-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
Really? The Apostle Thomas said this at John 20:28, "My Lord and my God." Or literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Then there is the Apostle Paul at Titus 2:13, "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." And the Apostle Peter at 2 Peter 1:1, "Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, tol those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
And here's an oldie but goodie from God the Father Himself, "But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God is forever and ever." Hebrews 1:8. Now it's your turn dagallen to tell me that all these verses really don't mean what the say? I also find it "interesting" that you don't seem to notice these verses in your Bible, why? Are you using by chance the New World Translation?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
And here's an oldie but goodie from God the Father Himself, "But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God is forever and ever." Hebrews 1:8. Now it's your turn dagallen to tell me that all these verses really don't mean what the say? I also find it "interesting" that you don't seem to notice these verses in your Bible, why? Are you using by chance the New World Translation?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
J
And here's an oldie but goodie from God the Father Himself, "But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God is forever and ever." Hebrews 1:8. Now it's your turn dagallen to tell me that all these verses really don't mean what the say? I also find it "interesting" that you don't seem to notice these verses in your Bible, why? Are you using by chance the New World Translation?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
if Heb 1 8 is the Most High then who is His G-D referred to in the Pslam ? are there 2 Most High G-Ds?
First of all akap I am not in any way shape or form discouraged from searching the word of God regardless of who I am replying to. And yes, I did consider your commentary and that is the reason I responded to your post with the question I posed to you.
Remember, the following are your own words and that is what I'm responding to. " I am convinced that the earliest Trinitarians of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries misinterpreted and got John 1:1-14 at least, all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise. They got the English translated term ’word’ all wrong. Over many hundred times in the NT the Greek word ‘logos’ is never translated as God. This was their deliberate error. The chaotic theory of the Trinity was born.
They mostly probably did this deliberately and under pressure from political forces of the time." My question still stands even after I said "let's eliminate John 1:1,2" and address my question using the other verses I posted which were Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 1:14.
You clearly gave your opinion on why you think Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man. If that is true, then why is Jesus Christ the Son of God identified or presented as the Agent of creation by the verses I provided? Now, you also said, "You are not obliged to agree with me and you are still my brother in Christ. No worries mate. Just quietly consider even some of the things I've said , synthesize it, incubate it, store it and move on."
Since I do not agree with you, (and as I said I did consider what you said but not quietly whatever that means) how can we move on without debating our positions more thoroughly. Remember, others including lurkers read these post and instead of leaving them hanging it's part of our duty to show what we believe and why we believe it. So if a person makes a claim like you did that Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation then you have to prove you claim with evidence. Not with "probablys" or assumptions, presumptions. Even your opinion has to be based on something.
So, please deal with my question and I will be more than happy to address your opinions regarding Philippians 2:4-9 in another post. Is this not fair akap? And PS: Can you please give me your understanding of the Trinity doctrine? Thanks!
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Remember, the following are your own words and that is what I'm responding to. " I am convinced that the earliest Trinitarians of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries misinterpreted and got John 1:1-14 at least, all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise. They got the English translated term ’word’ all wrong. Over many hundred times in the NT the Greek word ‘logos’ is never translated as God. This was their deliberate error. The chaotic theory of the Trinity was born.
They mostly probably did this deliberately and under pressure from political forces of the time." My question still stands even after I said "let's eliminate John 1:1,2" and address my question using the other verses I posted which were Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 1:14.
You clearly gave your opinion on why you think Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man. If that is true, then why is Jesus Christ the Son of God identified or presented as the Agent of creation by the verses I provided? Now, you also said, "You are not obliged to agree with me and you are still my brother in Christ. No worries mate. Just quietly consider even some of the things I've said , synthesize it, incubate it, store it and move on."
Since I do not agree with you, (and as I said I did consider what you said but not quietly whatever that means) how can we move on without debating our positions more thoroughly. Remember, others including lurkers read these post and instead of leaving them hanging it's part of our duty to show what we believe and why we believe it. So if a person makes a claim like you did that Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation then you have to prove you claim with evidence. Not with "probablys" or assumptions, presumptions. Even your opinion has to be based on something.
So, please deal with my question and I will be more than happy to address your opinions regarding Philippians 2:4-9 in another post. Is this not fair akap?
And PS: Can you please give me your understanding of the Trinity doctrine? Thanks!IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
1. “If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, "hjumble Himself and become obedient unto death at vs8?”
What is vs8 then?
I suspect it is Philippians 2:8??
Then you said this:
2. “You clearly gave your opinion on why you think Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man. If that is true, then why is Jesus Christ the Son of God identified or presented as the Agent of creation by the verses I provided?”
Two comments on this question: You are presumptuous if you think you have the correct understanding. And if this is not the case then I shall not give you my commentary because it will go on deaf hears.
Further, I never said that there was an incarnation of anyone. They must be your own thoughts that you put to pen.
Then you finally said:
3. “Can you please give me your understanding of the Trinity doctrine?”
If your question is number 1, the first one in my text and it is really the only one you want answered by me then I will provide my commentary of say Philippians 2:5-8, or even 2:5-11
If not, I will stay silent and will disengage my discussion with you on this entire topic.
I hope you understand that you are asking several questions and then changing you mind on what you want from me mid-stream in your writings. Maybe you are not aware that you are doing this to me.
And I believe you will not stop firing off multiple questions because of disagreement with my opinions. You will continue until you are somehow satisfied that your beliefs trump mine. This can only become a disappointment for you I’m afraid. So again, if you do not want to discuss this subject in an orderly fashion, patiently and slowly, verses by verses I will discontinue my conversation with you. From experience, it is better for me to let you know this from the onset. It is the best for both of us.
In Christ, Always
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to GOD THE FATHER, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign UNTIL He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death. For God has put everything under His feet. But when it says “everything” is put under Him, it is OBVIOUS that He who puts everything under Him is the exception…1 Corinthians 15:22-28
Here is my original question to you akap. "Ok akap, here is my original question to you. Forget about Philippians 2 and just address the following question?
Well akap let me ask you a question regarding what you said here: "all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise." If Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man then why is the Son of God identified or presented in Scripture as the Agent of creation at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by not only the Apostles but by His own Father? Btw, welcome to the forums.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well akap let me ask you a question regarding what you said here: "all wrong and then they were forced to make Jesus pre-existent and the creator and himself God to fit their initial axiom/premise." If Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man then why is the Son of God identified or presented in Scripture as the Agent of creation at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by not only the Apostles but by His own Father? Btw, welcome to the forums.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
No!
The incarnation of Jesus was temporary.
Because He took on the nature of flesh that imposed certain limits on Him.
Also, He spent a lot of time explaining, and demonstrating, as a human being, how to relate to God.
None of these facts negates His co-equality with the Father (or the Holy Spirit for that matter).
The incarnation of Jesus was temporary.
Because He took on the nature of flesh that imposed certain limits on Him.
Also, He spent a lot of time explaining, and demonstrating, as a human being, how to relate to God.
None of these facts negates His co-equality with the Father (or the Holy Spirit for that matter).
Your understanding of the word "made" does not mean what you think it means. Let me give you an example of what I mean by quoting Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that GOD HAS MADE HIM/JESUS CHRIST BOTH LORD AND CHRIST--THIS jESUS WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED."
So looking at the context you will or you should notice that the resurrection of Jesus Christ "declared/established/revealed" that Jesus Christ was both Lord and Messiah. His resurrection proved who He was. And to back this up you have the Apostle Paul saying the following at Romans 1:4, "who was DECLARED the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord."
So now let's go to Hebrews 1:4. Jesus Christ is so much bette than any of the angels because of who He is according to Hebrews 1:1-13. He's the creator (vs10). He has the same exact nature as His Father according to vs3. And like I said the Father identrifies His Son as God at Hebrews 1:8, plus the fact that the angels are to worship Jesus Christ. If Jesus was a mere man the angels cannot worship Him.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
So looking at the context you will or you should notice that the resurrection of Jesus Christ "declared/established/revealed" that Jesus Christ was both Lord and Messiah. His resurrection proved who He was. And to back this up you have the Apostle Paul saying the following at Romans 1:4, "who was DECLARED the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord."
So now let's go to Hebrews 1:4. Jesus Christ is so much bette than any of the angels because of who He is according to Hebrews 1:1-13. He's the creator (vs10). He has the same exact nature as His Father according to vs3. And like I said the Father identrifies His Son as God at Hebrews 1:8, plus the fact that the angels are to worship Jesus Christ. If Jesus was a mere man the angels cannot worship Him.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well, just as I previously mentioned... the text of Hebrews 1.10-11, speaking of Jesus, says, “the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you continue,” and “like a garment they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not run out.” The language is speaking of very the unique characteristics... creatorship, immutability, eternality. He will continue forever, and His years will never run out.
The fact that Jesus hands the kingdom to the Father does nothing to negate that. It just shows there is a distinction between Jesus and the Father, existing in an inter-Trinitarian relationship, with each operating in the confines of that relationship with one another.
So I fail to see exactly what you're getting at unless you have construed or come to incorrect conclusions about what Trinitarians believe.
Perhaps you can show how the text you reference is damaging to the Trinitarian position, and then I can offer a more in depth response. Because I just don't see what you're seeing.
The fact that Jesus hands the kingdom to the Father does nothing to negate that. It just shows there is a distinction between Jesus and the Father, existing in an inter-Trinitarian relationship, with each operating in the confines of that relationship with one another.
So I fail to see exactly what you're getting at unless you have construed or come to incorrect conclusions about what Trinitarians believe.
Perhaps you can show how the text you reference is damaging to the Trinitarian position, and then I can offer a more in depth response. Because I just don't see what you're seeing.
There lies the problem. Jesus subjecting Himself, somehow makes Him ontologically inferior?
In Philippians 2 for example, prior to Paul speaking of Jesus “being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2.7, c.f. John 1.14), there was a voluntary act of self-emptying on behalf of Christ. If Christ was active in His own “kenosis” (which occurred prior to “being born in the likeness of men”) then this is a strong implication of preexistence. Paul elsewhere write, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8.9) which also assumes preexistence. A preexistence where Jesus is said to exist in the “form of God” (Philippians 2.6, c.f. John 1.1). That Jesus, who has “equality with God” (Philippians 2.6) would set aside His own divine prerogatives and enter into creation is the ultimate display of humility that Paul formerly mentions in Philippians 2.3-4. Jesus subjects Himself here, yet the text can still speak of Him as being equal to God.
I think one needs to understand that the equality that is spoken of throughout the NT is one of nature.
In Philippians 2 for example, prior to Paul speaking of Jesus “being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2.7, c.f. John 1.14), there was a voluntary act of self-emptying on behalf of Christ. If Christ was active in His own “kenosis” (which occurred prior to “being born in the likeness of men”) then this is a strong implication of preexistence. Paul elsewhere write, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8.9) which also assumes preexistence. A preexistence where Jesus is said to exist in the “form of God” (Philippians 2.6, c.f. John 1.1). That Jesus, who has “equality with God” (Philippians 2.6) would set aside His own divine prerogatives and enter into creation is the ultimate display of humility that Paul formerly mentions in Philippians 2.3-4. Jesus subjects Himself here, yet the text can still speak of Him as being equal to God.
I think one needs to understand that the equality that is spoken of throughout the NT is one of nature.