POLL: The Deity of Christ

[flob]

And I believe he was fully human at one stage.

The good news is that Jesus Christ (God) is human forever

 

[Elin]

Yep, that us what it is clearly saying
And incidentally, you have brought no scripture at all to repudiate my belief. All you are bringing is love fulfills the law. I agree with that. It fulfills the law as it did under the old covenant(matt22:37-40) when you would agree the law was in place

So your verses to try and prove only two commandments have been placed in the believers heart have been proved to be a false argument based on the words of Christ

Read the whole context of 2Co 3:3, and read Ro 13:8-10 in context with understanding.

 

[Elin]

Well, I don't know what those implications are. I believe Jesus has always been and still is fully God. And I believe he was fully human at one stage.

What is contra-biblical to this?

Maybe the way I am conceiving it isn't fully worked out right.. but surely my believe above is NOT contra-biblical.

Jesus of Nazareth did not exist prior to his conception of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary in Mt 1:20.
God the Son, the spirit, has existed for all eternity, who then in time became flesh (Jn 1:14) in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth would not be 100% human if he existed from all eternity before Adam was created.

If he were not 100% human, he could not be the perfect Mediator, High Priest and Savior.

 

[senzi]

Read the whole context of 2Co 3:3, and read Ro 13:8-10 in context with understanding.

I have done. Read matt 22:37-40 with understanding. Jesus is speaking in the present tense when the old covenant still existed. Therefore under the old covenant the law hung on love God and love your neighbour, but they were not the only two laws in existence.
I repeat, you have no scripture whatsoever that states my view wrong. I on the other hand have given you scripture and explanation to prove what i believe. Your scriptures do not prove only two laws exist, but that the law is fulfilled by love. On that point we agree. It was the same under the old covenant as the new in that regard, as Christs words from matt 22:37-40 prove.

As you have nothing in truth to put forth you just keep repeating the same old verses that you do not understand, as proved by your e,planation of Christs words from matthew

 

[senzi]

Read the whole context of 2Co 3:3, and read Ro 13:8-10 in context with understanding.

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law luke16:17

This is pretty basic elin

Jesus died for your sins(transgressions of the law) not to annul the law.

Christ is the end of the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS to everyone who believeth rom 10:4 Confirmed!!!

You have no scripture to support your view whatsoever, I have much to prove the biblical truth

 

[senzi]

Jesus of Nazareth did not exist prior to his conception of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary in Mt 1:20.
God the Son, the spirit, has existed for all eternity, who then in time became flesh (Jn 1:14) in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth would not be 100% human if he existed from all eternity before Adam was created.

If he were not 100% human, he could not be the perfect Mediator, High Priest and Savior.

Through the law we become conscious of sin rom3:20

How many christians on this website do you believe are not conscious of their individual sins? I have never met one!
How did they become conscious of their sin ?
The bible is clear on that point

 

[Elin]

Through the law we become conscious of sin rom3:20

How many christians on this website do you believe are not conscious of their individual sins? I have never met one!
How did they become conscious of their sin ?
The bible is clear on that point

Were the Gentiles living during the time from Moses to Christ conscious of their sin?

They knew nothing of the law.

The law was given to the people of God only, not to the world.

 

[Elin]

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than
for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law luke16:17

Until the law is fulfilled. . .which it has been.

Jesus died for your sins(transgressions of the law) not to annul the law.

Straw man. . .

Christ is the end of the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS to everyone who believeth

Christ is the goal of the law unto righteousness.
The goal has been reached, fulfilled.

 

[Elin]

I have done. Read matt 22:37-40 with understanding. Jesus is speaking in the present tense when the old covenant still existed. Therefore under the old covenant the law hung on love God and love your neighbour, but they were not the only two laws in existence.
I repeat, you have no scripture whatsoever that states my view wrong. I on the other hand have given you scripture and explanation to prove what i believe.

You have given your opinion. . .not what the Scripture states.

 

[senzi]

You have given your opinion. . .not what the Scripture states.

I can sum up your thee posts here in one. An inability to address points made, blanket denials of the truth written, without being able to provide a single scripture of your own to refute my belief

Concerning Matt22:37-40 it is simple to know what scripture I stating. Did Christ speak in that chapter whilst the old or new covenant existed? And did Christ speak in the present or future tense?

It is proven, but some will never yield to the truth

 

[Elin]

The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, has always existed.

The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed, but
you've not offered even a single shred of evidence that the Word was always the Son of God.

The Word is God (Jn 1:1), from always.
The Word became flesh (Jn 1:14).
The Word is the Son of God (Mt 3:17; Jn 11:3).
The Son is God (Heb 1:8), from always.

The Word was always the Son of God.

 

[Elin]

Unfortunately Oldie, that is the problem !

Whoever wrote the 'gospel' of Matthew is probably quoting Isaiah from the Septuagint - agreed ?
In which the 'alma -young woman' is mistranslated into Greek as 'parthenos- virgin'.

"Mistranslated". . .how convenient.

The fact that Jewish scholars chose "virgin" rather than "maiden" as the translation of the Hebrew alma tells you exactly what alma meant in Hebrew.

 

[Elin]

I can sum up your thee posts here in one. An inability to address points made, blanket denials of the truth written, without being able to provide a single scripture of your own to refute my belief

Concerning Matt22:37-40 it is simple to know what scripture I stating. Did Christ speak in that chapter whilst the old or new covenant existed? And did Christ speak in the present or future tense?

It is proven, but some will never yield to the truth

Others will not yield to misunderstanding of the text

 

[purgedconscience]

Were the Gentiles living during the time from Moses to Christ conscious of their sin?

They knew nothing of the law.

The law was given to the people of God only, not to the world.

I've been away for a bit and you already need much correction in relation to this whole eternally begotten nonsense so I really don't have time to address your latest error fully, but I'm wondering if you've ever even read the Bible or if you just regularly spout off the teachings of ignorant men and women?

Romans chapter 3 verse 19

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

What don't you understand about every mouth and all the world?

God gave His law to Israel and Israel regularly shared the same with the Gentile nations all throughout their history. Here's but one of many, many examples where nations outside of the boundaries of Israel were held accountable to God's law:

Ezra chapter 7 verses 11 thru 26

Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel.
Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time.
I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellers, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;
And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellers have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem,
And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem:
That thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem.
And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God.
The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem.
And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure house.
And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily,
Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much.
Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?
Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

 

[purgedconscience]

The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, has always existed.

The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed, but
you've not offered even a single shred of evidence that the Word was always the Son of God.

The Word is God (Jn 1:1), from always.
The Word became flesh (Jn 1:14).
The Word is the Son of God (Mt 3:17; Jn 11:3).
The Son is God (Heb 1:8), from always.

The Word was always the Son of God.

In the words of former President George W. Bush, that's some fuzzy math that you've just employed, Elin.

Tell me, since you believe that Jesus always was the Son of God, then was Jesus always subservient to the Father and incapable of doing anything apart from His instruction since eternity past? I mean, that was Jesus' testimony while on earth as the Son of God, wasn't it? If so, then how was He eternally God Himself?

You don't know what you're talking about, Elin, and I'll try to find the time to document the same in a full manner when I can and I'll certainly include your reference to Hebrews chapter 1 and verse 8 and what it actually says when I do so.

 

[purgedconscience]

I'm going to try to jump back into this discussion more fully tomorrow, but for now here is a simple reminder for any reading here who haven't lost their minds:

A father is anterior or comes before a son in time.

It is impossible to have both an eternal Father and an eternal Son.

Again, eternally begotten is a self-refuting lie in that that which is eternal can never be begotten or generated at a point in time. If something or someone has a starting point, then it or he is not eternal.

For those following along, I would solemnly advise you to do some research on this whole eternally begotten nonsense to see how it made its way into the Nicene Creed. It didn't get there via the Word of God, but rather via some heretical writings and musings of people like Origen.

 

[flob]

A father is anterior or comes before a son in time.

A difference between God and us is that He's eternal and we're created.

It is impossible to have both an eternal Father and an eternal Son.

To the contrary: Their relationship is beginningless, endless, and uncreated; though it also
incorporated man. Hebrews 7:3; Isaiah 9:6; John 17:5, 21.

eternally begotten is a self-refuting lie in that that which is eternal can never be begotten or generated at a point in time. If something or someone has a starting point, then it or he is not eternal.

...Being without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God...
God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son...eternal life

I would solemnly advise you to do some research on this whole eternally begotten...to see how it made its way into the Nicene Creed. It didn't get there via the Word of God, but rather via some heretical writings and musings of people like Origen.

Son of God is not merely a title. As His name in the Bible, it is His person. His eternal person.
The Triune God isn't only God, Word, and Spirit,
but also Father, Son, and Spirit; as also the previous posts combatting the heresy of adoptionism explore.

 

[purgedconscience]

flob:

So, is it safe to assume that since you believe that Jesus always was the Son of God that you also believe that He was always in a subservient role to the Father since eternity past or do you also subscribe to two different types of the Son of God in your theology?

In any case, your proof texts greatly fail in their intended applications. I'm not about to get into a drawn out discussion on this topic at the moment, but I do have a question for you. Is the following statement correct?

As a child, President Obama pooped in his diaper.

Assuming that President Obama wore a diaper as a child, is the above statement correct?

Yes, no, both or neither?

 

[Elin]

The Word is God (Jn 1:1), from always.
The Word became flesh (Jn 1:14).
The Word is the Son of God (Mt 3:17; Jn 11:3).
The Son is God (Heb 1:8), from always.

The Word was always the Son of God.

In the words of former President George W. Bush, that's some fuzzy math that you've just employed, Elin.

Nope. . .the above Scriptures speak for themselves.

The only thing fuzzy is your misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, whichever it is.

Tell me, since you believe that Jesus always was the Son of God,

Nope. . .straw man. . .explained multiple times to you.

God the Son, the second person of the divine Trinity, was always the Son of God.
Jesus of Nazareth, the God-man (Jn 1:14), did not exist until his conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary (Mt 1:20).

then was Jesus always subservient to the Father and incapable of doing anything apart from His instruction since eternity past? I mean, that was Jesus' testimony while on earth as the Son of God, wasn't it? If so, then
how was He eternally God Himself?

Explained to you before. . .

God the Son, in the order of function and authority, was always subject to God the Father in the Trinity,
as the Holy Spirit is subject to both.
God the Father willed and commanded (the plan).
God the Son executed (the plan).
God the Holy Spirit applied the benefits of (the plan).

All three are equal persons in the one God.

You don't know what you're talking about, Elin,

Physician, heal thy self.

 

[flob]

is it safe to assume that since you believe that Jesus always was the Son of God that you also believe that He was always in a subservient role to the Father since eternity past or do you also subscribe to two different types of the Son of God in your theology?

That's interesting that you mention the first point! In regard to this thread: I noticed someone who evidently agrees with me about 'eternal begetting' in regard to His divinity, but who I think stated that the Son submitted to the Father in eternity past. And I was going to contravene that statement. I will have to find that post.
No, divinity-wise, They are equal. John 5:18. Authority and submission was a matter entered into with humanity.

I apologize for not knowing what you mean by 'two different types...'
Do you mean the titles 'Only Begotten' and 'Firstborn'?

In any case, your proof texts greatly fail in their intended applications

Then apparently we feel the same about one another's proofs