Talk Jesus Statement of Faith

[Curtis]

Jesus did not exist eternally but was born in time.

Then who was upholding the entire world in his absence?

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[B-A-C]

We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Who made that rule? He was the Son of God long before He was a human.
Literally dozens of verses have been posted to prove it.

 

[First and the Last]

Then who was upholding the entire world in his absence?

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

"And the express image of his person": This means that Jesus is the exact representation or image of God the Father. In Jesus, we see the perfect revelation of God's nature and character.

"And upholding all things by the word of his power": This highlights Jesus' role as God the Father the sustainer of the universe. He holds all things together by His powerful word, demonstrating His sovereignty over creation.

This verse is showing that Christ as supreme power over creation just by His word He can calm the seas and wind.

 

[Curtis]

"And upholding all things by the word of his power": This highlights Jesus' role as God the Father

Hate to tell you but Jesus is NOT God the Father. God the Father did not die for man's sins.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[First and the Last]

Who made that rule? He was the Son of God long before He was a human.
Literally dozens of verses have been posted to prove it.

We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:50: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Son existed before the incarnation as the Word not Son (flesh and blood). See John Chapter 1

 

[First and the Last]

Hate to tell you but Jesus is NOT God the Father. God the Father did not die for man's sins.

The divine nature resident in Christ is Not God the Father. Is that what you are saying? I thought all the fullness of God dwells in Him.

There were not two sons—a divine son and a human son—but there were two natures—deity and humanity—joined in one person. The divine Spirit could not be separated from the human nature and life continue. But in His agonizing process of dying, Jesus suffered the pains of our sins. Dying became death when He yielded His Spirit.

 

[First and the Last]

Who made that rule? He was the Son of God long before He was a human.
Literally dozens of verses have been posted to prove it.

Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. The Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.

 

[Butch5]

The eternal Son of God who created all things by direction of His Father and through the help of the Holy Spirit, Jesus who existed eternally put on flesh and blood.

Heb 2:14 Since all of these sons and daughters have flesh and blood, Jesus took on flesh and blood to be like them. He did this so that by dying he would destroy the one who had power over death (that is, the devil).(GW)

Your own words contradict. If Jesus is the eternal Son of God, He can't have a father. The fact that He has a father shows He had a beginning.

 

[Butch5]

The issue in this thread isn't one of doctrine. It's one reasoning. Improper reasoning.

The doctrine is what is known as a Self-refuting or Self-defeating argument. It collapses in on itself. Consider this.

The doctrine says there is one God in three, coequal, coeternal, persons. Each one is God. The Scriptures say that God is all knowing and that He cannot lie. In John 17 Jesus was praying to the Father and said, 'this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God.' Here's the conundrum. Jesus said that someone, other than Himself, was the only true God. That was the Father. That means that Jesus is not the one true God. Here's the problem. If one believes Jesus, then he must conclude that Jesus is not the one true God. If one (Trinitarian) rejects Jesus' words He is rejecting the words from the one He believes is God. If one believes Jesus was simple mistaken or lied he again must conclude that Jesus is not the true God because Scripture says that God is all knowing and cannot lie.

This self-refuting argument shows beyond doubt and reason that the doctrine is invalid. As I've said in several posts, any doctrine that is Biblical can stand up to scrutiny. This doctrine is refuted by the Scriptures themselves.

What this also indicates is that many people are misinterpreting a lot of Scripture. No matter how people try to interpret the Scriptures, the doctrine simply cannot stand. Its invalid.

 

[Charlie24]

The issue in this thread isn't one of doctrine. It's one reasoning. Improper reasoning.

The doctrine is what is known as a Self-refuting or Self-defeating argument. It collapses in on itself. Consider this.

The doctrine says there is one God in three, coequal, coeternal, persons. Each one is God. The Scriptures say that God is all knowing and that He cannot lie. In John 17 Jesus was praying to the Father and said, 'this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God.' Here's the conundrum. Jesus said that someone, other than Himself, was the only true God. That was the Father. That means that Jesus is not the one true God. Here's the problem. If one believes Jesus, then he must conclude that Jesus is not the one true God. If one (Trinitarian) rejects Jesus' words He is rejecting the words from the one He believes is God. If one believes Jesus was simple mistaken or lied he again must conclude that Jesus is not the true God because Scripture says that God is all knowing and cannot lie.

This self-refuting argument shows beyond doubt and reason that the doctrine is invalid. As I've said in several posts, any doctrine that is Biblical can stand up to scrutiny. This doctrine is refuted by the Scriptures themselves.

What this also indicates is that many people are misinterpreting a lot of Scripture. No matter how people try to interpret the Scriptures, the doctrine simply cannot stand. Its invalid.

It's not invalid, Butch. The problem is a lack of understanding.

In that same speech by Christ, he made Himself equal with the Father by saying, "that they may also be one in US."

John 17:21

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Christ is an independent person and is God along with the Father. He has always existed and has always been God.

Christ becoming a man in order to redeem mankind from his sin did not change anything as to who He has always been.

 

[First and the Last]

It's not invalid, Butch. The problem is a lack of understanding.

In that same speech by Christ, he made Himself equal with the Father by saying, "that they may also be one in US."

John 17:21

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Christ is an independent person and is God along with the Father. He has always existed and has always been God.

Christ becoming a man in order to redeem mankind from his sin did not change anything as to who He has always been.

John Chapter 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

These verses use Word not Son. Word became flesh (Christ) (Son) at a specific time and died before rising again. All things were made by the Word.

 

[Butch5]

It's not invalid, Butch. The problem is a lack of understanding.

In that same speech by Christ, he made Himself equal with the Father by saying, "that they may also be one in US."

John 17:21

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Christ is an independent person and is God along with the Father. He has always existed and has always been God.

Christ becoming a man in order to redeem mankind from his sin did not change anything as to who He has always been.

It is invalid. He specifically stated that the Father is the one true God. Saying they may be one in us doesn't make them equal. That's reading ones theology into the text.

Also, if one has a father he has not always been. A father and a mother indicate a starting point. If He always existed He couldn't have a father.

 

[Butch5]

One of the big problems with a discussion of this topic is that people equivocate on the word god. Sometimes it's the supreme ruler, other times is one of the three persons, etc. People just jump back and forth between meanings to suit whatever case they are trying to make.

However, any definition of the word god must include "all" of its uses. One argument is that the three persons are called God therefore, they must all be one God. The problem with that argument is that it ignores many passages of Scripture that use the word god. The demons are called gods. No one ever argues that they are part of the Godhead. Baal and Molech are gods. No one ever argues that they are part of the Godhead. People simply ignore all of these passages that don't fit their theology. That's not exegesis. That's reading one's theology into the text. People argue that since Jesus and the Spirit are called God that makes them part of the Godhead. Yet, they then turn around and denounce the very same argument they used to claim Jesus and Spirit are God, when they ignore the fact that Baal and Molech are also called gods.

Using the argument when it fits one's theology and then rejecting it when it doesn't fit one's theology is fallacious. It's inconsistent and erroneous.

 

[Curtis]

These verses use Word not Son. Word became flesh (Christ) (Son) at a specific time and died before rising again. All things were made by the Word.

Joh 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

How could God the Father love a Son who did not exist before the foundation of the world?

Jesus was the Son of God before his incarnation he is still the Son of God after his resurrection. Jesus has always been the Son of God.

 

[Charlie24]

One of the big problems with a discussion of this topic is that people equivocate on the word god. Sometimes it's the supreme ruler, other times is one of the three persons, etc. People just jump back and forth between meanings to suit whatever case they are trying to make.

However, any definition of the word god must include "all" of its uses. One argument is that the three persons are called God therefore, they must all be one God. The problem with that argument is that it ignores many passages of Scripture that use the word god. The demons are called gods. No one ever argues that they are part of the Godhead. Baal and Molech are gods. No one ever argues that they are part of the Godhead. People simply ignore all of these passages that don't fit their theology. That's not exegesis. That's reading one's theology into the text. People argue that since Jesus and the Spirit are called God that makes them part of the Godhead. Yet, they then turn around and denounce the very same argument they used to claim Jesus and Spirit are God, when they ignore the fact that Baal and Molech are also called gods.

Using the argument when it fits one's theology and then rejecting it when it doesn't fit one's theology is fallacious. It's inconsistent and erroneous.

When reading Scripture one should follow the context to understand if the word "God" is singular or plural. the context always determines which.

For example, "In the beginning God created...." that is the Godhead in action. We know in this context "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know that nothing was created without Christ, and we know the Father surly was present.

At other times the Scripture will make if clear if the subject is concerning "God" in singular form. Most of the time "God" is speaking or in action with us knowing whether it's the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

 

[MedicBravo]

The problem I think doesn't lie in the fact that Jesus is Fully God. It lies in the fact that some believe the Son is Eternally God. The Son is not eternal but begotten at a specific time. And was and is fully God from the moment of conception.

Too many people think if they can't understand God on a large scale then they have to put Him in a box.

 

[First and the Last]

Joh 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

How could God the Father love a Son who did not exist before the foundation of the world?

Jesus was the Son of God before his incarnation he is still the Son of God after his resurrection. Jesus has always been the Son of God.

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of external existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

Paul wrote that this indeed came to pass in Christ: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Corinthians 4:6). In other words, the Son of God became the means by which the invisible, incomprehensible God revealed Himself to us.

It is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead. They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with humanity. Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery. They reduce the concept of God’s oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this leads to polytheism—tritheism to be exact—and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” The Son came in the fullness of time—not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman—not begotten eternally. The Son was made under the law—not before the law. (See also Hebrews 7:28.) The term begotten refers to the conception of Jesus described in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. The Son of God was begotten when the Spirit of God miraculously caused conception to take place in the womb of Mary. This is evident from the very meaning of the word begotten and also from Luke 1:35, which explains that because the Holy Ghost would overshadow Mary, therefore her child would be the Son of God. We should notice the future tense in this verse: the child to be born “shall be called the Son of God.” (This is when He (the Word, became flesh) became the Son of God. He was not called the Son of God until His incarnation.

 

[Butch5]

When reading Scripture one should follow the context to understand if the word "God" is singular or plural. the context always determines which.

For example, "In the beginning God created...." that is the Godhead in action. We know in this context "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know that nothing was created without Christ, and we know the Father surly was present.

At other times the Scripture will make if clear if the subject is concerning "God" in singular form. Most of the time "God" is speaking or in action with us knowing whether it's the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

The word god is always singular. When it's plural we add an "s".

"The Godhead" is a misnomer that came out of the King James Bible. The word is actually an old English word that means godhood. It's just like motherhood or fatherhood. However, people have created a whole new Biblical concept out of a misunderstood English word.

 

[Charlie24]

The word god is always singular. When it's plural we add an "s".

"The Godhead" is a misnomer that came out of the King James Bible. The word is actually an old English word that means godhood. It's just like motherhood or fatherhood. However, people have created a whole new Biblical concept out of a misunderstood English word.

Whatever concept you would like to use, all three were there at creation and had a part in it.

The Holy Spirit was there moving over the waters.

We are told by John and Paul, nothing was made without Him (Christ.), so we know He was there.

Where was the Father, well I'm sure He was there.

 

[B-A-C]

"The Godhead" is a misnomer that came out of the King James Bible.

Isn't it always amazing that it's always the Bible that's wrong when it disagrees with people's idea of who God is.