David in NJ
Well-Known Member
You nailed itYeah, precisely. They demand logic before they are to believe, then discard logic in their counter arguments.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You nailed itYeah, precisely. They demand logic before they are to believe, then discard logic in their counter arguments.
It would also be blasphemous of the Hebrew John to write: "the Word was God"Philippians 2:10-11 KJV
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Isaiah 45:23-25 KJV
23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24) Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25) In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
So here's the question.
Was Paul meaning that we will all confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the sense of Him being our Master?
Or was Paul meaning that we will all confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, that is, YHWH?
Wouldn't applying the Isaiah passage to Jesus be blasphemous if Jesus were not YHWH?
Much love!
Throughout John's gospel and his first 2 letters, John emphasises one thing... the literal ontological relationship between the Father and His Son. That Jesus was and is the only begotten Son of God from eternity and was sent to this world to become human and die, is the gospel, and the basis for Christianity. Oneness denies this. And the existence of satan.Do you shun them because their understanding of the "trinity" differs from yours? If they believe and profess that Jesus is Lord, are they not your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Do you understand that the man named 'Jesus' did not exist until a physical Body was created inside the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit?Throughout John's gospel and his first 2 letters, John emphasises one thing... the literal ontological relationship between the Father and His Son. That Jesus was and is the only begotten Son of God from eternity and was sent to this world to become human and die, is the gospel, and the basis for Christianity. Oneness denies this. And the existence of satan.
Yea, but He wasn't a new being, He was the Son of God Who became flesh. The Word is a metaphor, used to signify the work and ministry and character/ nature and original source of that divine being Who took upon Himself human flesh.Do you understand that the man named 'Jesus' did not exist until a physical Body was created inside the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit?
n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
The difference @David in NJ between you and me isn't much, but my belief cannot harmonious with the traditional Trinitarian concept as you believe it to be. And that difference is in the begotten nature of the Son. The Trinity as in the latter creeds which are accepted almost universally, defines the Son as being eternally begotten from all eternity, whereas i believe the Son was begotten at a certain point in eternity. Which means the Father/ Son paradigm for me is more closely related to how humans would normally believe a generational begetting would look like. God sent a Son. A real Son. Not a co equal eternal member who took on the role of son in order to demonstrate something we couldn't presumably understand otherwise.Yea, but He wasn't a new being, He was the Son of God Who became flesh. The Word is a metaphor, used to signify the work and ministry and character/ nature and original source of that divine being Who took upon Himself human flesh.
i believe the Son was begotten at a certain point in eternity.
Not a co equal eternal member who took on the role of son in order to demonstrate something we couldn't presumably understand otherwise.
the scripture tells us the day the Son was begotten
Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Which verse that I quoted says this?No, it tells us He took upon Himself flesh... Jesus is God's Word and . . . . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1)
That was after Jesus was raised from the dead... He was the first born from the dead see Colossians 1:1
Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son, TO DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee.
Thats obvious, what makes you think the verses are not saying this?That was AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead... at His coronation as High Priest by the Father
Why are you ignoring this verse I posted
Which verse do you believe accuses me of beliving this?Are you claiming Jesus is a created being like the angels are and like man is?
If so then this is the belief that Jesus is not God's Word manifest in the flesh
Various cults believe this sort of thing
Let me rehighlight for you
What makes you think I do not know this verse?You need to be "enlightened" and discover the what the Lord said thru John is actually true!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
(John 1:1)