Understanding the GodHead.

[KUWN]

God's plan for me existed before Abraham.

This is what I mean when I say you are not a serious student of the Scriptures. Your posts are borderline childish. I take the scriptures literally unless the context dictates otherwise. I am afraid we are so far apart that further discussion will not yield any benefit. You come across as someone who responds to any discussion, whether or not you are knowledgeable about the subject. You ask too many questions rather than explaining what the text says.

I am sorry to cut you off but best of luck to you.

My last comment on a literal interpretation method is why I am certain that Jesus existed before Abraham. If the text is taken literally,
then it is certain the Jesus is before Abraham. If taken figuratively then you are correct. Our problem is not our different interpretation, but you use a completely different method of Interpretation. That's why forums like this are not very helpful. I ignore anyone who I believe is not a serious student and does not challenge me with any substance.

 

[Runningman]

Adopted, or created. There is only one begotten child who became human in order to die.

The Bible also speaks of God's children being His offspring in the general sense because there are two different sides to this coin. What's your take on people being both adopted and offspring at the same time and in what sense?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus wasn't crucified because He claimed to be a Son like every other child of Abraham.

The title "Son of God" refers to the Davidic Covenant, whereby God declares, "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me." All the Davidic Kings of Israel were "sons of God," according to the Davidic Covenant. (2 Samuel 7) Jesus is a Davidic king of Israel and as such, he is a son to God and God is a father to him.

The Apostle John refers to Jesus as the "monogenes" son of God. Many translations have "only begotten", which is a mistake. Jesus isn't the Only Begotten son because all the Davidic kings are "begotten" of God according to Psalm 2. John means to say that Jesus is the "one-of-a-kind" Davidic king, unlike all the other Davidic kings.

“33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 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. ”
John 8:33-42 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

It's important to consider the context to understand the issue at hand. Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of being enslaved by sin. In this discussion, he contrasts the teachings of the Pharisees with his own, asserting that his teachings come directly from the Father.

Trinitarians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus existed as a part of God in heaven alongside God and then came down to Earth. However, a closer examination of the entire passage shows that Jesus was actually discussing the source of his teachings, which came from God. The question is, who is doing the will of the Father, Jesus or the Pharisees?

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is what I mean when I say you are not a serious student of the Scriptures. Your posts are borderline childish. I take the scriptures literally unless the context dictates otherwise. I am afraid we are so far apart that further discussion will not yield any benefit. You come across as someone who responds to any discussion, whether or not you are knowledgeable about the subject. You ask too many questions rather than explaining what the text says.

I am sorry to cut you off but best of luck to you.

My last comment on a literal interpretation method is why I am certain that Jesus existed before Abraham. If the text is taken literally,
then it is certain the Jesus is before Abraham. If taken figuratively then you are correct. Our problem is not our different interpretation, but you use a completely different method of Interpretation. That's why forums like this are not very helpful. I ignore anyone who I believe is not a serious student and does not challenge me with any substance.

Allow me to share some insights from my experience posting on Christian message boards since the 1990s. Initially, I believed my role was to provide the most straightforward and concise answers to Biblical questions for the benefit of others. However, over time, I realized that I actually gained the most from my posts. Writing out my responses forced me to think more deeply about the subjects at hand.

I would encourage you to continue to dialog with those with whom you disagree for your own benefit.

 

[marks]

which i imagine would more closely follow wrangler's statement in red above as representative of the common Trinitarian creedal statements, which also of taken literally, deny the Sonship of Christ.

Please don't ascribe that to me. And I don't consider wrangler a valid source for Trinitarian beliefs.

It's fascinating that the two extremes in this debate, on the one side creedal trinitarianism, and the other strict Unitarianism, both deny the one thing the apostle John was at pains to prove in his Gospel...
“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. ”
John 20:31 KJV

As far as creedal trinitarianism, I'm more about Biblical trinitarianism, which in no wise denies the Son of God. Please don't ascribe that to me either.

OK?

Much love!

 

[marks]

This point is important because Paul argued that Jesus is not an angel. Some people mistakenly believe that the phrase "angel of the Lord" refers to Jesus; however, this is incorrect, as Paul clearly states that Jesus is not an angel.

Are you remembering that angel is a messenger, and is also used to refer to humans? We have to go to the context to see who this messenger is, whether one of God's created celestial beings, or a man, or whom else it might be.

When in the OT the Bible tells us of the Messenger of YWHW, often times the text shows us this is YHWH Himself, as He comes to man, and later to be incarnated as a man.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I assume most, if not everyone, contributing to this thread has been in Oneness vs. Trinitarian debates before. So, the question is: Has anyone observed a change in position among the partisans? I, for one, have not, not even on ministerial forums.

I have not. But then, people don't always let you know if they actually are starting to change their mind lest they appear vulnerable, or weak on a dog eat dog forum like this one.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Trinitarians interpret this passage to mean that Jesus existed as a part of God in heaven alongside God and then came down to Earth. However, a closer examination of the entire passage shows that Jesus was actually discussing the source of his teachings, which came from God.

You are speaking of this part?

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. ”

Is your assertion that although Jesus said that He preceeded forth and came from God, that what He meant was His teaching proceeded forth and came from God?

Just trying to clarify this here.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Are you remembering that angel is a messenger, and is also used to refer to humans? We have to go to the context to see who this messenger is, whether one of God's created celestial beings, or a man, or whom else it might be.

When in the OT the Bible tells us of the Messenger of YWHW, often times the text shows us this is YHWH Himself, as He comes to man, and later to be incarnated as a man.

Much love!

I see no Biblical evidence for that point of view. Paul argues that Jesus was NOT an angel.

 

[Wrangler]

I see no Biblical evidence for that point of view. Paul argues that Jesus was NOT an angel.

Agreed. Hebrews also informs us Jesus is NOT an angel. See Her 1:4. Simple logic/math. Cannot be > than something you are = to.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Agreed. Hebrews also informs us Jesus is NOT an angel. See Her 1:4. Simple logic/math. Cannot be > than something you are = to.

You might be interested to see this video by my pastor and friend. His presentation is straightforward.

Colossians – Talk #18

In this talk, we complete our discussion of the various objections that a traditionalist would raise against the Christology that we find underlying the teaching of Paul in the book of Colossians.

rumble.com

 

[APAK]

All the above loudly proclaims to all the world with ear-piercing clarity, that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Most High God, begotten in eternity and by inheritance has the right to be called God and receive the worship and fidelity of mankind.

Pretty decent post until the last two sentences where you then added in essentially your own opinion of 3 strikes.

 

[Wrangler]

You might be interested to see this video by my pastor and friend. His presentation is straightforward.

Colossians – Talk #18

In this talk, we complete our discussion of the various objections that a traditionalist would raise against the Christology that we find underlying the teaching of Paul in the book of Colossians.

rumble.com

Long vid. May take me a few days to watch it all.

Jesus states God is in him = we are containers who must empty ourselves of self to make room for our Creator. It does not make us God. Good point.

 

[Ritajanice]

Long vid. May take me a few days to watch it all.

Jesus states God is in him = we are containers who must empty ourselves of self to make room for our Creator. It does not make us God. Good point.

That spoke to my heart, Amen!....Praise God.

 

[marks]

I see no Biblical evidence for that point of view. Paul argues that Jesus was NOT an angel.

Mostly I write for others who may be reading this thread, who may be interested in finding that evidence. It's there, but I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.

Much love!

 

[Brakelite]

Please don't ascribe that to me. And I don't consider wrangler a valid source for Trinitarian beliefs.

As far as creedal trinitarianism, I'm more about Biblical trinitarianism, which in no wise denies the Son of God. Please don't ascribe that to me either.

OK?

Much love!

Okay.

 

[Brakelite]

I see no Biblical evidence for that point of view. Paul argues that Jesus was NOT an angel.

Jesus was not a messenger?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Long vid. May take me a few days to watch it all.

Jesus states God is in him = we are containers who must empty ourselves of self to make room for our Creator. It does not make us God. Good point.

After COVID-19, our church hears the teaching by video during the week. Then on Sunday, they meet in a big house on a farm where the church spends another 45 minutes asking questions and making comments. (They also pray for each other's needs.)

 

[CadyandZoe]

Mostly I write for others who may be reading this thread, who may be interested in finding that evidence. It's there, but I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.

Much love!

I understand. Let me clarify the question for the sake of our discussion. According to credal trinitarianism, the three persons of the so-called Godhead exist as one distinct being. Clearly, the New Testament offers new insights regarding the number of individuals and their identities that are not found in the Old Testament. Accordingly, while Trinitarians point out the plurality of "Elohim" as used in the Old Testament, we must turn to the New Testament to discover that the plurality is limited to three persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. The Old Testament readers were unaware of God as three persons. They only recognized the ONE being: God.

Assuming that Trinitarianism is true for the moment, it remains impossible to determine which of the many theophanies in the Old Testament might be a Christophany. The Old Testament does not specify which theophanies represent the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the Old Testament does not differentiate between the persons of the Trinity, identifying a particular theophany as a Christophany is ultimately arbitrary.

@Brakelite

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus was not a messenger?

Not all messengers are angelic.