exist for eternity, hence, the promise of eternal life. This life is through Jesus Christ to true believers. God creates human beings to live forever only through Jesus Christ.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yet, every time the Bible speaking of God creating everything through Jesus, it refers to a past event.
And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (Hebrews 1:10-12)
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Ah, look at verse 13! But to which of the angels said HE at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?'
Yahweh is the subject of verses 10-12, not Jesus! Yahweh is the 'he' in verse 13. Yahweh created the heavens and the earth, not Jesus. Yahweh spoke everything into existence through his Logos, true, but it is a mistake to say the Logos is a person. Only when Jesus was born could it be said that the Logos was made flesh.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You're absolutely correct Yahweh is the subject of verse 10-12. This is Yahweh speaking to the Son:
But of the Son he says "God is your throne..." and "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth..."
You seriously need to read everything that is being said, not just cherry pick what you like.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Hey, you are aware of the equally valid translation 'God is your throne'.
One point in my video is precisely this: 'Elohim' is a title that can refer to humans and angels, as well as God Almighty. It is not exclusive of Yahweh. Because of this, it is not a solid argument to argue the Trinity, Jesus is Yahweh, or Jesus having a God nature.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yeah. I agree with the translation 'God is your throne', but the point is this is God speaking to his son, and Hebrews 1:10-12 is a continuation.
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yet Colossians 1:16 refers to Jesus:
For by him all things were created (past tense), in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created (past tense) through him and for him.
As does Hebrews 1:2:
...through whom [the Son] also he [the Father] created the world.
Jesus is also called "the beginning of God's creation" in Revelation 3:14.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Colossians 1:15 also refers to Jesus. He is the 'firstborn of every creature'. Firstborns are not eternal. It agrees with Revelation 3:14
In Hebrews 1:2 - 'worlds' is also translated 'ages' in other versions. These ages are only possible through Jesus Christ, who made them possible through his resurrection. These ages are in our future. It does not mean Jesus Christ existed with God in eternity past as a Trinity and helped him create the physical universe.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Colossians 1:15 is in the context of want is said in verse 18:
"...so that in everything he might be pre-eminent."
The use of the term 'firstborn' being used in a way that refers pre-eminence rather than first in a sequence is totally in line with how it is often used throughout the Old Testament (Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9).
Not only contextually, but also grammatically Colossians 1:15 can only refer to pre-eminence as it is directly linked to "Image of the invisible God"
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Revelation 3:14 uses the Greek word archē which John never uses to refer to the fist in a sequence, but rather uses it with reference to the initiation of something. He uses prōtos to refer to first in sequence, and he contrasts the use of archē and prōtos in Rev 22:13 "...the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Whether Hebrews 1:2 is translated 'age' or 'world', the same still stands. It (singular) was created (past tense) through the Son.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Many things are said to occur in past tense, but in fact have not happened yet. The concept comes from Romans 4:17 - '(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.'
God spoke in past tense, I have made thee... when God in fact had not actually done it yet.
Again, the ages referred to are in our future.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus has been made already father of many nations. He is a life-giving spirit.
Your assertion that the creation of the age in Hebrews 1:2 refers to a future event is completely unsupported. This is simply you attempting to make the Bible fit your unbiblical theology. Scripture should be your authority, not your theology.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Hebrews 2:8 - 'Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.'
Notice the first sentence is in past tense. It looks like a completed action, but the last sentence clearly says NOT YET.
God calleth those things which be not as though they were. - Romans 4:17.
Scripture is my authority.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Again, another good point. However, scripture is clearly not your authority, because you are yet the support anything you are asserting from scripture. You simply take scripture and "interpret" it however you like.
Hebrews 1:2 is very clearly speaking of the creation of this present age, because then in verse 3 it goes onto say "and he upholds (present tense) the universe by the word of his power."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed then in verse 3 it goes onto say "and he upholds (present tense) the universe by the word of his power."
If you finish reading Hebrews 1:3, you will notice Jesus had already been born, not already pre-existent.
...when he had by himself purged our sins...
Jesus purged our sins after he was born, not when he was pre-existent.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
And this proves what? He is still upholding the universe of the present age which God created through him.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Matthew 28:18 - God gave Jesus all power in heaven and earth.
Hebrews 1:2 does not mean God created the universe through Jesus. That word 'worlds' does not mean 'universe'. It means 'ages'. You are confused.
Without eternal life, it is impossible to experience the ages. God created these ages through Jesus Christ, and offers eternal life in him alone.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount There is no problem at all with the past tense of Hebrews 1:2. You need to understand that at the time the author wrote Hebrews, Christ already died, and made eternal life possible. As a result, the 'age of the ages' was created (past tense). The reason these ages are in our future is because the kingdom of God has not yet come into existence on earth. Those who will be heirs of eternal life will inherit this kingdom on earth for the 'age of the ages.'
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
So you're saying that there is already a new Heaven and a new Earth (Revelation 21:1)?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Has the God of Jesus (Ephesians 1:17) already raised up the saints together to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6)? If so, then why are you not there?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." - John 3:3
"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - John 17:3
Yes, the saints are already seated with God in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So, as Paul was writing Ephesians, he was already with Jesus, seated with God? The letter in Ephesians 1:1 clearly says the saints Paul was writing to were at Ephesus, not with God!
You are blind to the concept that God speaks of things as accomplished fact because the future reality of events yet to take place is certain.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yes, Paul was in Christ at the time in was writing to the Ephesians.
Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed No, no. There is a difference between being 'in Christ and being 'with' Christ. We both believe Paul was 'in' Christ as all true believers are 'in' Christ. You are dodging the force of my words. Paul was not already 'with' Christ. This was his hope in the future.
The point of Ephesians 2:6 is that it describes a reality as already past. You always take it to mean it actually took place, when there are scriptural exceptions (Romans 4:17) you want to ignore.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." - John 4:22-24
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Amen. You can't go wrong if you follow the Biblical creed of Jesus. Hear O Israel, the Lord OUR God is one Lord.
Notice God is Spirit. Jesus is a man.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus is a man anyone who denies this is an anti-christ. Jesus however is not just man, he is also God.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus is God, yet he surrendered his attributes? I'll give you another chance to answer. Did Jesus remember creating Adam, in any sense?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Oh well thank you very much, that's very kind of you.
Jesus is the word of God; the very nature of God. Yet he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped and made himself no effect, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men.
From the time Jesus was born of Mary until he was crucified on the cross Jesus lived totally as a man under the law. So no, Jesus would not have remembered creating Adam.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So, Jesus knew he was God before he became a man? Yet, as a man, he forgot he was God? After his resurrection, did he 'remember' he was God? Does he know he is God today? How?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yes, Jesus know he was God before he became a man.
As a man Jesus was not omniscient. It wasn't a case that he forgot, he didn't know.
After his resurrection God glorified Jesus' flesh giving him a spiritual body, he now sees all things.
Jesus certainly doesn't reject the notion that he is God (John 20:28).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Does the Son know the day or the hour of his return (Mark 13:32)?
After his resurrection, if he knows all, why does God still need to reveal to him (Revelation 1:1)?
Jesus is God in verse 28, yet, Jesus HAS a God in verse 17?
Thomas saw the manifestation of the Father in Jesus Christ. - John 14:9, 1 Timothy 3:16
God was in Christ. - 2 Corinthians 5:19
The fulness of God dwelleth in Christ. - Colossians 2:9
God is invisible - John 1:18
Jesus is visible...
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Does the Son know the day or the hour of his return? He certainly didn't whilst he walked the Earth.
Why does God still need to reveal things to Jesus? These things were more than likely revealed to Christ at his glorification.
Jesus has a good because he is still the Son of man (Luke 24:39, Rev 1:13)
That's a nice twist on John 20:28, yet Jesus doesn't reject this, and there is not qualification placed on Thomas' statement.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Yet John writes three verses after John 20:28 these were written that we may believe what? Jesus is God? No.
John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
We are to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Thomas is referencing Jesus as My Lord and the Father as My God.
Thomas, a Jew, believed in the God of Jesus in verse 17.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
To be the son of something means to be the nature of that thing. Jesus is the Son of man. He is also the Son of God.
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is I hold to Jesus having a God. That's how this whole debate began.
Exactly Thomas was a Jew, which makes his statement to Jesus even more emphatic.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed 'Why does God still need to reveal things to Jesus? These things were more than likely revealed to Christ at his glorification.'
You miss the point. If Jesus has the same NATURE as the Father, this process of revelation should be unnecessary. Jesus should be able to read God's mind, among other things. Jesus should know everything God knows in an Omnipotent instant. Yet, the Bible teaches us that God revealed to Christ (Rev 1:1)
Jesus cannot be 'Very God'.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus is still the son of man. He was resurrected in the flesh (Luke 24:39). He lives by the power of God (2 Corinthians 13:4).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed He lives by the power of God, but that does not make him God. His power is derived from God. All power is given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). Jesus was not already all-powerful God by nature, God empowered him. The truth is everything Jesus knows is because God reveals it to him. Jesus' knowledge is derived from God.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
I did not cite 2 Corinthians 13:4 as proof that Jesus is God, I cited the verse as proof that Jesus is still the son of man, hence he still needs God to reveal things to him (Revelation 1:1).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Your use of 1 Timothy 3:16 is totally out of context:
The Father was "vindicated by the Spirit"?
The Father was "taken up in glory"?
It's almost as bad as your isolation of John 14:9. Jesus follows up with "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?"
We both agree that the Father was is Jesus, but how was Jesus in the Father?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus was in the Father in the same way he prayed the saints would be one in both Father and Son (John 17:21).
Are saints in the Godhead? -> No. Therefore, it is wrong to assume when it says Jesus is in the Father it means Jesus is in the Godhead.
1 Timothy 3:16 - What is the problem? Who was manifest in Jesus? God. God was in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). The six things mentioned in verse 16 constitute the Biblical 'mystery of godliness', not a Trinity.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Believers are a new creation in Christ. John 17:21 tells us how believers are in the Father, because they are in Christ who is in the Father. How is Jesus in the Father?
1 Timothy 3:16 does say "God was manifest in Jesus", says God was manifest in the flesh. Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2). Nowhere is Jesus said to be the flesh itself. Jesus took upon himself a servant's form, becoming in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7)
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
However, Jesus did know that he had shared the Father's glory before the world existed (John 17:5). Was this a memory, probably not. This something that the Father had revealed to him.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed John 17:5 - It was in the purpose of God to glorify Christ since the beginning of creation. It does not mean Christ pre-existed.
God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world - Ephesians 1:4
Nobody is arguing this means WE pre-existed! It means it was already in the purpose of God.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Being chosen in the past and sharing ones glory in the past are two completely different things. One is not required to exist to be chosen, yet one is required to exist to have something. It's clear that God had a plan, and I am not denying this fact. But you are making one unscriptural assertion after another.
Again, it is very evident that you do not care for being true to scripture, but you would rather read your theology into scripture than read it out of scripture.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed 'One is not required to exist to be chosen, yet one is required to exist to have something.'
How do you decide? Does the Bible make this distinction for you, or your Trinitarian theology?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be sanctified of God?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be known of God?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be ordained of God?
If it is talking about Jesus, then yes, but someone else, then no?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed 'One is not required to exist to be chosen, yet one is required to exist to have something.'
How do you decide? Does the Bible make this distinction for you, or your Trinitarian theology?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be sanctified of God?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be known of God?
Do you think one needs to pre-exist to be ordained of God?
If it is talking about Jesus, then yes, but someone else, then no?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How do I decide? Common sense.
Christ sacrifice was eternal once for all for all time. Those who are called and saved are so in Christ.
God is all knowing.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed
You ignored my question. To be sanctified, known, or ordained of God, does one need to pre-exist?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
To answer your question, which I did answer: No, as this is dependent on Christ eternal sacrifice, and Yahweh's omniscience.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Paul is very clear that he is very clear that believers are with Christ.
Even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ. - Ephesians 2:5
Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:2,3
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed In Philippians 3:21, Jesus shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Our nature will be the same as Jesus in the resurrection. Jesus' body was glorified. Instead of flesh and blood, which is the nature of sinful flesh, in his resurrection he had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Jesus was made a quickening spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). He became immortal in his resurrection. Saints will also become immortal if faithful.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus remained flesh, it is flesh that in corrupt. Where it is said this is the blood, not the flesh?
The reason Jesus is only flesh and bone is because his blood was poured out on the cross.
But that aside, this is speaking of the body of flesh, nothing more.
Jesus is a life-giving spirit because of his sacrifice. Clearly the saints will not be life-giving spirits, as it is in Christ that they have life.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Understand that it was Jesus' choice to be a servant. Jesus 'took upon him the form of a servant' (vv 7). If it was by very nature, then he would not have a choice. He was tested by God, and was obedient unto death (vv 8). The point of Philippians 2 is for us to have the mind of Christ (vv 5). It is our duty to conform ourselves to be like-minded with Christ, and take upon ourselves the form of a servant. This is not our nature, it is our calling.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
I'm not following, how would Jesus taking the *nature* of a servant upon himself negate this as a choice? Can the Son of God not choice to become man? If you know anything about Greek grammar, you would know that the clauses 'made himself nothing', 'taking the form of a servant', and 'being born in the likeness of men' are all synonymous with one another.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The 'essential nature' of a servant is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a servant as the distinguishing characteristic. Christ was in the form of God because he had the semblance and demeanour of the Father both mentally and morally. Jesus chose to do Yahweh's will. Jesus did not choose to become a man. Jesus himself says he came not of his own, but the Father sent him (John 8:42).
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
"Jesus did not choose to become a man"? Well that goes completely against what is said in Philippians 2:7.
'...who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.'
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jesus is a man. The passage affirms that Jesus chose to live as a servant. This has nothing to do with Jesus choosing a human nature. Again, 'form of God' means Jesus displayed the characteristics of God through Jesus' thoughts, words, and deeds. These thoughts, words, and deeds were done in humility, in the 'form of a servant'. Jesus was the King of the Jews, but did not exercise this authority. Not yet. He will at his second coming, perhaps this decade.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
If Philippians 2:7-8 has nothing to do with Jesus choosing a human nature, I guess then we should just take a marker pen and blot out "being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form". Because according to what you're saying it obviously doesn't belong there.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Keep reading. Verse 9: 'Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:' Who exalted Jesus? God. If Jesus is God, why does he need exalting? Remember, he humbled himself in verses 7 and 8. It was God's responsibility to exalt Jesus. Keep reading through verse 11. Who gets the glory? The Father. In all things, God is glorified. It pleases God to exalt Jesus. Even so, Jesus is still subject to God (1 Corinthians 15:28).
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
If you are seriously a seeker of truth, I'm astonished if alarm bells are not now going off in your head. What you are doing is no different to any other heretic, who wilfully twists the word of God to their own demise. Next you'll be trying to tell me that Jesus is not eternal, even though this is his exact claim in John 8:58.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed John 8:58 - 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'
Just curious, why did Jesus not finish the sentence if he meant to say 'Before Abraham was, I am the Eternal God'?
In God's plan of creation, the seed promised to Eve in Genesis 3:15 was Jesus Christ, not Abraham, though born after. All of God's promises will be fulfilled through Jesus. The Bible teaches Jesus is pre-eminent (Colossians 1:18), not pre-existent.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How does pre-eminence negate Jesus' pre-existence?
Jesus is not the eternal God, the eternal God is the Father. Jesus is the eternal word of God; very God from very God. How ever Jesus meant to say what he said in John 8:58, referring to himself in the present state 2000 years in the past.
Again you should read the context of what is being said here, the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
How can a plan see Abraham?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You see, there are other Trinitarians out there who will disagree with you and say he is claiming to be the Eternal God in John 8:58. You should study Exodus 3:14. Some Bibles have footnotes that say 'I AM' should be in the future 'I WILL BE'. To say Jesus is quoting this as 'I AM' and invoking the divine name is not proper exegesis. Besides, the context of John 8 clearly shows Jesus is not God. See verses 40,41,42,47,54, that show God is a separate being.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Have you considered the context of Jesus claiming Abraham could 'see his day'? How was this possible? Is Abraham God? This is rhetorical, of course, but it illustrates the absurdity of the Jews' question. The Jews twisted Jesus' statement, and asked Jesus if he saw Abraham.
The context of John 8 has nothing to do with proving that Jesus is by nature God. Your interpretation cannot fit. To say he 'be' 2000 years in the past, you need a verb 'was', not 'am'.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You're obviously not understanding what I am showing you, with reference to John 8:58. The fact the the verb used is in the present tense and not the past or imperfect tense is exactly my point. Jesus refers to himself as timeless; eternal, something only God can do. John 8:58 proves the eternal nature of Jesus.
When did Abraham see Jesus' day? Genesis 18 is a possibility. This is something Justin Martyr wrote about in the 2nd century.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Are you saying the three men were each a member of the Trinity? Justin Martyr is your authority on that, not the Bible. Genesis 18 is an Old Testament example of 'God Manifestation', which, as I said earlier, is something Trinitarians ignore. Angels look like men (Hebrews 13:2). Jacob wrestled with a man (Genesis 32:24) but Hosea said it was an angel (Hosea 12:4). These men most likely were angels of God, but collectively called Yahweh (Genesis 18:1,13,17)
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount Abraham saw Jesus' day because he righteously declared in faith 'God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering' (Genesis 22:8). He only saw Jesus' day through the eye of faith (Hebrews 11:13,17). Abraham believed in God's promise of sending his own Son and God's promise of the eternal inheritance of Israel (Genesis 13:14-15).
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How is this seeing Christ's day? You need to be aware in the Jews reaction, "You are not yet fifty years old, and YOU have seen Abraham?" If you are correct in what you're saying then why didn't Jesus just correct their misunderstanding? Instead he deceives and provokes them?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The Jews misunderstood Jesus. You misunderstand Jesus. Jesus could not have existed at the time of Abraham. The Chronicles were written sometime after the history of the Jewish kings, several centuries later. There was a prophecy:
1 Chronicles 17:13 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took [it] from [him] that was before thee:
Jesus 'SHALL' be a son. Future.
Jesus is not the eternal Son.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yet what is said in 1 Chronicles 17:13 is something that is said directly to the Son (Hebrews 1:5). How can God say it to him if he didn't yet exist. This refers to the incarnation (Luke 1:35). This in no way disproves the pre-existence of Jesus, in fact it just establishes the fact more.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Re-read the whole verse. It does not say Yahweh is speaking to the Son in verse 5. 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time....'
The point of verse 5 is God did not 'beget' any of the angels as a Son.
This makes Jesus, God's 'only' begotten, that much more special.
God prophesied 1000 years before the Son came into existence that the Son would exist.
God speaks to the Son starting in verse 8.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Good point. But Chronicles 17:13 refers to Luke 1:35. Until this point Jesus is not referred to as the son, but the word. Yet he is characterized exactly the same existing in eternity (Micah 5:2, John 8:58, 1 John 1:2).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed
Micah 5:2 - ...whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.
John 7:42 - Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
->The Jews expected a Messiah from Bethlehem AFTER David, not a pre-existent Messiah.
1 Peter 1:20 - Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Christ was foreordained of God, not pre-existent.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus is descended for David only according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). The who that was made manifest (1 Peter 1:20) is the Christ the spotless lamb (1 Peter 1:19), the God-man (John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The God-man is unscriptural. John 1:14 does not say 'And God was made flesh'. This is an error. The Logos was with (the, Greek article) God, and god (no Greek article) was the Logos. James Moffatt translates it as 'the Logos was divine'. The Logos is not a 'person'. The first 8 English translations of John 1 use the article 'it', not 'he', to describe Logos.
Only after the Logos was made flesh could the Logos be identified with Jesus, not before.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
The term 'God-man' maybe unscriptural, however, the concept behind the term is very scriptural. No, you're correct, John 1:14 doesn't say that God was made flesh, but John 1:1 says that the Word that was made flesh was God.
The "it" argument really is not a very good one.
1) In Philippians 2:6 we have Jesus, before he was made in the likeness of men, humbly considering things. Only a person can humbly consider something
2) Jesus as a child is referred to as an "it" Matt 2:13
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Philippians 2:5-7 does not teach God became a man, nor a man who is also God. Consider the context of Philippians. Towards the end of the letter Paul says:
Philippians 4:19 - But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:20 - Now unto God and our Father [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
When we interpret Philippians 2:5-7 we need to understand in context that Paul has a God who is the Father.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Wow. Not only do you ignore the Hypostatic Union when you form arguments "against" the Trinity, you also completely misrepresent it. Of course the Father is God, his is the only true God. Jesus is his word (John 1:14), who is very God by nature (John 1:1).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Just curious, do you believe the 'us' in Genesis 1:26 means Jesus, as one of the Trinity, created Adam?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
I believe that in Genesis 1:26 God is speaking to his Word and Holy Spirit as both played important roles in creation (Genesis 1:2, 3).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Does this Word have the same identity as Jesus? Would Jesus, Omniscient God the Son, remember creating Adam 4000 years prior as the Word?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Jesus sacrificed his attributes as God, when he was made to be the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). Jesus lived as a human in every way, but without sin.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Sacrificed his attributes? I'll try again. Would Jesus, Omniscient God the Son, remember creating Adam 4000 years prior as the Word?
Again, did Jesus have anything to do with creating Adam?
If Jesus is eternal, he should have remembered, right?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
No, because he sacrificed his attributes as God when he became a man (Philippians 2:7), being omniscient is an attribute of God.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So, in effect, Jesus forgot he was God?
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Yeah, but Jesus isn't the Father. It's very common for people to misunderstand the statement Jesus is God, as being Jesus is the Father, but this is not being said. What is being said is Jesus is the very nature of the Father.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed If Jesus is the very nature of the Father, Jesus, by definition, must be omniscient, since he is 'Very God', right? Yet, you are now going to deny this in saying Jesus 'forgot'? How convenient.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You're doing the usual mistake of ignoring the Hypostatic Union. Jesus after the incarnation was not omniscient, because he made himself no effect. It's not convenience, it's consistency.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
Again, you twist my words, going way beyond anything I have said. No Justin Martyr is not my authority, hence why I said Genesis 18 is only a possibility.
It is one of the three men that goes by the name Yahweh (Gen 18:22), only two angels arrived in Sodom (Gen 19:1).
Passages like Genesis 32:24-30 is just more proof of what I am talking about, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Jacob wrestled a man, and yet he saw God face to face. This man was an angel who had the appearance of a man. God was in the angel. The angel manifested God. Jacob can survive if he sees a manifestation of God, but Jacob would die if he saw God himself.
In John 1:14, we beheld Jesus' glory, which is God's glory. The fullness of God dwells in Jesus. God dwells in a human being. God was manifest in a human being. This does not make the human God.
ezekieltemplemount 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
John 1:14 does not say that:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen HIS glory, glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature...
Again, your interpolation of Genesis 32:24-30 is unsupported by the bible. You are trying to read your theology into the Bible, rather that take your theology from the it.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
You have Philippians 2:6-7 all wrong if you think that this is an exact example of what we should do. Philippians 2:6-8 is an example of the humility of Jesus, the greatest example that we should always be mindful of. Philippians 2:6-8 however is not for us, because we are already men.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago
@ezekieltemplemount
How has the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union evolved?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 1 month ago