What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
-
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!
- Status
You believe Messiah....
Joh 1:14 And the Dvar Hashem took on gufaniyut (corporeality) and made his sukkah, his Mishkan (Tabernacle) among us [YESHAYAH 7:14], and we [Shlichim, 1Y 1:1-2] gazed upon his Kavod [SHEMOT 33:18; 40:34; YESHAYAH 60:1-2], the Shechinah of the Ben Yachid from Elohim HaAv, full of Hashem's Chesed v’Emes.
OJB
Joh 1:14 ¶ And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John testified about him and cried out, saying, “This one was he about whom I said, ‘The one who comes after me is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ ”
..tabernacled among us, yet at the same time Elohim?
RLT63
Well-Known Member
When God said Adam where art thou? and Adam and Eve were questioned about what happened Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent. They basically said what people say today " You don't understand. " God had always been God he didn't know what it was like to be human. He set up a system to cover sin with the blood of animals but it was a temporary solution to an eternal problem. But one day God would come to fix the problem forever and God himself would supply the blood. So God was manifest in the flesh and the one who created the universe became dependent on the nourishment of a young girl. He was learning what it was like to be one of us. He walked where Adam walked he ate what Adam ate he knows all the struggles and feelings of being human but was without sin. He laid his life down and was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, the spotless lamb and 3 days later he rose from the dead. Whosoever believes in him shall be saved.
I have not read the writings of Tertullian, just a fallible man, is he, or you, branding me as an heretic?
Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
OJB
Joh 1:1 The Prologue to John’s Gospel
¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson
Are we in agreement?
It was forced upon me on a discussion forum by a trinitarian whose intention it was to harm me. He was calling me a dog.
What he intended for harm, my God intended for good.
From the day that he publicly denigrated me, you will always find it in my tagline on discussion forums.
I’m not the hound of Jewish monotheism, though you and others may think of me that way. (Either in the negative sense that the trinitarian I alluded to did, or in the positive sense that my God and the Messiah do.)
The hound of Jewish monotheism is the Messiah’s theology.
Trinitarianism doesn’t. I do.
Jesus is a human person.
Jesus is not a human person. - Trinitarianism.
John is taking his readers back to the Genesis creation account in his prologue. He is taking us back to the work of the Father (see the first line in the Apostles’ Creed). The same God is at work in the new creation, which is where John then moves his readers forward into in the telling of the Messiah’s story.
Run that one past me again...you believe Messiah was a created being?
A simple yes or no would suffice @Matthias
Concerning the one God, his God, it is expressed in the Shema.
In order to be a trinitarian, mustn’t a person’s God be the Trinity?
Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.
So you reckon there is no room for a composite unity in echad?
Your ears truly are deaf in regard to me, but that will not prevent you from making evil assertions about me.
Are you married? If not, have you ever attended, seen or read about wedding vows?
When the bride or the groom says in response to the minister’s question “I do” the bride or the groom is saying “Yes”.
A simple “I do” should suffice. In your case, it didn’t. You should ask yourself why. I have. At one time I thought it was most likely because English is a second language for you. I’ve come to think it is that and more.
But as a simple yes or no may suffice, here it is: Yes.
Christianity Board does.
I hold to only one creed, and it isn’t the one which Christianity Board does.
In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh_1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare Joh_1:3; Joh_17:5; 1Jn_1:1; Eph_1:4; Pro_8:23; Psa_90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, Joh_8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in Joh_1:3, Joh_1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (Joh_8:44; 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Gen_1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton). See on Col_1:15. This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. “The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby” (Lange). “Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word” (Godet).
Vincent
You said Messiah was a "created being"...correct?
- Status
Similar threads
